Monday Open Thread

Jerome Louis “J.J.” Jackson (born April 8, 1941, Bronx, New York)[1] is an American soul/R&B singer, songwriter, and arranger. His singing style is as a belter.

Jackson started out as a songwriter and arranger for Brother Jack McDuff, Jimmy Witherspoon, and the Shangri-Las, among others. He also composed the Pretty Things‘ 1966 hit single, “Come See Me.”[1]

Jackson had his own 1966 hit with “But It’s Alright,” which he wrote with Pierre Tubbs. The song reached #22 on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart. Three years later, in 1969, the song unexpectedly rose back to life and reached #45. The single was recorded in the United Kingdom, featuring some of Britain’s top jazz musicians of the day, including Terry Smith on guitar, Dick Morrissey on tenor sax and John Marshall on drums, and who would later make up his backing band for the following two albums.

About SouthernGirl2

A Native Texan who adores baby kittens, loves horses, rodeos, pomegranates, & collect Eagles. Enjoys politics, games shows, & dancing to all types of music. Loves discussing and learning about different cultures. A Phi Theta Kappa lifetime member with a passion for Social & Civil Justice.
This entry was posted in Current Events, Music, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to Monday Open Thread

  1. Ed Shultz is back from suspension!

  2. Ametia says:

    House Republicans propose Social Security opt-out
    By Pete Kasperowicz – 06/06/11 04:25 PM ET

    House Republicans on Friday introduced legislation that would allow workers to partially opt out of Social Security immediately, and fully opt out after 15 years.

    Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, and several other Republicans introduced the Savings Account for Every American (SAFE) Act. Under the bill, workers would immediately have 6.2 percent of their wages sent to a “SAFE” account each year.

    That would take the place of the 6.2 percent the workers now contributed to Social Security.

    Another 6.2% is sent to Social Security by employers. Under the Sessions bill, employers would continue to make this matching contribution to Social Security, but after 15 years, employers could also send that amount to the employee’s SAFE account.

    Sessions said this transition to a private retirement savings option is needed because Social Security last year began paying out more money than it took in.

    “Our nation’s Social Security Trust Fund is depleting at an alarming rate, and failure to implement immediate reforms endangers the ability of Americans to plan for their retirement with the options and certainty they deserve,” Sessions said. “To simply maintain the status quo would weaken American competitiveness by adding more unsustainable debt and insolvent entitlements to our economy when we can least afford it.”

    Under the bill, employees would be able to make tax free contributions to their SAFE account, and take tax-free distributions at retirement age. The bill would also allow employees to stay with the Social Security program if they wish.

    Other sponsors of the bill are Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas).

  3. Ametia says:


  4. Ametia says:

    MSNBC needs Melissa Harris-Perry to breakdown Weiner’s texting his weiner to young chics.

    • opulent says:

      Of course they need MHP she puts a back face on the issue..and racism will prevail!!

      white folks think a black person is For it? Then I am against it!!

  5. Ametia says:

  6. State Dinner For Chancellor Merkel: First Lady Will Unveil Details At Educational Event

    Tuesday: Mrs. Obama has rarely hosted media previews for high-profile White House dinners; the one for German Chancellor’s Official Visit to President Obama will be special…

    The longstanding tradition of First Ladies welcoming journalists into the White House before high-profile dinners to preview the menu, table settings and entertainment is not something First Lady Michelle Obama has regularly engaged in. On Tuesday afternoon, hours ahead of the elegant black tie State Dinner for German Chancellor Angela Merkel that will be the glamorous finish to her Official Visit to President Obama, Mrs. Obama will hold what is just her third formal domestic details preview for reporters. (Above: Mrs. Obama during the last State Dinner, in honor of China’s President Hu Jintao)

    Other First Ladies, such as Mrs. Laura Bush and Mrs. Ronald Reagan (her preferred form of address), personally hosted menu previews for virtually every high-profile dinner they hosted. Mrs. Obama has put her own stamp on the role of First Lady, and has not frequently engaged in such activities, leaving it to her staff to discuss these details with the media.

    Tuesday’s dinner preview will be done at the end of an educational event Mrs. Obama is hosting for local young women, who have been invited to the State Dining Room to hear the First Lady and Ambassador Brooke Anderson, National Security Staff Chief of Staff, speak about the importance of women in diplomacy. Mrs. Obama’s two previous menu previews for high-profile dinners were also done in conjunction with educational events for young women.

    Merkel is the first female head of government and the first European leader to make an Official Visit to the President, and it follows her own history making in Germany. Now 56, in 2005 Merkel became both the first woman and the first East German to be elected Chancellor of a unified Germany, after she was raised under the Communist regime. At the dinner, President Obama will present Merkel with the 2010 Presidential Medal of Freedom he awarded her earlier this year, during a ceremony Merkel was unable to attend.

    In a new interview with Der Tagesspiegel, his first with a German news outlet, President Obama hails Merkel as “a genuine friend of America,” and “an inspiration.”

    “She embodies the promise of freedom and the opportunities of democracy,” President Obama said.

  7. Rev Al is hosting the 6pm show on MSNBC!

    Whoo Hoo!

    • Ametia says:

      WTF MSNBC keeps cutting off Rev Al to go to commercial, only to announce Chris Matthews is coming up next on Hardball. Well, I’ll be G..damn!

      • opulent says:

        hmmmHUH..they can’t handle Rev’s extraordinary skill of reframing issues and basically stayin on point. He does not let his question die…that is not something mainstream media is use to!

        Go Rev Sharpton!! Use your platform effectively.

        we love that about you.

      • Ametia says:

        Go on and break it down, Opulent. Rev. Al will cut right through whitey’s bullshit.

  8. I’m going to mute my TV. I don’t wanna hear what these slobbering pundits have to say about Anthony Weiner’s penis! And Breitbart need his face slapped!

  9. Dems draw hard line with White House: Time to take Ryancare off the table

    So today five Senate Democrats will call on Vice President Joe Biden to make it crystal clear that Ryancare is not on the table in the deficit reduction talks he’s presiding over.

    Senate Republicans have said in various ways that Paul Ryan’s plan, or elements of it, should be part of any final deal that Dems and Republicans agree to on deficit reduction. In response, Dem senators Claire McCaskill, Ben Cardin, Jon Tester, Bill Nelson and Sherrod Brown have sent a letter to Biden calling on him to reaffirm his commitment to keeping Medicare fundamentally intact.

  10. ABC News `likely’ to name woman who says she received shirtless Weiner pic, source says

    It started as a joke — Weiner’s weiner, har har har — but now it looks as if the aggressive liberal Congressman could be heading for serious trouble.

    ABC News is now “likely” to name a woman who says she received a picture of a bare-chested Anthony Weiner, a source close to the network says, taking the latest twist in this tale out of the realm of Breitbart and into that of the major news outlets.

    The latest turn in the story got started when Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government posted a series of photos and emails that it claimed Weiner had sent to a nameless woman in recent weeks. Breitbart claimed he knew who the woman is and said she’d be going public shortly.

    As the Times notes delicately, Breitbart has a “checkered history when it comes to accuracy.”

    But the Times notes that ABC has now interviewed the woman, and the source close to the network tells me it’s getting close to publishing some pictures and the woman’s identity. It’s unclear how definitive ABC will be about whether the photos were definitely sent by the Congressman to the woman. Weiner’s office has gone quiet on the latest round of stories.

    • MSNBC reporting Congressman Weiner will hold a press conference @ 4pm est.

      • rikyrah says:

        Romney vs Palin = Power vs Attention?
        Is Mitt adopting the Obama approach – just ignore her? A reader writes:

        Quite to my surprise, I’ve found myself thinking a lot about Mitt Romney over the past few days. I kind of get the feeling he’s biding his time right now on the Palin front. Mama Bear essentially stepped on his toes at his campaign kick-off; she then proceeded to mangle basic U.S. History that pretty much proves what the answer would be were she on Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader? Why not attack now?

        Because whatever he is, Mitt Romney is not a stupid man.

        Say what you will about his being a slick louse of a politician; he’s that and more, but he’s not stupid. If he gets into a fracas with Palin, as she’s been trying to bait him to do, before she gets into the election cycle herself, he looks weak because he’s attacking a “private citizen” and someone who’s “not really” a candidate for President. Instead, waiting puts the onus on her: she can keep running her mouth but never gain real power (which I don’t believe her ego will allow her to do), or she’ll eventually have to put her money where her mouth is and join the campaign — including the Republican debates.

        All Mitt will have to do is hammer her in one debate — one — to completely tank her candidacy. I can already hear his subtle digs now: “I’ll never quit on my constituents; not everyone on this stage can say the same,” “I learned that from my History classes in high school, which President Obama obviously didn’t; neither did some of my opponents,” “Some say I’ve changed my positions more than Sarah changed colleges, but really, it’s been my continued education.”

        Mitt doesn’t like attention; he likes power. He likes being the overseer, even if his greatest success wasn’t in business but in being a general administrator, for the Salt Lake City Olympics. Palin, on the other hand, is an attention whore, in the truest sense of the phrase: she cashes in on the attention she can generate for herself, whether or not that attention is positive or negative. While she could indeed become the nominee, I don’t think we’re going to see Romney go down to a blockhead like her without a fight. Perhaps, like Obama so often does, Mitt’s just biding his time. Why bother nipping her nonsense in the bud now when there’s so much more bullshit bound to come out of her mouth between now and the time she officially enters the race?

      • I wanna see him crush that b*h!

    • opulent says:

      There was a time when mainstream media knew to leave this type or story to the Globe/Enqirer….those days are unfortunately gone.

      I do not need to know what any person does with their or not, I simply do not give a phuck.

  11. Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus stated on Martin Bashir that Sarah Palin was THINKING OUT LOUD with her comment about Paul Revere. Why don’t they stop it? Just admit she’s a major fk up!

    • opulent says:

      My question is why do we even repeat or cite what Palin does? Can’t we ignore her? Leave her where she belongs in the dustbin of America.

  12. rikyrah says:

    Don’t Listen to Carville and Greenberg
    by BooMan
    Mon Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:36:21 PM EST

    Over the weekend, I expressed some frustration with the results of the polling advice being given to Democrats by Stan Greenberg and James Carville. Greenberg and Carville are advising Democrats not to talk about the Republicans’ responsibility for the deficit, unemployment, or the economy in general. Apparently, at least according to their polling, the American people don’t want to hear it.
    Now, I just want to give a little counterexample, but I have to set it up a bit. As you hopefully know, Harry Truman became president in the last months of World War Two when Franklin Roosevelt died just shy of seeing complete victory. As soon as the war was over the country began to demobilize, our soldiers began returning home, and we saw a lot of economic dislocation that came with high unemployment, significant inflation, a housing shortage, and a lot of labor unrest. As a result, the midterm elections of 1946, much like those of 2010, were a disaster for the Democrats. There was very low turnout, and the Republicans retook control of the House and Senate for the first time since 1932. These Republicans came in thinking they had some kind of mandate to roll back the New Deal, attack Social Security, and destroy the labor movement. They overrode Truman’s veto to pass the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act, which still stands on the books. But, mainly, they did nothing. They obstructed, much like the modern-day Republican Party has done since Obama came into office.

    This led Harry Truman, who was looking like a dead-duck, to dub the 80th Congress the Do-Nothing Congress. And look at how Truman went after them during his campaign for reelection:

    Know Nothing, Do Nothing Congress
    Elizabeth, New Jersey, October 7, 1948
    Harry S Truman
    You are here because you are interested in the issues of this campaign. You know, as all the citizens of this great country know, that the election is not all over nothing but shouting. That is what they would like to have you believe, but it isn’t so–it isn’t so at all.

    The Republicans are trying to hide the truth from you in a great many ways. They don’t want you to know the truth about the issues in this campaign. The big fundamental issue in this campaign is the people against the special interests.

    The Democratic party stands for the people.

    The Republican party stands, and always has stood, for special interests. They have proved that conclusively in the record that they made in this “do-nothing” Congress.

    The Republican party candidates are going around talking to you in high-sounding platitudes, trying to make you believe that they themselves are the best people to run the government. Well now, you have had experience with them running the government. In 1920 to 1932, they had complete control of the government. Look what they did to it!

    This country is enjoying the greatest prosperity it has ever known because we have been following, for sixteen years, the policies inaugurated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Everybody benefited from these policies–labor, the farmer, businessmen, and white-collar workers.

    We want to keep that prosperity. We cannot keep that if we don’t lick the biggest problem facing us today, and that is high prices.

    I have been trying to get the Republicans to do something about high prices and housing ever since they came to Washington. They are responsible for that situation, because they killed price control, and they killed the housing bill. That Republican, 80th “do-nothing” Congress absolutely refused to give any relief whatever in either one of those categories.

    What do you suppose the Republicans think you ought to do about high prices?

    Senator Taft, one of the leaders in the Republican Congress, said, “If consumers think the price is too high today, they will wait until the price is lower. I feel that in time, the law of supply and demand will bring prices into line. ”

    There is the Republican answer to the high cost of living.

    If it costs too much, just wait.

    If you think fifteen cents is too much for a loaf of bread, just do without it and wait until you can afford to pay fifteen cents for it.

    If you don’t want to pay sixty cents a-pound for hamburger, just wait. That is what the Republican Congress thought you ought to do, and that is the same Congress that the Republican candidate for president said did a good job.

    Some people say I ought not to talk so much about the Republican 80th “do-nothing” Congress in this campaign. I will tell you why I will talk about it. If two-thirds of the people stay at home again on election day as they did in 1946, and if we get another Republican Congress like the 80th Congress, it will be controlled by the same men who controlled that 80th Congress–the Tabers and the Tafts, the Martins and the Hallecks–would be the bosses. The same men would be the bosses, the same as those who passed the Taft-Hartley Act, and passed the rich man’s tax bill, and took Social Security away from a million workers.

    Do you want that kind of administration? I don’t believe you do–I don’t believe you do.

    I don’t believe you would be out here, interested in listening to my outline of what the Republicans are trying to do to you, if you intended to put them back in there.

    When a bunch of Republican reactionaries are in control of the Congress, then the people get reactionary laws. The only way you can get the kind of government you need is by going to the polls and voting the straight Democratic ticket on November 2. Then you will get a Democratic Congress, and I will get a Congress that will work with me. Then we will get good housing at prices we can afford to pay; and repeal of that vicious Taft-Hartley Act; and more Social Security coverage; and prices that will be fair to everybody; and we can go on and keep sixty-one million people at work; we can have an income of more than $217 billion, and that income will be distributed so that the farmer, the workingman, the white collar worker, and the businessman get their fair share of that income.

    That is what I stand for.

    That is what the Democratic party stands for.

    Vote for that, and you will be safe.

    People told Truman not to talk about the Republicans but he did anyway. And he got to hold up that famous copy of the Chicago Daily Tribune with the headline Dewey Defeats Truman while displaying a shit-eating grin. The Democrats took back both houses of Congress and held them (with the exception of 1953-54) uninterrupted until 1981 (in the case of the Senate) and 1995 (in the case of the House).

    The parallels between now and 1948 are not perfect, and I don’t know what polling would have showed about the advisability of Truman’s approach. All I know is that it worked. It worked really well. So, here’s my advice. Don’t listen to Carville and Greenberg. Listen to what history teaches you. Tell the truth and they’ll think it’s hell.

    • opulent says:

      yes! The Obama administration parallels Truman’s in many ways from the economic crisis he inherited to the WAR draining the national coffers. And just like Obama today he had to stand up and oppose the wacko Congress who was seeking to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy the America that we all hold dear.

      And this POTUS understands that! Ergo they hate him for being the astute politician he is.

  13. rikyrah says:

    June 06, 2011 1:30 PM
    When al Qaeda endorses the GOP line on guns
    By Steve Benen

    A few weeks ago, House Republicans killed a proposal to prevent those on the FBI’s terrorist watch list from buying firearms. It’s the same party that’s supported the gun-show loophole for years.

    When it comes to organizations that appreciate the Republican approach most, the National Rifle Association certainly comes to mind, but Chris Brown flags a different group that seems pleased.

    In a video released [Friday] Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn encourages terrorists to use American gun shows to arm themselves for potential Mumbai-style attacks. Gadahn’s video laid out a new tactic for Al Qaeda to continue their murderous terrorist agenda:

    “America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”

    At gun shows buyers can purchase guns from private sellers without passing a background check.

    Because the discourse allows no meaningful discussion of restricting gun ownership, this news will probably spark exactly zero debate on Capitol Hill.

    But it’s a reminder of just how complete the NRA’s victory really is. Al Qaeda itself is urging radicals to take advantage of loose American laws to arm themselves, presumably to aid in acts of terror … and policymakers who fear the NRA more than they fear terrorists don’t say a word.

  14. rikyrah says:

    June 05, 2011 12:30 PM
    Margaret Carlson on the Press Coverage of Trump and Palin: ‘We are Always go Going to Follow the Shiny Object’
    By Heather

    While discussing the media allowing Sarah Palin being allowed to rain all over Mitt Romney’s announcement that he’s running for president this week, Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson admitted on CNN’s Reliable Sources that our media really doesn’t have much concern for what ought to be serious topics, but instead are “going to follow the shiny object” as they have in the case of Donald Trump and Sarah Palin.

    Sadly between media consolidation and the merger of what passes for news being mixed in with entertainment, you could make that same statement about a vast amount of what fills our airways these days.

  15. rikyrah says:

    Iowa Secretary of State equates Huntsman’s excuse with ‘dog ate my homework’
    William Petroski
    8:49 AM, Jun 6, 2011

    Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz today criticized former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman for saying he plans to skip the 2012 Iowa caucuses if he runs for the Republican presidential nomination.

    Schultz described Huntsman’s excuse as having as much credibility as “the dog ate my homework.” He also said that being a Mormon isn’t a barrier to winning political support in Iowa.

    Here is Schultz’s statement:

    Over the years I have heard presidential candidates state reasons for skipping the Iowa caucuses. It always leaves me wondering if those are the real reasons for not coming to Iowa. The most recent example of this is Jon Huntsman’s announcement that he won’t compete in Iowa. Apparently, Huntsman believes that he will not get a fair shake in Iowa because he opposes ethanol subsidies. In my opinion, this excuse seems to have as much credibility as “the dog ate my homework.”

    “It is apparent that Mr. Huntsman is in need of a lesson in Iowa politics. Iowa is a bellwether state. We care about our families, our faith and our freedom. We are not single-issue voters. We just want to know how presidential candidates are going to make our country better. Hopefully Mr. Huntsman will change his mind and come to Iowa and explain how he plans on fixing the problems facing our country.

    “Iowans look forward to the opportunity to hear Mr. Huntsman’s vision for America. We will listen to him explain his support for Cap and Trade. We will listen to him explain why he took more than one billion dollars in federal stimulus money. We will listen to him explain why he wants to replace his former boss, Barack Obama. We will listen to him explain why he is distancing himself from his Mormon faith. Mr. Huntsman should know that Iowans elected me as their Secretary of State and my Mormon faith was never an issue.

    “Is Jon Huntsman not coming to Iowa because he opposes ethanol subsidies or because he is afraid to explain his positions on other issues? Iowa Congressman Steve King opposes ethanol subsidies and he continues to get reelected with large margins of victory. If Mr. Huntsman refuses to compete in a bellwether state like Iowa, he is not ready for the big dance. After all, our last two presidents won the Iowa Caucus before they went to the White House.”

  16. rikyrah says:

    Upset by Ellison’s criticisms, Bradlee Dean says Muslim Democrat wants to overthrow Constitution
    By Andy Birkey | 06.06.11 | 9:07 am

    Bradlee Dean of You Can Run But You Cannot Hide ministries lashed out at Rep. Keith Ellison on his Sons of Liberty radio program on Saturday after Ellison called Dean “extreme” in an interview two weeks ago. Dean claimed that sodomy is illegal, that Ellison wants to overthrow the U.S. Constitution, and that the Fifth District Democrat disrespected America when he took the oath of office on Thomas Jefferson’s Koran. Criticism against Dean has mounted in recent weeks after he was invited by Republicans to give the opening prayer in the Minnesota House and took a swipe at Obama.
    Dean said, “Keith Ellison has been making comments about Bradlee Dean to the Daily Beast saying that the American people might not quite know how extreme this guy Bradlee Dean really is.”

    Ellison was interviewed by the Daily Beast shortly after Dean gave the official opening prayer on the Minnesota House floor in late May. Ellison said that Republicans in state House might not know enough about Dean.

    “There’s a slight possibility they may not know quite how extreme this guy is,” he told the Beast. “But they ought to know.”

    Ellison said Dean’s prayer was an example of the Republican party tracking toward the extreme right. “The people on the extreme have the momentum on their side, and they punish people in the middle,” he said.

    Dean took the “extreme” label personally on his radio show on Saturday.

    “The extreme that America is looking for is called leadership,” he said. “To make myself clear the extremities that I have advanced in this ministry according to Keith Ellison are not lawless but lawful. He’s breaking the law, and I’m magnifying the law, so again if you want to define me as being extreme for our country so be it.”

    Dean didn’t stop there, however. He accused Ellison of trying to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and said that perhaps Ellison was upset because the U.S. doesn’t follow Sharia law.

    “Keith Ellison seems to forget in his folly that I’m not the one trying to overthrow our Constitution or the laws of our land, he is,” Dean told listeners. “I may be extreme but I’m extreme in preserving this country because I love my country and my people.”

    “What you have to understand is the problem with the radicals, they don’t know how to deal with those who do not roll over every time they want another law overthrown. Those days are over, radicals! Because people are tired of being rolled over by you and America’s been screaming from the house tops for three years now. Enough is enough!”

    He continued, “I would also ask Keith Ellison, what is extreme about our laws? What is it you don’t like about who we are Keith? Our laws say no to Sharee [sic] law in this country. Is this your problem? The people all over the country are rising up against the gay agenda that you Keith are attempting to put forth. Thirty-one states of the 50 states have voted down gay marriage and another one to come. Is this your problem, Keith?”


    that’s not your homeboy…


  17. rikyrah says:

    Under Mofo, Please news:


    Donald Trump travels to Washington
    The State Column | Staff | Monday, June 06, 2011

    New York real estate mogul Donald Trump traveled to Washington Friday, sparking speculation that he is still considering entering the 2012 presidential campaign.

    Mr. Trump, who spoke at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s conference in Washington, used his speech to slam President Obama, slamming Mr. Obama’s economic policies.

    “Nobody is protected like Barack Hussein Obama,” Mr. Trump said. “I have never seen press that is so protective of a human being before.”

    Mr. Trump, who said last month that he would not seek the Republican presidential nomination, hinted at an independent bid last week, telling reporters that he may enter the race if he remains unhappy with the current field of Republican presidential candidates. Mr. Trump said earlier this year that he is willing to sink upwards of $600 million of his fortune on an independent bid.

    Read more:

  18. rikyrah says:

    Paul Revere And Palin’s Mind
    She may be remarkably uninformed, poorly educated and and the purveyor of so many obvious untruths – but one thing Sarah Palin cannot be, in what passes for her own mind, is wrong. And so if she bollixed up the account of Paul Revere in such an obvious and excruciating fashion … she has to insist she didn’t. Here’s her latest piece of nuttery:

    Even Chris Wallace cannot help laughing at this preposterous grifter. But creepier still is the fact that her cult followers responded to this perfectly predictable gaffe by trying to edit the Wikipedia entry on Revere to align it with Palin’s ramblings about his “warning the British” that … oh, let’s not even bother.

    Check out this surreal Wiki page in which the cultists are trying to insist that Revere did indeed warn the British, and use Palin’s own quote as a source! I love this succinct response from a Wiki editor:

    In the article on Paul Revere, someone has added false information in an effort to support Sarah Palin’s FALSE claims about Paul Revere. “Accounts differ regarding the method of alerting the colonists; the generally accepted position is that the warnings were verbal in nature, although one disputed account suggested that Revere rang bells during his ride.[8][9]” This must be removed as it is a LIE designed to mislead. dj

    One of the most pernicious and dangerous features of Palin is her clinical refusal to understand reality, to accept error, to acknowledge when the facts she has cited are not actually facts, but delusions. And her vanity and pathologies are so deep she will insist that black is white until her minions actually find a source to prove it.

    She’s dangerous; she’s shrewd; she’s an exhibitionist. But she is also, we must keep reminding ourselves, a farce. What worries me about this political leader incapable of telling fantasy apart from fact is that, in a long and deep recession, someone who can lie that readily and manipulate religious and cultural resentment as well as she does is a danger. Not just to America, but to the world.

  19. rikyrah says:

    Wisconsin GOP leaders encouraging colleagues to place fake Democrats on recall ballots

    June 5, 2011

    The season of dirty political tricks is now officially under way.

    In letters obtained by No Quarter, local Republican Party officials are encouraging their GOP colleagues to collect enough signatures to get a fake Democratic candidate on the ballot in each of two upcoming recall elections.

    The spoiler Democrats, who are identified by name in the letters, would run in the Democratic primaries for the seats now held by Republican Sens. Randy Hopper of Fond du Lac and Luther Olsen of Ripon.

    Both of the fake Democrats have a history of giving almost exclusively to major Republicans.

    “We need to make sure Democrat challengers face primaries to allow our Republicans time to mount a campaign,” Dan Feyen, chairman of the 6th Congressional District Republican Party, wrote in the letter to “fellow conservatives” on Friday.

    “A Democratic primary,” Feyen continued, “will push the general election back by one month, so that Senator Hopper can have more time to organize a campaign against his liberal challenger.”

    That’s verbatim what is in the other two-page letter encouraging support for the second fake Democratic candidate, except that note substitutes Olsen’s name for Hopper’s.

    By running these fake Democrats, Republicans would force the Democratic challengers to spend money on a primary that could have been used in the general election. Plus, the spoiler candidates could launch negative attacks on the Democrats while the Republican incumbents remain above the fray.

    Feyen confirmed that he sent his letter trying to get a “protest candidate” on the ballot in the Hopper race.

    What’s more, he said there’s a good explanation for why his letter and the one written by local Republican officials in Olsen’s district were virtually the same.

    “It’s something being coordinated by the RPW,” he said, referring to the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

    Officials with the state party could not be reached for comment.

    Local GOP officials in La Crosse were also secretly recorded on May 25 discussing getting a spoiler Democratic candidate in the recall election tentatively scheduled for Republican Sen. Dan Kapanke of La Crosse. During that discussion, La Crosse County Republican officials mention Mark Jefferson, the former head of the state GOP , and Kapanke’s campaign manager .

    Kapanke’s campaign has denied any involvement in the matter. Jefferson, who stepped down to take a job with the national party last week, has not commented.

    In an interview Sunday, Hopper said he also had no involvement in the attempt to get a fake Democrat on the ballot in his race.

    “I have absolutely zero to do with it,” said the first-term Republican.

    A total of nine senators – six Republicans and three Democrats – could face recall elections for their actions on Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-repair measure. Hopper, Olsen and Kapanke have gone to court to appeal the Government Accountability Board’s ruling that their elections should be held later this summer.

    The Republican senators endorsed Walker’s plan, which would curb collective bargaining rights for most state workers. The Democrats fled the state in a failed attempt to block action on the measure, which is now tied up in court.

    Frankly, Hopper said, he would prefer to have his election as soon as possible. He would hope that neither he nor his likely opponent, Jessica King, has a primary race.

    “Let me freakin’ be done,” Hopper said.

    Feyen said it makes sense to force a primary on the Democratic side in Hopper’s district.

    Hopper, he said, has been so busy voting on legislation in Madison that his Democratic opponent has been given a head start in the race.

    Feyen said he had no problem running a Republican in the Democratic primary to help the incumbent.

    “None whatsoever,” he said.

    In truth, Feyen admitted he knew very little about the spoiler candidate he’s backing, John Buckstaff. Feyen said Buckstaff comes from a part of the Senate district that Feyen doesn’t know very well.

  20. rikyrah says:

    June 06, 2011 10:50 AM

    Defying explanation
    By Steve Benen

    When the most recent monthly job totals were released on Friday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said, “One look at the jobs report should be enough to show the White House it’s time to get serious about cutting spending.” That doesn’t make any sense.

    But the deteriorating employment picture seems to have emboldened those who are the most misguided to believe they’re also the most correct. The Hill reported over the weekend, “Freshmen House Republicans are sticking to their guns on the need for immediate spending cuts in light of Friday’s dismal jobs report. First-term members interviewed by The Hill said the jobs report released Friday — which showed unemployment rising to 9.1 percent — is all the proof anyone should need that government spending doesn’t stimulate the economy.”

    This extends to presidential politics, too. Mitt Romney continues to argue that President Obama inherited an economic mess, but made matters “worse.” When that was fact-checked, and proven false, Romney said it again.

    I’m curious about how Republicans explain what transpired in 2009, immediately after the stimulus took effect.

    Here, for example, is a chart showing private-sector job losses per month in the year before President Obama took office.

    It’s obviously not a pretty sight. The month Obama was inaugurated, America’s private sector lost a remarkable 841,000 jobs. That was just in one month.

    Now, if Obama’s policies made matters worse, we’d expect to see those columns move even lower. If Obama’s policies made things better, we’d expect to see the monthly totals improve. So, take a look at what transpired over the first 14 months the president was in office:

    This shows private-sector jobs only, so it’s not skewed by Census jobs. Obama took office, the stimulus took effect, and the job market quickly improved.

    What I’m curious about is how Republicans explain this. How is this even possible? Democrats spent a lot of money, deliberately made the deficit much worse, and imposed their preferred regulatory policies. The economy grew, the recession (technically) ended, and the job market got significantly better.

    Does the right have an explanation for such developments? Was it magic? Was it a coincidence? Or is it possible that all of that spending actually made things better?

    It’s not a rhetorical question. I’d really like to know.

  21. Sarah Palin Supporters Attempted To Edit Wikipedia Page On Paul Revere

    Last week, Sarah Palin told a local news station in Boston that Paul Revere “warned the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms.” As the news media rushed to point out that Revere was, in fact, warning the American colonists, not the British, Palin’s supporters apparently attempted to update the Wikipedia entry on Revere in order to make the facts conform to Palin’s version of history.

    According to the revision history on the Wikipedia page, Palin supports attempted to add the line in italics below:

    Revere did not shout the phrase later attributed to him (“The British are coming!”), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols; also, most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects.

    That revision was deleted with the explanation “content not backed by a reliable sources [sic] (it was sarah palin interview videos).”

    On Sunday, Palin, a paid Fox News contributor, told “Fox News Sunday” that she was correct. She says there were British soldiers in the area for years before Revere’s legendary ride, and that he was warning them, as well as his fellow colonists.

    “Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that ‘hey, you’re not going to take American arms, you are not going to beat our own well-armed persons individual private militia that we have.'”

    She blamed her previous answer on the media, saying it was a “gotcha question.”

    The Paul Revere House’s website says that on April 18, 1775, Dr. Joseph Warren instructed Revere to ride to Lexington, Mass., to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them.

  22. Woman faints during Santorum’s speech

  23. rikyrah says:

    Listen To Howard Dean
    He gets it. Finally, someone gets it:

    “I think she could win,” Dean told The Hill in an interview Friday. “She wouldn’t be my first choice if I were a Republican but I think she could win.”

    Dean warns the sluggish economy could have more of a political impact than many Washington strategists and pundits assume.

    “Any time you have a contest — particularly when unemployment is as high as it is — nobody gets a walkover,” Dean said. “Whoever the Republicans nominate, including people like Sarah Palin, whom the inside-the-Beltway crowd dismisses — my view is if you get the nomination of a major party, you can win the presidency, I don’t care what people write about you inside the Beltway,” Dean said.

    Pundits speak of her lack of professional organization. What they don’t speak of so often is her willingness to say and do things very few politicians will. She will play the race card powerfully, often and repeatedly. She will run a campaign against Obama as an un-American. She will run on hatred of elites, will turn every sad gaffe, lie or untruth into “truth”, she will deploy religious motifs more effectively than any Republican candidate in modern times. In the last campaign she accused Obama of being a friend of terrorists, and was prevented from using Jeremiah Wright in the last few weeks of the campaign. She will make the Willie Horton ad look like happytalk.

    Most responsible politicians do not throw gasoline on a cultural tinderwood. But remember Tucson. Even then, she could show no restraint, no regret, no responsibility. Even when a politician was shot in the head, she tried to divide and conquer. And the MSM have no idea how to handle her, how to cope with her, how to expose her. She destroyed them last time and somehow perpetuated the meme that they destroyed her. This is a dangerous, dangerous person.

  24. rikyrah says:

    June 06, 2011 8:00 AM

    Letting a Diamond slip away

    By Steve Benen

    Last year, the Senate Banking Committee twice approved Peter Diamond’s nomination to the Federal Reserve. And twice, the Senate wasn’t allowed to vote on Diamond because Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and a handful of his far-right colleagues threw tantrums for unknown reasons.

    So, this year, President Obama resubmitted the Diamond nomination. And once again, the petulant Republican from Alabama led a small contingent that decided they’re entitled to veto power over the process.

    After more than a year of waiting for a simple vote, Diamond has given up. In a New York Times op-ed, the respected Nobel laureate explained why he’s withdrawing.

    Instead of going to the Fed, however, I will go about my congenial professional existence as a professor at M.I.T., where I have taught and researched since 1966, and I will take advantage of some of the many opportunities that come to a Nobel laureate. So don’t worry about me.

    But we should all worry about how distorted the confirmation process has become, and how little understanding of monetary policy there is among some of those responsible for its Congressional oversight. We need to preserve the independence of the Fed from efforts to politicize monetary policy and to limit the Fed’s ability to regulate financial firms.

    It’s important to understand the significance of these developments. Diamond’s withdrawal offers a jarring reminder of the ways in which our political process, with increasing frequency, simply doesn’t work.

    Diamond is among the most accomplished economists of his generation, and last year, was awarded a Nobel Prize in economics. And yet, there was Richard Shelby & Co., insisting that Diamond lacked the qualifications to join the board of governors of the Federal Reserve.

    As far as the dimwitted senator and his cohorts were concerned, Diamond’s background is not in monetary policy, which necessarily raised doubts about his nomination. It’s true that this isn’t Diamond’s specific field, but it’s hardly a prerequisite — of the five sitting Fed governors at the time of Diamond’s nomination, three were not specialists in monetary economics. One of Bush’s appointees has no advanced degree in economics at all and has never done any academic research in the field.

    What did Shelby have to say about this nominee? Nothing — the Republican senator supported Bush’s unqualified nominee, raised no questions about the nominee’s background, and voted for confirmation.

    Making matters worse, Diamond’s expertise — the scholarship that produced a Nobel prize — is in understanding competing kinds of unemployment. Paul Krugman, himself a Nobel winner, noted a while back that “there’s an ongoing dispute over what the rise in vacancies without a corresponding fall in unemployment means,” and as luck would have it, Diamond “pioneered the whole study of this subject.”

    But for reasons that defy comprehension, Shelby simply decided he just doesn’t like Diamond. The confused Alabamian had the option of registering his opposition by voting against Diamond’s nomination, but the Republican lawmaker decided that wasn’t good enough — the Nobel laureate was so offensive, Shelby believed the Senate simply couldn’t be allowed to vote on the nominee at all.

    Cohn and Bernstein suggest the Obama White House deserves some of the blame, because the West Wing didn’t push the Diamond nomination as hard as it could have. Perhaps. But recent history suggests right-wing lawmakers generally don’t care about presidential pressure, and besides, the Senate should be able to function and complete its most basic tasks without constant reminders from Obama.

    This is no way to run an advanced democracy in the 21st century. The result of this fiasco isn’t just the loss of a qualified nominee to an important post; it’s also a lost opportunity to have the Fed take actions to bolster the economy.

    We can only hope that this wasn’t part of a larger campaign by Republicans to hurt the economy on purpose.

  25. rikyrah says:

    Village shuffle
    by Doug Harlan J

    I’ve explained, probably too many times, how I think the modern conservative mind works on most issues, say climate change. It’s not happening, if it is happening it’s not because of human activity, if it is happening because of human activity there’s nothing we can do about it, if there is something we can do about it, that something isn’t what Democrats are proposing. Also too: Al Gore is fat (right-wing blogosphere), climate change doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, civility is more important (Bobo/Chunky Bobo).

    With the Village things are slightly different, but much the same. The Democrats caused a huge deficit that is killing us, even if Democrats didn’t cause the deficit, it is killing us, if the deficit isn’t killing us we should still pretend it is so that we can use it as a pretext to make “tough choices”, even if the deficit isn’t killing us and the “tough choices” are all nonsense, it’s what voters believe. Also too, remember Walter Mondale, you don’t want to end up like him, and Greg Mankiw has some wonky stuff that supports something I said about this economically, I think.

    You see the full range of this in just one exchange between newly minted Villager David Von Drehle and the angry, vituperative Michael Grunwald on Swampland. Von Drehle says the “debt warnings” from the bond vigilantes mean that Republicans are right to hold up the debt ceiling vote and possibly end Medicare. Grunwald points out that threatening to default on debt will make “debt warnings” that much more credible and dire. Von Drehle says “but 12 trillion dollars is a lot of money so Republicans are right”. Grunwald points out that most of the deficit problems were caused by Republican policies 2000-2008. Von Drehle says “so what, moderate voters don’t believe that”.

    Notice Von Drehel’s shift from “I have THE math, so suck it hippie” to “maybe I don’t have THE math, but the people at the Applebee’s Salad Bar agree with me, so suck it hippie”.

    In my view, a brief reign of terror would be well worth the costs right now.

  26. Ametia says:

    WaPo, why are you calling the dinner splashy?

    White House prepares to put on a splashy dinner party for German Chancellor Angela Merkel
    By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, June 6, 6:18 AM

    WASHINGTON — Angela Merkel has traveled to the U.S. many times since becoming Germany’s chancellor six years ago, arriving quietly for meetings with the president or international summits. But she’s in for a different kind of welcome Tuesday when she begins an official visit to Washington.

    The day literally will start off with a bang — a 19-gun salute during a formal welcome on the White House South Lawn. It will end with the most elegant evening the U.S. puts on for a foreign leader, especially one President Barack Obama says is a “trusted global partner.”

    Merkel’s visit is an “official” one because she’s the head of Germany’s government, not its head of state — in which case it would be a “state” visit. But both occasions are alike in style and substance. The only difference is in the number of gun salutes: a head of state gets 21.

    Regardless of what the visit is called, Merkel is in rarified company. Visits like these, with the accompanying pomp and pageantry, are an honor the U.S. doles out sparingly to close friends and allies. She’s the first European leader to receive this treatment from Obama. The White House said it’s a sign of the close working relationship they’ve forged in two and a half years.

    Obama so far has extended similar courtesies only to leaders of India, Mexico and China.

  27. Ametia says:

    Plessy and Ferguson: Descendants of a divisive Supreme Court decision unite
    By Robert Barnes, Published: June 5

    When Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson decided to start a new civil rights education organization that would bear their famous names, they sealed the deal in a fitting local spot: Cafe Reconcile.

    They represent the opposing principals in one of the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions, Plessy v. Ferguson , which upheld the constitutionality of Jim Crow laws mandating segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine. It stood from 1896 until the court’s historic Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954.

    The descendent of the man who tested Louisiana’s law requiring separate railroad cars for whites and blacks and the great-great-granddaughter of the judge who upheld it met in 2004.

    The truth is, no reconciliation was required.

    Read on

  28. rikyrah says:

    More Prima Donna Antics
    by mistermix

    We won’t have a Nobel winning economist who’s done extensive research on unemployment serving on the Federal Reserve board because Richard Shelby is a dick:

    Diamond is among the most accomplished economists of his generation, and last year, was awarded a Nobel Prize in economics. And yet, there was Richard Shelby & Co., insisting that Diamond lacked the qualifications to join the board of governors of the Federal Reserve.

    As far as the dimwitted senator and his cohorts were concerned, Diamond’s background is not in monetary policy, which necessarily raised doubts about his nomination. It’s true that this isn’t Diamond’s specific field, but it’s hardly a prerequisite—of the five sitting Fed governors at the time of Diamond’s nomination, three were not specialists in monetary economics. One of Bush’s appointees has no advanced degree in economics at all and has never done any academic research in the field.

    Shelby and Republicans will pay no political price for this little maneuver, of course, so this is just for the record.

  29. President Barack Obama walks from Marine One across the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Friday, June 3, 2011, with first lady Michelle Obama, who holds a pair of gardening gloves he just gave her, purchased earlier in Ohio, as he returned from Ohio.

  30. US President Barack Obama (R) is met by First Lady Michelle Obama (L) as he walks off Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, June 3, 2011.

  31. rikyrah says:

    You’ll Get Nothing and Like It
    by BooMan
    Sun Jun 5th, 2011 at 08:01:46 PM EST

    I like how the administration is working over the House Republicans by offering them nothing and demanding that they raise the debt ceiling. It reminds me of this scene from The Godfather II:

    Senator John Ensign /Pat Geary: I want your answer and the money by noon tomorrow. And one more thing. Don’t you contact me again, ever. From now on, you deal with Coburn Turnbull.

    Tim Geithner /Michael Corleone: Senator? You can have my answer now, if you like. My final offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.

    The Republicans desperately want to be saved from the corner they’ve paved themselves into, but everyone thinks they’re bluffing. I’m not so sure that they are capable of caving. Maybe they need to wake up hungover next to a bloody, dead, underage prostitute. That focused Sen. John Ensign’s Pat Geary’s mind. And he payed for the gaming license.

    Hey, they always said the Kenyan engaged in Chicago/Gangster politics.

  32. rikyrah says:

    This is How It’s Done
    by mistermix

    If you doubt that McClatchy is the only DC press service with a working bullshit detector, check out “New film on Palin is a fawning one-sided valentine to her“:

    It repeatedly cites great poll numbers from her days as governor, but doesn’t mention how they’ve collapsed since then. It brags about her role in pushing for a natural gas pipeline and raising taxes on oil companies – but doesn’t mention that the pipeline hasn’t been built or that her Republican successor now blames the oil taxes for slowing exploration. And it revels in her successful challenge to former Gov. Frank Murkowski, but never mentions the family feud with the Murkowskis or the fact that Alaska voters last year sided with the Murkowskis against Palin’s pick for a Senate candidate.

    The whole thing is brutal, and it’s telling to compare it to Ben Smith’s story on the film at Politico:

    The atmospherics at times obscure the movie’s core argument, which is that Palin was a serious executive during her partial term in Alaska, taking on the oil industry and the Republican establishment alike in a genuine reform campaign.

    That’s Ben’s only attempt to be critical of the movie, and his only criticism is stylistic. Other than that, he simply reprints what the film’s director told him without examining a single factual claim, proving yet again that Politico is nothing more than the TMZ of the Potomac.

    • Ametia says:

      LOL at Politico is TMZ!

    • Ben’s only attempt to be critical of the movie, and his only criticism is stylistic. Other than that, he simply reprints what the film’s director told him without examining a single factual claim, proving yet again that Politico is nothing more than the TMZ of the Potomac.

      So true!

  33. Dr. Jill Biden poses for a photo while greeting sailors and other branch service members at the Naval Support Activity Naples, in Naples, Italy June 4, 2011.

  34. rikyrah says:

    Justice Thomas, Again
    by Kay

    I wrote about Justice Thomas and his omission of all his wife’s income from reporting forms back in January.

    Under pressure from liberal critics, Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court acknowledged in filings released on Monday that he erred by not disclosing his wife’s past employment as required by federal law.

    I was surprised that he was apparently unable to parse a straightforward question on a federal form.

    I’m not on Twitter and I don’t follow Anthony Weiner in the news, so I was not aware that Weiner was raising questions about this. I thought the questions that were raised were good ones back in January, and I still do. Whatever I think about the Weiner Tweet, I’d still like the questions answered or at the very least discussed.

    This is the report Justice Thomas completed on May 13, 2011. In this report, he reveals an investment in Liberty Consulting.

    If you scroll down and read the report, you’ll find a letter designation for investment amounts. His investment in Liberty Consulting has the letter “J”, so that means it was at or less than $15,000, according to the key at the bottom of the form. You’ll also note that he has placed an “X” after the name “Liberty Consulting”. That X means that he didn’t have to reveal this investment in the last reporting period.

    You can certainly talk about Anthony Weiner or the 21 year old woman who is being pursued by media in the comments, if you want. I’d rather you didn’t, because you can read and comment on that at every commercial media outlet, and those people aren’t the subject of this post. Justice Thomas is the subject of this post. Just like the last one, back in January.

    I had questions then and I have questions now . I don’t think there’s anything in the Big Rule Book For Citizens that forbids my questioning of Supreme Court Justices on ethics and conflicts. I simply don’t buy that they, alone among judges or lawyers, are due an enormous amount of deference on compliance with simple reporting rules, or on anything else, really. I think his not reporting income when there obviously was income is a problem, and I’d like to see some public discussion of what seems to be an investment in a lobbying shop.

  35. Roger Ailes, Fox News Chief: I’d Like To Hire Hillary Clinton

    Roger Ailes responded to several recent articles about him in an interview with Newsweek’s Howard Kurtz which was published Monday.

    Ailes has been the subject of two profiles–one in New York, and one in Rolling Stone–in the past few weeks. They have alleged, among other things, that he thinks Sarah Palin is an “idiot,” that he despairs of the current crop of GOP presidential candidate, that he is paranoid and security-obsessed and that his boss, Rupert Murdoch, thinks he believes “crazy” things.

    Ailes has previously turned to Kurtz to speak out about Fox News, though in the past, he has said quite controversial things to the longtime media reporter. For instance, he called NPR executives “Nazis” in a November interview.

    In Monday’s interview, Ailes struck a more congenial tone, but he pushed back against some of the claims in the recent articles. He denied that he thought Palin was stupid, saying, “she’s so smart she’s got the press corps running up the whole East Coast behind her bus.” And he called the reports of his heavy security detail “fantasy.”

    Ailes also said he’d like to hire Hillary Clinton as a Fox News contributor.

    “She looks unhappy at the State Department,” he said. “She’d get ratings.”

  36. Rick Santorum 2012 Campaign For President Launches

    Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum declared his candidacy for president of the United States on Monday, vowing he’s “in it to win it.”

    Santorum, a favorite among his party’s social conservatives, chose to confirm his plans during an appearance Monday morning on ABC’s “Good Morning America” at the banner-draped site he chose in the western Pennsylvania coalfields for his formal announcement.

    In the network interview, Santorum accused President Barack Obama of having a weak foreign policy, saying he doesn’t feel he has stood up sufficiently to Iran and asserting he has done too little to speak out against Syrian President Bashir Assad for the violence there.

    The announcement comes as no surprise. The Republican hopeful signaled his intention to officially kick off his campaign for the White House last week after making numerous trips to the key primary states of Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire in recent months.

    The latest polls have shown Santorum to be trailing more well-known Republicans vying for the party’s nomination to take on President Barack Obama in 2012. Findings from one survey released by Gallup last week suggest the former senator lacks strong name recognition among voters on the right side of the aisle.

  37. rikyrah says:

    June 05, 2011
    ‘I think she could win’

    My guess is that Howard Dean had gotten an early start on a weekend drinking binge before he told The Hill on Friday, “I think she could win.”

    Prepare for some exotic logic.

    “She” is Sarah Palin, and “win” means the presidential — not just the nomination — contest. “Anybody who gets the nomination could win the presidency,” said Dean, which itself is ahistorical humbug. Think George McGovern, think Alf Landon, think … oh hell, just try to recall The Year of James M. Cox.

    Dean expanded on his conventional unconventional thinking: “Whoever the Republicans nominate, including people like Sarah Palin, whom the inside-the-Beltway crowd dismisses — my view is if you get the nomination of a major party, you can win the presidency. I don’t care what people write about you inside the Beltway.”

    Here’s the kicker. “Do I think she’s going to get the nomination?” Dean asked himself. And his answer: “No.”

    So, according to Dean, Sarah Palin — whose unfavorability rating throughout the electorate rests in the asteroid belt — could vanquish Obama in a general election, although she couldn’t secure the nomination from her fellow halfwits, from whom she possesses, last I looked, a nearly 60 percent favorability.

    Go figure.

    I concede that the published interview was vague; at no point was Dean asked if he believes Palin is actually running (although “get” the nomination suggests the affirmative). But if he does believe that — did believe that on Friday — then he had started his binge even earlier than surmised.

  38. rikyrah says:

    June 05, 2011
    We wuz robbed
    Well, I’d rank that right up there among the more painful 20 minutes of my life: Watching a tender, Fox News host lob the softest of his balls at the “socialized, big-government takeovers” critic who “sincerely” apologized with a sneer and a wink to a political opponent but “didn’t mess up” on the Paul Revere thing while still emphasizing our collective obligation to have “a strong grasp” of our nation’s history and re-punctuated the need to “drill, baby, drill” yet ultimately concluded on the one note we can all agree on: “Nothing surprises me” — us — “anymore.”

    The economy, doggedly troubled because of the GOP’s supply-sided obstructionism, is nevertheless gaining some ground and slogging it out. So what would Sarah do? Go “in the opposite direction,” she informed her very thoughtful, very considerate interviewer, Chris Wallace. In — and I made a note of this, it’s verbatim — the “very soon to approach coming years,” said she, we must “save” Medicare but most of all we must get in there and gut that debt; and what the hell, any debt-ceiling crisis would be but fictional, don’t you know — the feds have plenty of income to satisfy their finances, without heavy lifting. Which reminded me of the NY Times’ Jackie Calmes’ observation last week:

    Many Republicans have … made comments indicating that they do not understand or do not care that an increase in the debt limit is needed not only for new spending but also to cover Social Security checks, military pay and myriad other obligations previously agreed to, as well as for payments to creditors holding Treasury bonds.

    As for going in the “opposite direction” of J.M. Keynes? Again, a rather whimsical reminiscence of recent coherence, in particular from Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

    Well, someone has to stop blathering nonsense about the debt and start talking about creating jobs. There is no employer in the country who is going to hire people because the government cut the deficit. They will hire people when they see demand. This will come from the government spending money. That should be simple enough for even a politician or political reporter to understand [italics mine].

    Well, Mr. Baker, not simple enough for Sarah Palin, and not simple enough for Chris Wallace.

    I knew this morning’s interview was headed for exploratory bleakness when Ms. Palin first launched into her macroeconomic “analysis” of the failed quantitative easings 1 and 2 and the coming failure of a “QE3” — and Wallace sat, silently, throughout, and then moved on. I had, prior to airtime, seized the gossamer hope that Fox News’ interviewer might, now and then, here and there, on this topic or on that, actually interview Palin. But we wuz robbed.

  39. rikyrah says:

    I’ll say it again….the First Lady has better things to do with her time that to kiss the ass of the Washington Press Corps.


    White House Rebel
    Michelle Obama refuses to be a political show pony or schmooze with Washington’s elite. She has her own sense of where her energies should be deployed and has constructed a fruitful life inside the bubble. All that will have to change in the heat of Election 2012.

    The most recognizable woman in the world routinely ducks reporters to have what she calls a “normal” life. Hiding beneath a baseball cap, the first lady of the United States has picked through sale racks in the frenetic Tysons Corner, Va., mall with girlfriends, bought supplies for her dog at Petco using her own credit card, and dined at some of D.C.’s hippest eateries largely unrecognized. So secretive are her outings that when Washington Capitals hockey superstar Alex Ovechkin tweeted a photo in April with his arm around her at a busy Washington restaurant, media organizations were convinced it was a fake.

    Michelle Obama laid down her markers quickly and in a way that has set Washington back on its heels. The White House was not going to imprison her, the media were not going to own her, and she would not be driven by external expectations.

    She was supposed to be a different kind of first lady—an Ivy League–educated, fashion-trendsetting professional who blew up the conventions of the job. No one could have imagined back in the heady days following the election that she’d declare that she would work only two or three days a week, choose a couple of politically comfortable issues, and stay out of the glare of the political spotlight. The result has been a low-key tenure that some have found to be disappointingly conventional.

    But is it? What the chattering class has missed is that Michelle Obama, in an understated way, has in fact been transforming the job—but on her own terms. She may have disappointed the Georgetown salon set with a casual disregard for social convention and annoyed the old political-wives club by not indulging them. But she has also spent untold hours with the other Washington—consciously extending the reach of the White House into D.C.’s black community, mentoring students, and choking up when she reflects on her own success to offer hope and dreams. Later this month she will make an official trip to South Africa and Botswana to further expand her commitment to students and young leaders, education, and wellness.

    In short, Michelle Obama has figured out ways to navigate the bubble while channeling her own passions and holding on to her life.

    But her carefully crafted world at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is about to be challenged anew. Her husband is entering his reelection bid battling rough economic headwinds, against a GOP energized by the successes of the 2010 mid-terms. Barack Obama will need every ounce of his wife’s considerable star power—she’s polling 20 points ahead of her husband—to win reelection. Although the full-throttle campaign is still months away, Michelle is already traveling the country fundraising.

    • Ametia says:

      Newsweek is now being run by that Brit Tina Brown of the Daily Beast. FLOTUS has got all their numbers, and it ain’t Colt 45 either.

    • rikyrah says:

      with reference to the article in Newsweek about FLOTUS doing it her own way when she came to Washington, Town has written some great comments:

      Comment 1:


      The fact of the matter is:

      1) none of those hags would have even thought to socialize with Michelle Obama, the Senator’s wife;

      2)none of those hags want to socialize with her, they want to cozy up to her husband;

      3) when they get into the WH, they will run to their gossip rags and sniff that Michelle Obama did not serve them (i.e. shuck & buck enough for them)

      4) they are used to all the Shuck & Buck Kneegrows who would sell their momma’s kneecap to fawn over them, so it blows their mind that Michelle Obama couldn’t care less about them.

      That’s because Michelle Obama has run across ALLLLLLLLLL these types from the time she set foot on the Princeton Campus, to the law firm, to the hospital, to Capitol Hill, to the White House. Just like that trifling roommate who requested to be moved from Michelle Obama’s dorm room b/c she didn’t want to room with a black person, then trying to play “Remember the Times” when she found out that same black roommate she dissed was now going to be the First Lady of the United States.

      Hags, bye!

      • rikyrah says:

        Comment 2:

        Town 2 hours ago in reply to Bri

        “I admire what Michelle is doing with all her public-service efforts,” said the spouse, “but Laura was warm and made you feel like you were visiting her home.”


        They ain’t tryna go to no other black person’s house, why start now?

    • rikyrah says:

      Comment 3:

      Town 3 hours ago in reply to itgurl_29

      Michelle Obama also knows these same wealthy white hags would come into the White House acting as if THEY are lady of the manor and she (M.O.) was the skullery maid.

      How do I know she knows this? Because I am QUITE sure when she was working in Chicago with her Princeton and Harvard degrees in management positions she was treated like a damn temp by silly ass white women with Northern Chicago Community College associates degrees.

    • rikyrah says:

      not by Town, but I loved this one:

      here’s the reference quote:

      “But is it? What the chattering class has missed is that Michelle Obama, in an understated way, has in fact been transforming the job—but on her own terms. She may have disappointed the Georgetown salon set with a casual disregard for social convention and annoyed the old political-wives club by not indulging them.

      But she has also spent untold hours with the other Washington—consciously extending the reach of the White House into D.C.’s black community, mentoring students, and choking up when she reflects on her own success to offer hope and dreams.

      Later this month she will make an official trip to South Africa and Botswana to further expand her commitment to students and young leaders, education, and wellness.”

      tgurl_29 4 hours ago in reply to JojoRaze

      Exactly! They are mad that she’s not kissing the asses of these old white D.C. wives of men with money and influence. But it’s not only that. Because Hillary and Laura really didn’t care for them either. But they still played the game. They still acted like those women were important, even if they didn’t show up at their houses a few times a year. Michelle Obama is paying them no freakin’ mind. She’s letting them know that not only are they completely irrelevant, they are far less important than all those little black and latino kids she always invites over. How dare she!! They’re mad that their little wealthy white grand-kids aren’t getting first dibs for the Easter Egg Roll event anymore. They’re mad that she’s not involving them in her causes, so they label something important like the focus on childhood obesity as “simple” or “unimportant”.

      I love Michelle Obama! She’s a free black woman and they can’t stand it. They own no parts of her and it’s driving them insane.

  40. Ametia says:


  41. Ametia says:

    Good Morning, Everyone; Happy Mun-dane! :-)

Leave a Reply