Happy Thursday, 3 Chics PEEPS! George Michael weeks continues with Father Figure.
-
-
Black Girls Rock!
Flickr Photos
-
Potus Takes Oath of Office
Flotus & Daughters at Great Wall of China
My Brothers Keeper
-
-
-
-
-
AFRO PUFFS
Most Adorable Shoe Stealer
Six Little Babies
Fatherhood
-
-
Even though 3Chics Politico is written and curated by three women: Ametia, Rikyrah, and SouthernGirl2, I must nominate this as one of the most engaging blogs I've found. Devoted to politics and culture, these three shine a light on contemporary life with humor and spirit.
-
3Chics Action Alert
Lets Make It Happen
3 Chics Trio
-
REALITY Blog Award
Recent Comments
rikyrah on Open Thread | Once Again… rikyrah on Weekend Open Thread rikyrah on Weekend Open Thread rikyrah on Weekend Open Thread rikyrah on Weekend Open Thread rikyrah on Weekend Open Thread Top Posts
Guard The Change
Vote 4 Democrats
-
-
-
Go to the polls
President Barack Obama
First Lady Michelle Obama
Obama Love
Your Vote Matters
President Obama & Bo
The Obama Family
-
-
-
-
Presidential hug
-
Chuck Todd+ FAILURE- KASIM REED= BRILLIANCE
So Perry’s minions are setting the bar low for his first debate. SURPRISE!!!
.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxyVMi-eOeA&feature=player_embedded
82% of Obama Voters Will Vote To Reelect Him If He Raises Taxes On The Rich
September 1, 2011
By Jason Easley
A new survey of Obama voters by Survey USA found that by a margin of 82%-18% they are more likely to support him again in 2012 if he raises taxes on the rich.
The good news for Obama is that 66% of those who voted for him in 2008 approve of his handling of the economy compared to 27% who disapprove. Sixty three percent of those who disapprove are doing so because they believe that Obama has been too willing to compromise with Republicans. The president’s voters made it very clear what they want. Eighty one percent of those who voted for Obama said that they want to see the president lay out a broad jobs plan next week. Only 16% wanted him to focus on smaller measures.
What Obama voters don’t want is any kind of deal that would cut government programs in exchange for GOP support of his jobs plan. Forty one percent of respondents said that they would be less likely support his reelection campaign if Obama cuts government programs, and 21% said that they would be more likely to support him in 2012. Thirty two percent said that it made no difference in their support if the president cut government programs. Over 2/3 of Obama voters (67%) said that they would be less likely to support him in 2012 if he cuts Social Security or Medicare.
It is clear what Obama voters want. They want entitlements left alone, and they want a big jobs plan that doesn’t compromise with the GOP. It looks like his voters are willing to stick by him as long as he goes big, and leaves entitlements out of the discussion.
Barring a big jobs plan, there is one more thing that Obama can do to keep his 2008 supporters solidly in his camp.
President Obama can raise taxes on the rich. By a whopping margin of 82%-5%, Obama voters said that they would be more likely to support the president in 2012 if he raised taxes on the rich and closed the corporate loopholes. This support was across the board. 82% of men and 81% of women said that taxing the rich would make them more likely to support the president in 2012. By age, 84% of those 35-49, 85% of those 50-64, and 87% of seniors said that that taxing the rich would boost their support for Obama. (The percentage of support for tax increases on the wealthy seems to grow with age, because many of these people know that raising revenue works. They have seen it work before).
Support for taxing the rich is higher among those who are more likely to actually have resources. Eighty six percent of Obama supporters who are over age 50 are more likely to support the president if he raises taxes on the rich compared to 79% of those under 50. White Obama supporters (86%) are more likely to favor taxing the rich than Hispanics (78%), Blacks (76%), and Asians (71%). The more conservative the Obama voter, the more likely they are to attach supporting Obama in 2012 to taxing the rich. Eighty seven percent of Obama voters who consider themselves very conservative favor increasing taxes on the wealthy, as do 86% of conservative Obama voters. Eighty four percent of liberals would be more likely to support Obama if he increased taxes on the rich, as would 78% of moderates.
Increasing taxes on the wealthy is an issue that is a big winner for President Obama, and the best thing that he could do to boost the morale of those who voted for him in 2008 is to make getting the rich to pay their fair share his battle cry for 2012. Washington is so trapped in an inertia of non-governing that Obama has absolutely nothing to lose by going big on this jobs plan. Republicans are going to block it anyway, so the president should make his plan, and the inevitable Republicans obstruction of it, a major message of his 2012 campaign.
The issue of increasing taxes on the wealthy is an easy winner for Obama. No matter who the Republican nominee is, they are going to publicly oppose increasing taxes on the wealthy. If Obama makes the fair share argument the center of his 2012 campaign, his voters will come out in droves, and Independents will again support this president.
If Obama makes the Republican nominee’s campaign about defending the rich while the rest of us suffer, he will win reelection. The GOP’s screams of class warfare will be muted by an agenda that seeks to kill Medicare to save the tax cuts for the rich. In other words, it is tough to accuse the other side of class warfare when you are practicing it yourself.
President Obama’s supporters are yearning for him to take the fight to the GOP on increasing taxes on the wealthy, and I have a hunch that is exactly what they are going to get from President Obama between now and November 2012.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-2012-taxes-rich
I will vote for Barack Hussein Obama, NO.MATTER.WHAT.
Eric Cantor Kicks the Jobless Out of His Version of A Townhall
September 1, 2011
By Sarah Jones
Last night in Virginia, over 200 desperate citizens struggled to have their voices heard by their representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) during what he claimed was an “open meeting” and is the only type of “townhall” he does.
The announcement on the Richmond Tea Party website (because all of Cantor’s constituents are members of the Tea Party and they all have access to the internet.):
Got anything to say to Eric Cantor ?
Here’s your chance…CANTOR ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 31, 2011
Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia’s 7th District invites his constituents to attend the next Cantor Advisory Council Meeting. (This is what he calls a Town Hall)
Turns out, this wasn’t really your chance to say anything to Eric. That is, unless you already agree with him. You know that’s how we roll in a democracy! This is Cantor’s version of taxation with representation, people, because when his constituents showed up in the same hotel as his advisory council, having rented a ballroom room upstairs from their out-of-touch and unreachable representative in order to demand jobs, they were thrown out of the hotel. NBC12 Decision Virginia noted, “The Holiday Inn was soon guarded by Chesterfield and Capitol Police officers, who stopped each car before entering the parking lot to ask if they were guest of the hotel or the event.”
The media was barred from the event. Of course. We can’t have any pesky recordings of our secret “open” meetings with the public. That would be…like having a free press.
Eric hasn’t held a Townhall this year, but last night was supposed to be an “Advisory Council Meeting” open to the public. The citizens who had been struggling to no avail to get a meeting with Cantor weren’t invited to the meeting, but with the help of Progress Virginia and Virginia Organizing, they rented the ballroom upstairs from their Representative in hopes of being heard.
Those hopes were soon dashed when the hotel management of the Holiday Inn Koger Conference Center asked them to leave, citing various unverified concerns until landing upon “conflicting events” (also known as the human condition or the People versus the Koch Brothers). The Daily Kos reported, “…(T)he hotel was not comfortable with competing events. This is even though the activists had rented the ballroom a few days beforehand. Additionally, Scholl pointed out that “Cantor had the only other event” in the hotel that night.”
The conflicting event was Cantor, downstairs, busy with his “Advisory Committee Meeting” that was “open to the public”. In fact, the “meeting” was billed thusly, “Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia’s 7th District invites his constituents to attend the next Cantor Advisory Council Meeting.”
The protesters departed peacefully and reconvened across the street in a Toys R Us parking lot, where they rallied for jobs while Eric Cantor stayed cozy in his ivory tower of privilege, ignoring their desperate pleas once again. Cantor’s desperate constituents carried signs that read:
“I Need a Job to Pay My Bills” and “Whose Side Are You On?”
http://www.politicususa.com/en/eric-cantor-kicks-jobless-townhall
Cantor is a self-serving twit, and VA voters need to vote his ass out of office. The Hoilday in; they can bite me. I wouldn’t let my dog walk in another one of their hotels, and I don’t have a dog.
In a recent BlackPlanet/NewsOne poll, 74 percent of African Americans polled approve of President Obama’s handling of the economy while 26 percent disapprove.
The poll stands in sharp contrast to the Gallup Poll conducted on August 14th which found 74 percent of American disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy, while only 26 percent of approve.
http://newsone.com/nation/washington-watch/newsonestaff2/obama-poll-economy-african-americans/
September 01, 2011 3:25 PM Gaming out the jobs agenda
By Steve Benen
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious
In 1996, congressional Republican were fairly eager to pass meaningful legislation. Sure, there was a Democratic president, and policy accomplishments might make him look like he’s governing successfully, but GOP officials wanted to run for re-election with some record of accomplishments, too.
Take welfare reform, for example. The issue was important to Bill Clinton during the 1992 race, and he wanted to pass a reform bill before his re-election campaign, but Gingrich sent him a bill he didn’t like, and the president vetoed it — twice. Republicans made some changes and on the third try, Clinton accepted the bill. The president got a political win by fulfilling a campaign promise, and GOP leaders got a win showing they were capable of governing.
It’s hard to imagine a similar situation playing out now, in part because Republicans no longer take public policy seriously, and in part because GOP officials seem to prioritize knee-jerk opposition to President Obama above literally every other consideration. They’re no longer eager to demonstrate the capacity to pass major legislation; the goal is to deny the president an opportunity to sign major legislation. If voters perceive them as a do-nothing Congress, so be it — as long as Obama isn’t succeeding, nothing else matters.
Ezra Klein argued today we can forget about “significant cooperation on substantive issues” because of dynamic. “Boehner simply will not cut off his party’s candidates at the knees, especially its presidential contenders, by handing Obama a major economic accomplishment,” Ezra said.
Again, notice that in 1996, House Republicans, their hatred for Clinton notwithstanding, didn’t think this way when the last Dem president was gearing up for a re-election fight.
But is Ezra right? Probably, though Jonathan Cohn’s stab at optimism resonated with me.
It’s true that few people will actually listen to [President Obama’s] speech and that many of those who do will be political junkies or political partisans who’ve already made up their minds about economic policy. But the next morning, many more people who don’t pay that much attention to politics will hear a short excerpt of the speech while eating breakfast or driving to work. And even those who don’t hear content from the speech will be aware that Obama gave it — i.e., they will get the message that Obama wants to do something to fix the economy and create jobs.
And the idea isn’t simply to give one speech. It’s to follow up the speech with appearances, radio addresses, executive orders; to coordinate these actions with the rest of the Democratic Party leadership; to rally validators from outside the party; and to do this over a lengthy period of time. The idea, in other words, is to wage an aggressive and sustained public relations campaign for new interventions into the economy.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. Republicans won’t care, I can hear you saying, because they’d rather beat Obama than help the country. Perhaps.
But in 2013, John Boehner wants to be Speaker again and Eric Cantor wants to be Majority Leader again. Their understanding of public policy and current events is strikingly weak, but they understand campaign politics pretty well. They know how unpopular the GOP is and they know blocking any and all jobs bills gives President Obama a chance to make a clear pitch to voters: “I tried to make the economy better, but Republicans refused to work with me.”
The goal for the White House, then, is to fight, not only for an ambitious economic plan, but to change the landscape a bit. Give the public something to fight for (a jobs bill) and something to fight against (congressional Republicans). The GOP doesn’t fear Democrats at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, but it occasionally fears electoral consequences — and the prospect of Speaker Pelosi, Part II.
Sure, it’s a long shot. But what’s the alternative? Sitting on our hands and waiting for the economy to get better on its own?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/gaming_out_the_jobs_agenda031946.php
Folks the media is ramping up the anti-Obama, weak, not a leader, do nothing, craziness. It’s hard to know what this president is doing or has done in this presidency when they won’t even cover his travels and townhalls. It kills them that they cannot control the black man, the PRESIDENT. Of course white folks know what’s best for the POTUS do say, do, think. and the house coons are parroting the nonsense.
We see through the crazy thoough.
Sam Stein from HuffPo is parroting 3 Chics reference to PBO & the “Baltimore Masacre.”
GOP is in for an ASS WHOOPING…THE.END.
September 01, 2011 1:45 PM
A looming transportation deadline
By Steve Benen
About a month ago, following the latest in a series of House Republican stunts, there was a partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Association, which forced 4,000 workers off the job. The stoppage lasted two weeks before an agreement was reached.
It was, however, a temporary fix. As lawmakers return to work next week, waiting for them will not only be a bill to fund the FAA, but also a larger transportation bill that needs to be passed before the month’s end. President Obama helped raise the visibility of the issue at a Rose Garden event yesterday.
“At the end of September, if Congress doesn’t act, the transportation bill will expire. This bill provides funding for highway construction, bridge repair, mass transit systems and other essential projects that keep our people and our commerce moving quickly and safely. And for construction workers and their families across the country, it represents the difference between making ends meet or not making ends meet.
“If we allow the transportation bill to expire, over 4,000 workers will be immediately furloughed without pay. If it’s delayed for just 10 days, it will lose nearly $1 billion in highway funding — that’s money we can never get back. And if it’s delayed even longer, almost 1 million workers could lose their jobs over the course of the next year. […]
“It’s inexcusable to put more jobs at risk in an industry that’s already been one of the hardest hit over the last decade. It’s inexcusable to cut off necessary investments at a time when so many of our highways are choked with congestion, when so many of our bridges are in need of repair, when so many commuters depend on reliable public transit, and when travel and shipping delays cost businesses billions of dollars every single year.”
The transportation bill enjoys support from the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and leaders from both were on hand for the president’s remarks yesterday. Many Republicans don’t much seem to care, and are balking at the bill for a variety of reasons. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), for example, has vowed to kill the package unless bike-path provisions are removed from the bill. Other GOP officials are simply pushing for less public investment.
And as that debate continues — the parties are not yet close to striking a deal — the president also intends to make transportation spending smarter and more effective.
We need to stop funding projects based on whose district they’re in, and start funding them based on how much good they’re going to be doing for the American people. No more bridges to nowhere. No more projects that are simply funded because of somebody pulling strings. And we need to do this all in a way that gets the private sector more involved. That’s how we’re going to put construction workers back to work right now doing the work that America needs done — not just to boost our economy this year, but for the next 20 years.
“Finally, in keeping with a recommendation from my Jobs Council, today I’m directing certain federal agencies to identify high-priority infrastructure projects that can put people back to work. These are projects that are already funded, and with some focused attention, we could expedite the permitting decisions and reviews necessary to get construction underway more quickly while still protecting safety, public health, and the environment.”
This isn’t an especially sexy issue, but the looming showdowns over the transportation bill and FAA funding are going to pretty damn important over the next few weeks, and the reform ideas Obama talked up yesterday are worthwhile. It’s an issue to keep an eye on
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/a_looming_transportation_deadl031944.php
September 01, 2011 1:15 PM
DADT dead-enders find a new cause
By Steve Benen
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious
For months, a handful of congressional Republicans, led in large part by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) tried everything they could think of to stop the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” They failed miserably, and the DADT policy will come to its formal end in about three weeks.
It’s possible, I suppose, that if a Republican wins the White House in 2013, DADT could be reinstated, but Hunter doesn’t want to wait that long. The far-right Californian is instead moving forward with a new legislative proposal.
A California congressman strongly opposed to allowing gays to serve openly in the military is drafting legislation to protect the rights of straight service members who object to the presence of gays.
The draft bill prepared by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who served as a Marine Corps officer before being elected to Congress, does not prevent repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy by the end of September, but it would require the services to “ensure that a member of the Armed Forces under their jurisdiction is not pressured to approve of another person’s sexual conduct if that sexual conduct is contrary to the personal principles of the member.”
Essentially, this would mean that military people have to accept the presence of gays in the military but they would not have to like it, said an aide familiar with the legislation.
The apparent point of this new legislation, which does not yet have a bill number or co-sponsors, is to ensure that U.S. servicemen and women are allowed to hate gay people as much as they want to.
Hunter seemingly believes that military personnel, starting in just a few weeks, will be “pressured” by their superiors to “approve” of sexual conduct they may not like. The bill, the congressman said, will allow the troops to “express their personal views.”
Raise your hand if you think Duncan Hunter needs a new hobby. I mean, really. When was the last time we saw a member of Congress this preoccupied with gays in the military?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/dadt_deadenders_find_a_new_cau031943.php
Republicans in Retreat: How President Obama is Backing the GOP into a Corner
Lawmakers are scheduled to return to DC after facing angry voters who want them to get off their behinds and do some work to move the people’s business. The President, true to his promise to take the Republicans in Congress to task, spoke, calling for them to immediately pass a clean extension of the federal highway bill and the FAA funding bill.
Money quote:
There is work to be done, there are workers ready to do it, and that’s why I expect Congress to act immediately.
The President of course spoke in general terms about politics in Washington claiming the livelihoods of working Americans and a potential shutdown harming our infrastructure, but it wasn’t in doubt as to who it was directed to. At least not for those people. Boehner sniffled:
Republican reaction to Obama’s push for the highway bill was swift, with a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner accusing the president of using irresponsible scare tactics.
“Aside from the president today, no one has suggested the highway bill will be allowed to expire,” Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said. “Republicans support an extension of the highway bill and appreciate the need for a long-term solution for infrastructure projects.”
Really? I thought government jobs weren’t jobs, Mr. Speaker? Translation: The President got ahead on this one, put us in a corner, and now we will have a harder time holding these workers hostage. Wuaaaa!
And to add a little insult to the GOP injury, the President requested time to address a joint session of Congress with his jobs speech next week on September 7 at the same exact time the Republican presidential field of crazies are scheduled to have a debate in the Ronald Reagan library in California.
I keep hearing from media pundits about how the debate in the White House is whether the President should go big or go small (but achievable) with his speech. Apparently, the people in the media has never paid attention to President Obama. He has always gone big, challenged Congress to do something big, but been willing to accept what is pragmatically achievable. Look at the debt limit deal. The president offered a big, $4 trillion package. The president’s substantive ideas have always been geared towards job creation, and his political strategy, at least since the Republicans took power in the House, has been to expose the Republicans for their insanity and backing them into a corner.
That strategy, however, takes time. It involves first being able to claim the ground of the adult in the room. The President has done that by being willing to compromise in the interest of keeping the government running and in the interest of ordinary Americans. Second, it takes exposing the other side for being the petulant children that they are. The debt limit and budget debates in Congress have perfectly demonstrated that. So much so that Speaker Boehner wouldn’t even say the word “compromise.” Third, it takes the revival of the idea of compromise as the responsible way to govern in divided government. And that involves rescuing it from the media and ideological stranglehold equating compromise with weakness. The President has done that too.
And so, a perfect storm is coming together. On the one hand, American people are hungry for a national jobs message and initiative, and by expecting the President and Congress to do something about it, they have left behind the conservative frame that the government cannot (and more importantly, should not) create jobs. On the other hand, the same American people who are mad at everyone in Washington, but they do understand who is standing in the way of good governance – which is why Republicans are coming back bruised from the town halls in their districts.
The people want their representatives to start acting like adults, and they want jobs. I will bet you anything that on the night of September 7, that is exactly going to be the president’s message. He’s going to go big, call the Congress to action, back the Republicans into a further corner, and call on the American people to turn up the heat.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/republicans-in-retreat-how-president.html
Boehner & the GOP are cowards. They are hiding out for as long as they can to address jobs. They are waiting for the president to make his move, and then counter with BULLSHIT, like more tax cuts for buisnesses (CORPORATIONS) hollering about how they produce jobs, cut & cap spending elsewhere packaged as a real job-growing plan.
WASH, RINSE, REPEAT
September 01, 2011 2:20 PM
More Thurston Howell than Average Joe
By Steve Benen
Rachel Maddow had a good segment the other day comparing Mitt Romney to Thurston Howell III. The former is the flip-flopping former governor running for president; the latter is a very wealthy fictional character who, for some reason, packed an inordinate number of smoking jackets for a three-hour tour.
In any case, Rachel noted that Romney — who inherited a fortune and that got even richer as a private-equity mogul by laying off thousands of American workers — isn’t exactly a natural when it comes to presenting himself as a regular ol’ person. It’s not just his odd jokes about being unemployed, it’s also his Howell-like tendencies — he can’t break a $100 bill, he’s expanding his ocean-front mansion, he spends a lot of time in the Hamptons and at Martha’s Vineyard, he appears on television with a yacht club in the background, he’s preoccupied with the argument that corporations are people, etc.
But that was last week. This week, Romney is just like you and me.
Mitt Romney is an ordinary American, who flies and eats cheap just like us.
Take a look at the Republican presidential candidate’s Twitter feed in recent days, and it’s clear his campaign is making an effort to show that.
Indeed, Romney’s been tweeting away, boasting about flying commercial and eating a Subway sandwich, among other things. Ben Smith posted a slideshow of related images from Romney’s Twitter feed, including Romney at a baseball game, at home washing dishes, and getting a haircut from a regular ol’ barber.
Let’s put all of this in the category called, “Trying Too Hard.”
Look, Thurston Howell III probably isn’t the look Romney is going for right now. I get that. But candidates need to realize that most voters can pick up on phoniness pretty easily, and forcing an unnatural persona is a losing proposition. Trying to appear like an average Joe tends to reinforce the ways in which someone isn’t an average Joe.
We’ve all grown tired of the “comfortable in his own skin” cliche, and for good reason, but there’s a kernel of a point in there. Most candidates don’t feel the need to say, “Hey, look at me! I’m flying Southwest Airlines, which is commercial!” because it would seem unnecessary.
Maybe Romney’s a little defensive because he got even richer by forcing so many Americans out of work. He’s probably also feeling a little burned after reports about quadrupling one of his mansions.
But if I had to guess, I’d say voters won’t much mind candidates with vast wealth, if they think the candidates are going to fight for their interests. Romney doesn’t need to be seen with a corndog; he needs to be seen with a jobs agenda.
Romney probably doesn’t want my advice, but I’d suggest he stop trying so hard to figure out the latest in a series of personas. Has he tried being himself? After all of his metamorphoses, does he even know who that is anymore?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/more_thurston_howell_than_regu031945.php
Michigan Gov. Snyder Cuts Aid For Low-Income Families After Slashing Taxes On Corporations
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) is expected to sign a bill into law capping how long state residents can receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits, a federal program which provides temporary financial assistance for struggling Americans:
Gov. Rick Snyder is expected to sign a bill into law capping how long state residents can receive welfare assistance.
The new 48-month limit is expected to result in more than 11,000 people losing benefits at the start of the fiscal year, Oct. 1. The new limit — bringing the cap down from the federal 60-month limit — is projected to save $60 million.
As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities’ Liz Schott points out, the $60 million in cuts come after Snyder signed into law a $1.7 billion tax cut for corporations. That’s about $30 in corporate tax cuts for every dollar saved in welfare benefit cuts.
Local charities are expressing concern about the TANF cuts, saying that the severe reductions in aid will created increased demand on their already strained resources. “It’s going to impact the demand on the services we offer, that the other pantries offer. It’s going to impact the shelters,” said Alice Rieves, director of a food bank in Port Huron told the Port Huron Times Herald. “I think there’s other things we can do rather than cutting them off state aid,” she added.
As ThinkProgress has noted, Snyder’s tax plan is one of the most regressive in the county, lowering taxes on businesses by 86 percent cut while effectively increasing taxes on residents in lower income brackets.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/31/309214/snyder-tanf-corporate-taxes/
Obama NLRB Overturns Bush-era Decisions, Protects Union Rights, Allows Nursing Home Workers to Organize
The National Labor Relations Board under Obama continues to quietly make decisions that support workers over big business.
August 31, 2011 |
It looks like the National Labor Relations Board has decided to get in as many decisions as it can before December, when current member Craig Becker’s term ends and the Board is down to two members, a level at which the Supreme Court has ruled it can’t issue rulings. Republicans, of course, are vowing to block any nominees, so the Board is likely to stay at two members for the foreseeable future.
The NLRB has issued three more rulings following last week’s announcement that employers would be required to notify workers of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Two of Tuesday’s rulings overturn Bush-era NLRB rulings, both having to do with union decertifications.
The Lamons Gasket decision reestablishes a waiting period between when workers vote to join a union and when a decertification challenge to that union can occur:
For over forty years, federal law had barred challenges to a union’s representative status for a “reasonable period” following voluntary recognition, in order to give the new bargaining relationship a chance to succeed. In its 2007 decision in Dana Corp., the Board allowed for an immediate challenge to the union’s status by 30% of employees or a rival union. Today’s decision in Lamons Gasket returns the Board to the law as it existed before Dana Corp.
http://www.alternet.org/story/152250/obama_nlrb_overturns_bush-era_decisions,_protects_union_rights,_allows_nursing_home_workers_to_organize
Perry Proposed A Bi-National Health Insurance Plan With Mexico In 2001
By Marie Diamond on Sep 1, 2011 at 10:00 am
The ghosts of Gov. Rick Perry’s (R-TX) more moderate past have come back to haunt him in recent days, particularly when it comes to health care.
In 2001 at a border summit in south Texas, Perry spoke optimistically about the prospects for a “bi-national health insurance” program that would cover both U.S. and Mexican residents along the border. He also praised the Texas legislature’s bill to increase funding for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Given that Perry now considers Medicaid to be unconstitutional, the speech reads like it comes from another world — or an entirely different person:
There are other challenges that require a unified approach, especially in the area of health care. […] I urged legislators to pass a telemedicine pilot program that will enable, through technology, a sick border resident of limited financial means to receive care from a specialist hundreds of miles away.
But the effort to combat disease and illness requires greater cooperative efforts between our two nations. It is a simple truth that disease knows no boundaries. […] We have much to gain if we work together to expand preventative care, and treat maladies unique to this region.
Legislation authored by border legislators Pat Haggerty and Eddie Lucio establishes an important study that will look at the feasibility of bi-national health insurance. This study recognizes that the Mexican and U.S. sides of the border compose one region, and we must address health care problems throughout that region. That’s why I am also excited that Texas Secretary of State Henry Cuellar is working on an initiative that could extend the benefits of telemedicine to individuals living on the Mexican side of the border.
In the speech, Perry also extols the need for more preventative medicine and brags about how the legislature “expanded access to Medicaid for more low-income children” and increased Medicaid funding by $4 billion. His past praise for a “unified,” transnational health care program is a stark contrast with the view he expresses in his recent book Fed Up, where he posits that the Constitution forbids a “federally operated program of pensions” and “a federally operated program of health care.”
The remarks paint a refreshing picture of an enlightened, compassionate Perry who is informed about the benefits of preventative health care and Medicaid and has sympathy for poor border residents and undocumented immigrants.
The Perry campaign is, predictably, trying to downplay the speech. Campaign spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger tried to distance Perry from the proposal, saying, “A bill was passed by the Legislature that authorized a study to look into this issue, which ultimately concluded there were numerous barriers to accomplishing that idea, and the Legislature took no further action on this concept.”
Perry has also faced scrutiny this week for a 1993 letter he wrote as Texas Agricultural Commissioner praising then-First Lady Hillary Clinton for her efforts to reform the health care system. That legislation was brought down by mass GOP opposition and “Hillarycare” is still derided by conservatives as the precursor to “Obamacare.”
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/09/01/309632/flashback-perry-proposed-a-bi-national-health-insurance-plan-with-mexico-in-2001/
Report: Condi rejects Cheney’s ‘attack on my ( integrity’ ???????????)
Source: ABC News
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is hitting back at former Vice President Dick Cheney, who in his new book, “In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir,” reportedly accused her of being naïve during nuclear negotiations with North Korea and of misleading her superiors about the talks.
“I kept the president fully and completely informed about every in and out of the negotiations with the North Koreans,” Rice told Reuters today in her first comments on the matter.
“You can talk about policy differences without suggesting that your colleague somehow misled the president. You know, I don’t appreciate the attack on my integrity that that implies,” the former top American diplomat added in the interview.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/08/report-co… /
Karma!!!!!
It’s what’s for dinner!
say it with me..
\
Dick Cheney don’t like Black people
Dick Cheney does NOT like BLACK PEOPLE. The feeling is MUTUAL
Source: The Atlantic
Obama Rolls Out a Jobs Plan That Doesn’t Need Congress
The president has asked federal agencies to find solutions on their own. His message to lawmakers: We can do this without you.
………
On Wednesday, Obama took a now-familiar path in adopting a program–this time a jobs and infrastructure effort–that can happen entirely within his domain. Obama directed several federal agencies to identify “high-impact, job-creating infrastructure projects” that can be expedited now, without congressional approval.
One week before he will make a major address to Congress on jobs, Obama is making sure they know he plans to move forward without them. The president has also directed the Education Department to come up with a “Plan B” updating the 2001 No Child Left Behind law in the absence of congressional action. The message to Congress is clear: Do your work or we’ll do it for you.
Under Wednesday’s order, the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Transportation will each select up to three high-priority infrastructure projects that can be completed within the control and jurisdiction of the federal government. The effort is labeled as a “common-sense approach” to spurring job growth “in the near term.” In practical terms, that means speeding up the permitting and waiver processes for green-building or highway projects to get the government out of the way. One of businesses’ foremost complaints with government infrastructure projects is that the paperwork is too cumbersome and creates unnecessary delays, according to White House economic advisers.
Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/oba… /
Oh shit! He ain’t playing w/ these mofos! He means business!
Ametia,
You’re doing an outstanding job! Mad props! You rock, beautiful lady!
Thank God for all these good folks in helping you out in getting out the facts & doing some truth telling!
Thank you, SG2!
so good to see you, SG2!!
What the Boehner-Obama speechgate flap is really about
August 31, 2011 · Posted in John Boehner, Politics, President Barack Obama, Republicans
Republicans derive a benefit from their base by disrespecting the president.
The GOP base wants its leadership to not just oppose Barack Obama, but to go out of its way to obstruct, block, and if at all possible, show open contempt and disrespect for him. Republicans understand that their base will punish them for any hint of respectful, or worse, accommodating behavior toward Obama, and that they will be rewarded by their base for elevating the level of negative attention they give the president.
It’s a permutation of what happened with Bill Clinton. Republicans also derived a benefit, in the form of increased energy and enthusiasm among their base, whenever they did things designed to delegitimize Clinton as president. The problem for Republicans then was that their attacks on Clinton, up to and including calling him a murderer and a drug dealer, and impeaching him over a sex scandal, had the opposite effect with independent voters and moderates, who recoiled from their naked hatred of the commander in chief.
Today’s Republicans, who have been overrun by a hardcore tea party faction in addition to the resurgent religious right, have made the calculation that there is literally no bottom — and no level of disrespect so great that they will pay a price with white independents. They seem to have decided that there is nothing they can do to Barack Obama that will stop them winning in 2012, because they believe, based on 2010, that there are far more people, including independents, who hate Barack Obama for organic reasons that go beyond policy, and go to his person than the polling indicates. It’s pretty clear that Republicans have decided that they can so demonize Barack Obama the person, and raise enough questions about him in the minds of white independents, that the increased zeal their attacks produce among the tea party base will offset any indie backlash and put, say, a Rick Perry over the top, even over the objections of the middle.
That’s the calculation. And that, in my opinion, is what all of this is about.
Case in point: before House Speaker Boehner took the unprecedented step of publicly brushing back the president’s request to address a joint session of Congress next Wednesday, he was being egged on to do just that by none other than Rush Limbaugh. That Boehner decided to puff out his chest on this one is telling. He may or may not have been responding directly to Limbaugh, but as Richard Wolffe said on MSNBC tonight, there is clearly something different going on with this president. Democrats despised George W. Bush, Wolffe pointed out on “The Last Word,” but they never put on this kind of display of blatant disrespect when it came to the ordinary and traditional workings of the legislative and executive branches. And as much as Republicans undermined and sought to destroy Bill Clinton, at the end of the day, even Newt Gingrich was willing to go into the proverbial “back room” and cut deals with him.
There is no deal cutting between this Republican Party and this president, even when Boehner occasionally seems to want to. Republicans understand that they pay a political price with the tea party base if they cooperate with Obama, but they believe they pay no reciprocal price with independents by obstructing him.
And that brings us to the left. It turns out, that part of the reason the GOP leadership can take on board the idea that it will pay no price for crashing through rock bottom in its treatment of President Obama, is that there is a vocal part of the left, including black political leaders and “progressives” — who do it too. Obama has no backstop on the left, and no quarter that reacts loudly when he is attacked. There is no equivalent of RedState.com or the Free Republic or right wing talk radio, which used to go ballistic at the slightest hint of disrespect for President Bush. Quite the converse: the vocal left is as contemptuous of Obama as the vocal right, which clearly gives Republicans more room to push the envelope.
Al Sharpton made this point on his show tonight. Can you imagine, for instance, members of the Congressional Black Caucus erupting over this incredible rebuke of the president by Mr. Boehner, the way they’ve reacted to the tea party? Can you imagine them going ballistic over this in defense of the president? If you can’t, you’re probably right. Can you imagine the vocal left doing so? Can you imagine, say, Glenn Greenwald or John Aravosis or Adam Green of PCCC doing so? You really shouldn’t be able to, because that would never, ever happen.
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/08/what-the-boehner-obama-speechgate-flap-is-really-about/
Good Morning, everyone!
I am using Josh’s IPad and I don’t like it. It’s confusing.
Little Jay locked himself in the bedroom and I was so scared. I pleaded, “Jay, open the door and I will give you some bubble gum”. He said, I can’t open it. I pleaded again, unlock the door, baby, and you can have some bubble gum. He loves bubble gum! (smiles). Finally he unlocks it! Whew! But he’s now in big trouble!
I miss you guys! Keep hammering Rick Perry! Kick his ass but good!
Lawdy, it’s SG2! How woman. Good to see you this morning. We’ve missed you here.
LMBAO; you coaxed lil Jay outta the BR with bubble gum. Joe Bazooka would be so proud of you!
LOL! The bubble did it!
Tee hee hee; Jay’s just too cute! I know you don’t need any more drama, SG2. Glad Jay’s out and chewing away.
WHO’S WINNING AT THE ‘YANK YO STRING’ GAMES?
THE POTUS needs to show his balls and quit caving to the ReThugs. He’s starting to appear that his self esteem is low; and they see that weakness and are playing it. They want the public to see that if they yank his string, he will cave. The Rethugs are winning at the string game. POTUS didnt ask themto suggest a date to speak before Congress, he told them when he was coming, case closed. Then “they commenced to treat him like the grew up treating kneegrowes.
If no one showed up then oh well, the tv cameras would have a picture of the absent Rethugs. STAND UP STRAIGHT MR. PRESIDENT.
Hi Vette. Really not in the mood for this bashing and ball squeezing the POTUS here today. Your rant would fit in nicely on FDL or HuffPo.
Maybe PBO should have offered Boehner some bubble gum. :) The only thing keeping the President from standing up straight is all the people trying to pull him down. I believe his jobs speech is going to kick ass. And if he couples (already requested) jobs legislation with job-creating executive orders, there will be no reason for reasonable people not to support him.
September 01, 2011 8:00 AM
The Bart Simpsons of Congress’
Political AnimalBlog
September 01, 2011 8:00 AM
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/the_bart_simpsons_of_congress031930.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+washingtonmonthly%2Frss+%28Political+Animal+at+Washington+Monthly%29#
About a year ago, the American Enterprise Institute’s Norm Ornstein, not exactly a raging leftist, said John Boehner and his team “are becoming the Bart Simpsons of Congress, gleeful at smarmy and adolescent tactics and unable and unwilling to get serious.”
That was May 2010. They’ve gotten considerably worse since. Hell, I’ve been watching “The Simpsons” for more than two decades, and I’m convinced Bart’s capacity for seriousness far exceeds anything we’ve seen from congressional Republicans.
At a certain level, the dust-up over the scheduling of President Obama’s Joint Session speech on the economy could have been a non-story. The White House wanted Wednesday; the Speaker’s office wanted Thursday. The White House, willing to oblige, goes with Boehner’s preference. No big deal.
But as American politics unravels before our eyes, this helps capture the painful stupidity that now dominates the process.
Any hopes that a kinder, gentler bipartisan Washington would surface once Congress returns after Labor Day were summarily dashed on Wednesday when President Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner clashed over, of all things, the date and time of the president’s much-awaited speech to the nation about his proposal to increase jobs and fix the economy.
In a surreal volley of letters, each released to the news media as soon as it was sent, Mr. Boehner rejected a request from the president to address a joint session of Congress next Wednesday at 8 p.m. — the same night that a Republican presidential debate is scheduled.
In an extraordinary turn, the House speaker fired back his own letter to the president saying, in a word, no. Might the president be able to reschedule for the following night, Sept. 8?
For several hours, the day turned into a very public game of chicken.
White House officials actually had to engage in talks with the Speaker’s office into the night, before announcing the change to Thursday.
Remember, this is just about picking the date for the speech. It’s like arguing about the shape of the table before sitting down for negotiations. What possible chance is there for Washington to approve meaningful economic legislation if there’s a dramatic showdown over scheduling? That’s a rhetorical question; the chances are zero.
Accounts differ as to exactly how this fiasco occurred, but it appears the White House consulted with congressional leaders before the announcement and, according to Democrats, chose Wednesday. Republican leaders didn’t object at the time, which the White House interpreted as acceptance. GOP officials then said they hadn’t actually agreed to Wednesday, leading to Boehner’s letter yesterday afternoon.
It was, according congressional historians, the first time in American history the president requested an audience with a Joint Session, only to have the Speaker balk.
By agreeing to Boehner’s preferred day, the White House at least prevents a prolonged argument about process. Because Washington rules dictate that there must be a “winner” in every dispute, the Speaker gets to gloat this morning, but the fact remains Boehner still looks small and petty, picking an unnecessary fight. That he claimed to be speaking “on behalf of the bipartisan leadership and membership of both the House and the Senate,” when he clearly was not, only makes him look slightly worse. If President Obama values being seen as “the adult in the room,” this little mess reinforced the perception.
But that doesn’t make yesterday’s developments any less ridiculous. If Americans wanted a responsible Congress, ready and willing to act in the nation’s interest, and able to work constructively in response to critical challenges, they made a tragic mistake in November 2010. Yesterday’s largely inconsequential fiasco will fade away soon enough, but it’s symbolic of a larger problem: voters elected far-right children to run the legislative branch of government.
REPEAT
THIS
Political AnimalBlog
September 01, 2011 8:45 AM
Cantor caving on aid callousness? Not yet
By Steve Benen
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) hasn’t exactly been shy about his demands for emergency disaster assistance: if Democrats want to help communities hit by a natural disaster, Republicans will block the aid unless accept comparable spending cuts.
But how far is he willing to go with this strategy? On Monday, Cantor was unyielding. Yesterday, the Majority Leader appeared to be hedging.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Wednesday amplified vows that Congress will provide emergency aid to victims of Hurricane Irene, but he declined to say whether Republicans will insist the funding be offset with cuts elsewhere.
“I believe there’s an appropriate federal role, and the monies will be there,” Cantor told reporters in his district, according to the Richmond Times Dispatch.
In a tweet later in the day, he doubled down on that promise.
“As I’ve said continuously, we will find the monies for disaster relief,” he said.
Reinforcing the perception that Cantor may not be willing to invest too heavily in this hostage strategy, after swearing up and down the emergency funding will be there for victims, his office also said Congress should “find offsets whenever possible.” The word “whenever” suggests the Majority Leader isn’t exactly committed to finding dollar-for-dollar cuts anytime soon.
But there’s still some ambiguity here. Cantor also told reporters yesterday about disaster aid, “There are no strings attached. We found the money.”
Confused yet?
Cantor is apparently still talking about the $1 billion in disaster aid House Republicans approved in May, paying for it by cutting funds for a renewable energy program. Whether the Majority Leader understands what he’s saying or not is unclear, but the costs associated with Hurricane Irene will far exceed $1 billion. For that matter, the House bill is problematic to the Senate and White House anyway, and Irene victims don’t have time for prolonged negotiations over the spending bill.
The Majority Leader, at least publicly, is signaling progress, but behind the scenes, we’re actually looking at yet more gridlock. Worse, it’s another GOP-generated political breakdown that seems likely to last a while.
So, the Majority Leader seems to be hedging a bit on his offset demands, but approval of disaster relief is still not close, and headlines yesterday that said Cantor had already given in weren’t quite right. As long as Cantor keeps playing games with emergency aid, necessary funding will be delayed.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/cantor_caving_on_aid_callousne031932.php
How Rick Perry Got Rich
Jim Geraghty asks a piercing question today: If Rick Perry is as dumb as his detractors say, how’d he get rich?
Wait a minute, you may say: I thought Perry spent his career in politics? Discharged from the Air Force in 1977 aged 27, he was elected to the Texas House of Representatives seven years later, in 1984. At that time, the Perry family reported income of $45,000, largely from Mrs. Perry’s work as a nurse.
Rick Perry served in the legislature until elected Agriculture Commissioner in 1990. He climbed the ladder to Lt. Governor in 1998, then ascended in the governorship after George W. Bush was elected president in 2000.
Now it’s 2011, and Perry reports a net worth of $2.8 million. How’d he do it?
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram tells the story.
Perry made his money in real estate through deals like this:
Back in 1993, there was a piece of ground that computer billionaire Michael Dell needed to connect his new house near Austin to city water mains. Dell neglected to appreciate the land’s importance. But Perry did discern it. He bought the land for less than $120,000 – then sold it to Dell two years later for a $343,000 profit. Uncanny. True, some detractors have wondered whether the sale was entirely on the level:
Texas Democrats have repeatedly questioned the sale over the years, in part because Mike Toomey – an influential lobbyist who would later become Perry’s chief of staff – closed the deal for Perry while Perry was out of town. Perry has always maintained he didn’t know that the land would be so valuable to Dell when he purchased the property.
Perry repeated similarly shrewd investments again and again in the years ahead.
Look at this transaction from the 2000s. A Texas real estate developer sells land to a Texas state senator – the senator who happened to represent the development’s district. The state senator sold the land to Gov. Perry. Gov. Perry then sold then land – back to the real estate developer’s business partner. Perry scored a profit of $823,000. Tidy. And how remarkable that Perry and his state senator friend could see a value proposition that the two professional real estate developers overlooked.
So it goes through investments in stock, load, and energy properties. Perry just kept seeing things that other people apparently didn’t.
Even more impressive: how Perry managed to find the time. There he was, governor of the second biggest state in the country, creating jobs from morning to night. Yet somehow he also was able to scour the vast landscape of Texas for under-appreciated little parcels of land with the potential to triple or quadruple in value in just a few months.
Geraghty is right. Not “dumb.” Another word, perhaps.
http://www.frumforum.com/how-rick-perry-got-rich
Rick Perry’s Land Deals: Why They Matter
Jim Geraghty replies to our blogposts on Texas Governor Rick Perry’s uncannily successful land dealings:
Last year the Democrat gubernatorial candidate in Texas, Bill White, tried to make an issue of it, and Texans largely yawned. Some of these deals go back to Perry’s time as Texas Agriculture Commissioner in the early 1990s. Fascinatingly, through six statewide general election races in addition to some brutal primary fights (even by Texas standards), none of Perry’s rivals have managed to get the accusations to stick or persuaded voters that anything corrupt occurred. Throughout the 1990s, the Texas Attorney General was Dan Morales, a Democrat, who would seemingly have no partisan reluctance about investigating a bribery accusation of a Republican state officeholder.
Perhaps it is voter cynicism. Perhaps the cacophony of negative attacks in Texas politics makes voters tune out or discount all charges. Or perhaps, as Perry claims, he “did everything open and honest, at arm’s length” and there’s not enough there to justify charges, or even implicit suggestions, of corruption.
Some thoughts in reply:
1) This sequence of posts was inspired by the following remark of Jim’s in his indispensable Morning Jolt email:
Look, I have no idea whether Rick Perry is the kind of guy who would get confused if you invited him into the Oval Office and told him to sit in the corner. I do know that he’s been a C-130 pilot, has made a fortune in real estate, and has been elected governor of Texas three times.
People have been talking for years about Perry’s land dealings, but this was the first time I’d ever seen them cited as an affirmative credential rather than a troubling question mark.
2) I do not suggest that Perry’s deals are corrupt. As Jim says, “corruption” is a term with a legal meaning: an official takes money in exchange for a political favor. Nobody has ever shown Gov. Perry to have performed any favors for those with whom he has done profitable land business. Nobody has advanced evidence that any law has been broken.
3) At the same time, it’s asking a lot of the voters to believe that Gov. Perry scored these successes by acumen alone. The coincidences just pile up too thick.
So what?
Rick Perry is not the first politician to emerge from public life a lot richer than he started.
If he was offered access to sweetheart deals, again, he’s not the first to accept: remember Hillary Clinton and her cattle futures?
Many governors would regard active land investment as inconsistent with their public duties, even absent insider information and sweetheart deals. Haley Barbour of Mississippi put his wealth into a blind trust when he became governor. Mitt Romney not only put his assets into a blind trust during his governorship – but then forbade his trust to invest in Massachusetts municipal bonds, to avert any appearance of impropriety.
And no, it’s not just a Texas thing: George W. Bush put his assets in a blind trust when he became governor in 1994.
There’s more going on here than an issue of appearance of impropriety. There’s also a question about where a politician invests his time and energy. Successful real estate investing is difficult and time-consuming. Rick Perry may claim that his investments did not benefit from insider information and special favors, and as Jim notes, Texas voters have accepted his story sufficiently to elect and re-elect him. But Perry obviously cannot claim to have been 100% focused on Texas business during his many years in office.
At a minimum, the attempt to reinvent Perry’s business career as a rebuttal to negative allegations about Perry’s brainpower is … let’s say … ill-advised. Perry’s real-estate fortune is one of those subjects about which you’d expect Perry supporters to take the view: the less said, the better.
http://www.frumforum.com/rick-perrys-not-illegal-land-deals#more-102799
Love how ALL the DIRT is surfacing on this creep PERRY.
Thank You, America!’By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: August 31, 2011
Americans are not often heroes in the Arab world, but as nonstop celebrations unfold here in the Libyan capital I keep running into ordinary people who learn where I’m from and then fervently repeat variants of the same phrase: “Thank you, America!”
As I was walking back from Green Square (now renamed “Martyrs’ Square”) to my hotel on Wednesday morning, a car draped in the victorious Libyan flag pulled up and offered me a lift. “I just want you to feel welcome here,” explained the driver, Sufian al-Gariani, a 21-year-old salesman. He beamed when he heard where I was from and declared: “Thank you, Americans. Thank you, President Obama.”
The hard work in Libya is only just beginning, and it’ll be a Herculean challenge to knit together tribal divisions and nurture democracy in a nation where all civil society has been squelched. The Libyan experiment could yet fail. Yet let’s also savor a historic moment: This was a rare military intervention for humanitarian reasons, and it has succeeded. So far.
President Obama took a huge political risk, averted a massacre and helped topple an odious regime. To me, the lesson is not that we should barge into Syria or Yemen — I don’t think we should — but that on rare occasions military force can advance human rights. Libya has so far been a model of such an intervention.
I drove to Tripoli from Tunisia, and the roads in some places are still insecure. Nervous rebels — occasionally child soldiers — operate frequent checkpoints, and there are long lines for gasoline.
Yet there has been great progress in the last few days. More roads and shops are opening, and Tripoli now feels reasonably safe. The biggest menace comes not from Qaddafi militias but from rebels firing automatic weapons into the air in celebration.
Most strikingly, there has been almost no looting, and little apparent retaliation against the families of loyalists to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. People have grabbed grenade-launchers from arsenals, but they haven’t helped themselves to private shops or homes (with rare exceptions, such as the homes of the Qaddafi family).
Pro-Americanism now is ubiquitous. I was particularly moved by a rebel soldier near Zuwarah in the west who asked me if New York City was safe. When I looked puzzled, he explained: “Irene. The hurricane.” And he asked how he could help.
“Without America, we would not be here,” Ismael Taweel, a businessman, told me as he stood by Martyrs’ Square with a huge grin on his face. “I hope there will be more relations between Libya and America now,” he added. That’s a common refrain: Libyans are hungry to rejoin the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/01/opinion/kristof-from-libyans-thank-you-america.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
The Arrogant John Boehner: Jobs Address Needs to Wait for Vacationing Congress to Ease Back to DC
By now, you have all heard it: Republican Speaker John Boehner has asked the President to postpone his jobs address from September 7, the first day Congress gets back to DC. The White House is saying that they in fact consulted Boehner’s office before sending the President’s request, and at the time Boehner raised no objections. But John Boehner doesn’t want a jobs speech. The official reason he’s showing is because, oh, you know, Congress is just going to come back from its long summer vacation on the day, and uhh, they need to ease into their part time job with a full time salary and benefits paid for by the American taxpayer. No, I’m not kidding. Here’s what the Speaker actually said in his letter:
[A]s the Majority Leader announced more than a month ago, the House will not be in session until Wednesday, September 7, with votes at 6:30 that evening. With the significant amount of time – typically more than three hours – that is required to allow for a security sweep of the House Chamber before receiving a President, it is my recommendation that your address be held on the following evening, when we can ensure there will be no parliamentary or logistical impediments that might detract from your remarks.
I mean, really? That’s Boehner’s official response to the President’s request to address the Congress? His official response is basically that “we’re too busy and important to move our behinds and move up or reschedule a vote so that the American people can hear what the President of the United States has to say about creating jobs in an economy like this?” His official response is basically that an address on the most important issue of this time needs to wait so Congress can ease back into session after their vacation? REALLY?
Of course we all know the real reason why he suddenly changed his mind: because there is a Republican presidential dog-and-pony-show, I mean debate, scheduled the night of September 7, when President Obama has asked to address a joint session of Congress.
This should end any doubts whatsoever that the Republicans in the House are not just disrespecting the office of the President of the United States, they are insulting the American people. How many of you are just coming out of a one-month vacation? If you are, how many of you have the luxury to ease into your job when you go back and not actually do any work till, you know, 6:30 pm? That is, if you are even lucky enough to have a job. And here is the Republican Speaker of the House, basically telling us all to go to hell, because a jobs address by the President might pose minor inconveniences for the schedule of the body that just spent a month vacationing on the taxpayer dime. And you thought they cared about your jobs. Feh.
And just what is the response of the Republican presidential candidates, who have been clamoring for the President to call Congress back to session ahead of time so they can get to work on jobs? Now the Speaker of the House from your party is telling the President he can’t address jobs even on the day Congress is back.
Here are some suggestions, Mr. Speaker. Bring the House back a day early if you need to. Reschedule the damn votes. Do what you need to do to receive the President at the time he requested. Not just because the President’s time is valuable, although it is. But because the American people should not have to put up with the whims of Congress’ lavish vacation schedule that we pay for while we are hurting. Let the President speak!
——————————————————————————–
QUICK UPDATE: Everyone, please listen carefully. No one is particularly happy that the President was forced to push the speech back according to Boehner’s demand. But there are a couple of things we all need to keep in mind. First, the President is not a member of Congress, and the Speaker has near unitary powers over the schedule of the House. The President has to be invited to speak. He can’t just go on capitol hill and speak. It is not like the President had a choice. Just as members of Congress can’t just go up to the White House and demand to meet with the President on any given day, neither can the President just march down to Congress and demand to speak when he’s not scheduled.
Second, that Boehner forced this move only speaks more to Boehner’s petulance and his arrogance. It demonstrates the Republican lack of concern for American jobs. Let’s keep our eyes on that ball, folks. Politically, this is a potent weapon for the President and the Democrats. The media can say what they want, but remember that the media has pushed plenty that “compromise” means weakness and yet somehow, as I noted yesterday, compromise broke through as the catchphrase among voters. Have faith in this president. He’s not about to mess it up.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/arrogant-john-boehner-jobs-address.html#comment-300115941
Please KNOW that this is the ONLY way the GOP can ever win ELECTIONS, BY STEALING THEM, SUPPRESSING VOTES…
Obama’s paradox problem
By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: August 31
Call it the Party-of-Government Paradox: If the nation’s capital looks dysfunctional, it will come back to hurt President Obama and the Democrats, even if the Republicans are primarily responsible for the dysfunction.
Then there is the Bipartisanship Paradox: No matter how far the president bends over backward to appeal to or appease the Republicans — no matter how nice, conciliatory, friendly or reasonable he tries to be — voters will judge him according to the results. And the evidence since 2009 is that accommodation won’t get Obama much anyway.
This creates the Election Paradox: Up to a point, Republicans in Congress can afford to let their own ratings fall well below the president’s, as long as they drag him further into negative territory. If the president’s ratings are poor next year, Democrats won’t be able to defeat enough Republicans to take back the House and hold the Senate. The GOP can win if the mood is terribly negative toward Washington because voters see Obama as the man in charge.
Everything the Republicans are doing makes sense in light of the three paradoxes, even though, by the numbers, they have been the big losers from the summer’s debt-ceiling fiasco and their broader refusal to cooperate with Obama.
A Pew Research Center survey released last week showed Obama with a 49 percent disapproval rating, but Congress with a 70 percent unfavorable rating. So Obama is still “ahead.” The Democrats are also better regarded than the Republicans — or, perhaps more accurately, less poorly regarded. “Only” 50 percent of respondents had an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party; 59 percent had an unfavorable view of the Republican Party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-paradox-problem/2011/08/31/gIQAVwtxsJ_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
Influence Industry
Dan Eggen & T.W. Farnam SEC proposal would disclose political donations by public companies
By T.W. Farnam, Published: August 31
A proposal before the Securities and Exchange Commission that would require public companies to disclose political contributions has drawn some favorable comments from investors, but it won’t go a long way in meeting the demands of those advocating for more transparency in political fundraising.
A group of 10 law professors filed a formal petition asking the commission to require corporations to list political contributions in annual proxy statements sent to shareholders. The professors cite a growing interest among shareholders for disclosure of political contributions.
http://3chicspolitico.com/2011/09/01/serendipity-soul-thursday-open-thread-21/
Good Morning, Everyone :)
Good Morning, rikyrah, & Everyone! :-)