Tuesday Open Thread

Prince Rogers Nelson (born June 7, 1958), often known simply as Prince, is an American singer, songwriter, musician, and actor. Prince has produced ten platinum albums and thirty Top 40 singles during his career.[1] Prince founded his own recording studio and label; writing, self-producing and playing most, or all, of the instruments on his recordings.[1] In addition, Prince has been a “talent promoter” for the careers of Sheila E., Carmen Electra, The Time and Vanity 6,[1] and his songs have been recorded by these artists and others (including Chaka Khan, The Bangles, and Sinéad O’Connor).

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.

72 Responses to Tuesday Open Thread

  1. Arizona Immigration Law Mastermind Goes Down In Recall Fight


    State Sen. Russell Pearce, the controversial architect of Arizona’s immigration law, was voted out of office on Tuesday evening in a special recall election. He was defeated by Jerry Lewis, a fellow Republican who does not support the immigration crackdown and has vowed to reject gifts from special interest groups and work to ban gifts for legislators.

    Lewis won with roughly 54 percent of the vote, state officials announced on Tuesday evening.

    Pearce is the top Republican in the state senate, and a 10-year state legislator. He pioneered S.B. 1070, an immigration law passed in Arizona in 2010 that quickly prompted a lawsuit from the federal government. The law, which would have allowed police to ask for immigration papers at stops if they had “reasonable suspicion” someone was undocumented, was predominantly blocked before it went into effect.

  2. [wpvideo BqDjekfC]

  3. Ametia says:

    Rikyrah, go to the Rick Perry thread; thre’s a message for you from Field. LOL

  4. rikyrah says:

    good news from Ohio, Maine and Mississippi tonight :)

    • Ametia says:

      Early results indicate Election Day voter registration restored

      By Eric Russell, BDN Staff
      Posted Nov. 08, 2011, at 9:46 p.m.

      PORTLAND, Maine — Early results on Tuesday suggested that Mainers were on their way to overturning a recently passed law that banned voters from registering on Election Day.

      Question 1 asked: “Do you want to reject the section of Chapter 399 of the Public Laws of 2011 that requires new voters to register to vote at least two business days prior to an election?”

      With 173 of 594 precincts reporting as of 9:30 p.m., the “Yes” side was leading 60 percent to 40 percent. Most of the early returns were from rural parts of the state.

      Dozens of Yes on 1 volunteers gathered at Bayside Bowl in Portland and watched the results trickle in on laptops. The mood was festive, even shortly after the polls closed.

      Read more: http://bangordailynews.com/2011/11/08/politics/early-re

  5. Breaking News:Controversial Ohio Anti-Union Law Defeated By Voters

  6. ThinkProgress:

    UPDATE: With about 1/3 of the precincts reporting, Mississippi personhood amendment failing 60/40

  7. BREAKING: AP confirms Maine has voted to re-instate same day registration.

  8. Ametia says:

    Source: TMZ

    Rap legend Heavy D — one of the most influential rappers of the ’90s — died earlier today … TMZ has learned.

    Heavy D — real name Dwight Arrington Myers — was rushed to an L.A. hospital around noon today … and was pronounced dead at the hospital at 1 PM. He was 44 years old.

    We’ve learned a 911 call was placed from Heavy’s Beverly Hills home around 11:25 AM to report an unconscious male on the walkway .

    When help arrived, we’re told Heavy D was conscious and speaking — and was transported to a nearby hospital.

    Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2011/11/08/heavy-d-dead/#.Trm0crLpfo

  9. Ametia says:

    Kerry To Colleagues: Don’t Nullify Net Neutrality
    Says Nullifying Rule Would Discourage Investment, Put Health, Safety Rules At Risk
    John Eggerton — Multichannel News, 11/4/2011 3:33:36 PM

    According to a copy of the letter, Senate Communications Subcommittee chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) Friday asked his colleagues to vote against the Congressional Review Act resolution to nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality rules, which could get a vote on the Senate floor next week.
    It has already passed the Republican-controlled House, but has an uphill slog in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
    In the letter, Kerry says that not only would nullifying the rule signal Congress was prepared to deny independent regulators the ability to execute the law, “but it would discourage investment in the next Google or Amazon and put at risk health and safety rules, environmental protections, worker rights” and “every other public protection that our agencies enforce that some in Congress do not like.” Obviously that last part was a reference to the precedent it could set for Congress overturning regulations.
    The nullification route is an unusual legislative gambit — last used in the media space by then Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan to try and block media ownership rule changes — but Congress does have the power to overturn the decisions of independent regulatory agencies via that route.
    The FCC’s rules expanding and codifying its internet openness principles are scheduled to go into effect Nov. 21, but have also been challenged in court by phone company Verizon and public interest groups — the latter because the rules were not extended to wireless broadband, but not cable operators — the National Cable & Telecommunications Association was involved in the negotiations that produced the compromise regs approved last December, though industry players were essentially choosing the lesser of two evils, the greater being the reclassification of Internet access as a telecom service subject to some common carrier regs.
    Kerry said that for those who argue the FCC exceeded its authority in adopting the regs, “a court will make that decision,” then proceeded to make the case himself, concluding that the FCC “not only has the authority to protect the Open Internet, but the responsibility to do so.” Kerry said if the regs were blocked, “every innovator on the Internet will be exposed to the risk that before they innovate they would have to ask ‘mother may I’ to the companies that control access to the users on the other end of the line.”
    Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) has been pushing the nullification resolution, and indicated earlier this week she had the support to at least bring it to a vote on the floor.


  10. Ametia says:

    A Record Year for Billion-Dollar Disasters
    Posted on 11/08/2011 at 3:10 pm by JM Ashby

    The growing trend between 1980 and 2010 is obviously that major natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more costly, and that trend has been unrelenting in 2011, with a new record being set for the number of billion-dollar disasters with two months still remaining in the year.
    It’s time to add another billion-dollar weather disaster to the growing 2011 total of these costly disasters: the extraordinary early-season Northeast U.S. snowstorm of October 29, which dumped up to 32 inches of snow, brought winds gusts of 70 mph to the coast, and killed at least 22 people…. The damage estimate in Connecticut alone is $3 billion, far more than the damage Hurricane Irene did to the state. Hundreds of thousands still remain without power a week after the storm, with full electricity not expected to be restored until Monday.


  11. Ametia says:

    hat tip What is Working. Thank you!

  12. rikyrah says:

    The Third Woman
    The Daily has identified one of the women who filed harassment complaints against Herman Cain. She sounds like the usual leftist liar:

    Karen Kraushaar, a 55-year-old former journalist and seasoned government spokeswoman who served on the front lines of the Elian Gonzalez custody battle, is a competitive equestrian and lover of golden retrievers. She has been married for more than two decades.

    “She wouldn’t be the type to make false allegations,” brother-in-law Ned Kraushaar, a Georgia software consultant, told The Daily. “This happened [more than] 10 years ago. It’s not like she wanted to try and hurt the Republican Party.”

    I believe that a man capable of abusing power and then lying about it categorically has no place in public office. That’s why I couldn’t endorse Clinton in 1996, despite my support for much of his substantive record. There is nothing more central to the integrity of the body politic than a record of abusing power and lying about it.


  13. rikyrah says:

    Bobo Comes Around
    by John Cole

    Bobo fully embraces the Romney today, giving him not only a kiss on the lips with tongue, but a tug job:

    In the Marx Brothers movie that is the Republican presidential race, Mitt Romney is Zeppo. He doesn’t spin out one-liners. He’s not the rambunctious one. He’s just the earnest, good-looking guy who wants to be appreciated.

    But Romney continues to run an impressive presidential campaign. Last week, while the Twitterverse was entranced by Herman Cain, Romney delivered his most important speech yet. It was politically astute and substantively bold, a quality you don’t automatically associate with the Romney campaign. Romney grasped the toughest issue — how to reform entitlements to avoid a fiscal catastrophe — and he sketched out a sophisticated way to address it.

    No one could have predicted that what would bring Bobo around would be screwing the middle class. It gets worse:

    Romney proposed keeping Medicare just as it is for everybody currently in or close to the system. But he would slowly introduce a premium support system, with less-affluent beneficiaries receiving more support than more-affluent ones.

    Many reporters claimed that the Romney approach is similar to the Paul Ryan plan. It’s actually closer to the plan that Pete Domenici, a former Republican senator, and Alice Rivlin, a former Clinton budget chief, devised. Romney would create a premium support system, but he would also give seniors the option of a government-run insurance plan that works a lot like the current fee-for-service Medicare.

    This is politically smart because Democrats cannot legitimately charge that Romney is “ending Medicare.” But it is also substantively smart because, while people like me believe that intense competition among private insurers will lead to more innovation and cost reduction, we can’t really be sure. The Romney approach sets up a prudent experiment. If real competition works, seniors will migrate toward that. If it doesn’t, seniors will stay in Medicare and conservatives will have a lot of rethinking to do.

    It sounds like the Ryan plan because it is- just switch the phrase “premium support” with the word “voucher.” And no serious plan exempts current Medicare recipients- if it is going to work, make it work for everyone. No more of this intergenerational bribery.

    I’ll just leave this space blank for the inevitable Charles Pierce link


  14. rikyrah says:

    Court Orders Trial Over Texas Redistricting Plan Signed By Rick Perry
    Ryan J. Reilly November 8, 2011, 1:15 PM

    A panel of judges in Washington, D.C. has ordered that there should be a trial on the Texas redistricting maps signed by Gov. Rick Perry, denying the state’s request to approve the maps DOJ argues limit the power of Hispanic voters.

    “Having carefully considered the entire record and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes that the State of Texas used an improper standard or methodology to determine which districts afford minority voters the ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice and that there are material issues of fact in dispute that prevent this Court from entering declaratory judgment that the three redistricting plans meet the requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” the ruling stated.

    The Justice Department had argued that there was “ample circumstantial evidence” that both the congressional and state representative redistricting maps had not only the effect but the intent of limiting the voting power of Hispanic voters.


  15. rikyrah says:

    November 08, 2011 2:00 PM

    Putting the ‘sabotage’ question to the public

    By Steve Benen

    We’ve been exploring for nearly a year the “sabotage” question: are Republicans trying to hurt the nation’s economy on purpose, simply to undermine the Obama presidency?

    Over the last few months, the charge has become more common and more mainstream, with the question being raised by leading officials in President Obama’s re-election team, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, and a growing number of pundits and political observers.

    Pollsters, however, have shied away from the question — until very recently. Today, a new survey from Public Policy Polling, commissioned by Daily Kos and SEIU, put the question to respondents nationwide.

    Q: Do you think the Republicans are intentionally stalling efforts to jumpstart the economy to insure that Barack Obama is not reelected or not?”

    Yes: 50%
    No: 41%
    Unsure: 10%

    This comes on the heels on a very similar poll conducted solely in Florida, which produced nearly identical responses. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released yesterday also found 50% of Americans nationwide agree with the statement that President Obama is “making a good faith effort to deal with the country’s economic problems, but the Republicans in Congress are playing politics by blocking his proposals.”

    The polls come at the same time as a New York Times editorial that stated, simply as an obvious fact, that congressional Republicans are “committed to doing nothing” to improve the economy “in the hopes that the faltering economy will cost President Obama his job in 2012.”

    Taken together, this is a rather striking shift.. We’re talking about the American mainstream accepting the idea that a major political party, for the first time since the Civil War, actively trying to undermine the strength of the United States in a time of economic crisis. At a fundamental level, that is, or at least should be, an incredible scandal. As Brian Beutler put it, “[I]f the notion that elected Republicans are blocking economic recovery for political gain becomes a mainstream proposition, they’ve got big trouble.”

    A lot will depend on how Americans come to think of this. At this point, as we discussed yesterday, beliefs about “sabotage” do not necessarily translate into a political boost for the White House. The degree of national cynicism is so intense, many Americans may assume Republicans are sabotaging the national economy, but take their frustrations out on President Obama anyway.

    Voters’ understanding of the political process is severely limited, and many Americans likely fail to appreciate the role Congress must play in policymaking. There are no doubt plenty of voters thinking, “Sure, Republicans are sabotaging the economy, but why can’t Obama just go around them?” unaware of the fact that, on a grand scale, this isn’t an option.

    That said, it’s also easy to imagine the sabotage question undermining Republican support in 2012, even if it’s not automatic. Are Americans prepared to reward a party that cares more about power and politics than the nation’s well being? The more Democrats push the question into the public bloodstream, and get voters thinking about the impact of unprecedented GOP tactics, the better it will be for Dems’ electoral efforts.


  16. rikyrah says:

    Tuesday, November 8, 2011
    Mittens Introduces His Jobs Plan
    Posted by Zandar

    Mitt Romney has a great idea to help the economy and unemployment should he end up President in 2013: fire a whole crapload of government employees.

    Multimillionaire Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R) told employees at a steel fabrication plant on Monday that government employees “are making a lot more money than we are.”

    Who’s this “we” you speak of, Daddy Warbucks?

    Wearing his best plaid work shirt and Tommy Bahama blue jeans, the candidate explained to workers at Giese Manufacturing that he would slash the number of federal employees if elected.

    “We have to cut back on the scale of the federal government,” Romney declared. “And for me that will start by reducing federal employees by 10 percent. You do that through attrition.”

    “And then something else that is just as important, and that’s to make sure the people who work for government don’t get better pay and better benefits than people that work in the private sector.”

    Yes let’s fire a bunch of people and cut their salaries. This will make people want to work for the government. PS, Government employees like Congresspeople and Presidents? Free health care. You ever notice how Republicans are always saying “pull yourself up by your bootstraps, it’s your responsibility” and then say “We must pull those other people down to your level!” at the same time?

    It’s like they enjoy people being poor and out of work. It makes us globally competitive, you see.


  17. rikyrah says:

    Right-Wing Judge Okays Mandate
    by BooMan
    Tue Nov 8th, 2011 at 12:48:10 PM EST

    If Laurence Silberman says that the health care mandate is constitutional then there is probably little hope that the Supreme Court will rule otherwise. Let’s review Sliberman’s record:

    Silberman’s sojourn in the world of political scandal began during the run-up to the 1980 presidential election when, as a member of Ronald Reagan’s campaign staff, he, along with Robert C. McFarlane, a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Richard V. Allen, Reagan’s chief foreign policy representative, met with a man claiming to be an Iranian government emissary. The Iranian offered to delay the release of the 52 American hostages being held in Tehran until after the election — thus contributing to Carter’s defeat — in exchange for arms.
    A controversy continues to rage over whether the Reagan team made a bargain with the Iranians, as alleged by Gary Sick, a former National Security Council aide in the Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations who now teaches at Columbia University. Yet no one denies that the meeting Silberman was at took place, and although Silberman has said the Iranian’s offer was immediately rejected, none of the three Reagan operatives ever told the Carter administration what had happened. McFarlane, Allen and Silberman have all since insisted that they don’t know the name of the Iranian man they met with.

    After working for Reagan’s election, Silberman was rewarded with an appointment to the D.C. Court of Appeals, the second most powerful court in the country. After the Iran-contra scandal, he was part of a three-judge panel that voted 2-to-1 to reverse Oliver North’s felony conviction.

    I’m going to get back to the October Surprise in a moment, but I want to note that Judge Silberman is still serving on the D.C. Court of Appeals, and he wrote the opinion released today upholding the constitutionality of insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

    “Congress, which would, in our minds, clearly have the power to impose insurance purchased conditions on persons who appeared at a hospital for medical services — as rather useless as that would be — is merely imposing the mandate in reasonable anticipation of virtually inevitable future transactions in interstate commerce,” Judge Laurence Silberman wrote in the 2-1 opinion.

    Now, getting back to the October Surprise, there were congressional investigations in both the House and Senate that both concluded that there was no credible evidence that Reagan’s people made a deal with the ayatollahs where the American hostages’ ordeal would be extended past the 1980 presidential election in return for favors when Reagan took office.

    However, Congress received some interesting information just three days before the House released their report.


  18. rikyrah says:

    Sarkozy tells Obama Netanyahu is a “liar”
    French President Nicolas Sarkozy branded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a liar” in a private conversation with President Barack Obama that was accidentally broadcast to journalists during last week’s G20 summit in Cannes.

    “I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar,” Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

    “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you,” Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.

    The technical gaffe is likely to cause great embarrassment to all three leaders as they look to work together to intensify international pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

    The conversation was not initially reported by the small group of journalists who overheard it because it was considered private and off-the-record. But the comments have since emerged on French websites and can be confirmed by Reuters.

    White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on the conversation when asked by reporters traveling with Obama to an event in Philadelphia.

    Obama’s apparent failure to defend Netanyahu is likely to be leapt on by his Republican foes, who are looking to unseat him in next year’s presidential election and have portrayed him as hostile to Israel, Washington’s closest ally in the region.

    Pushing Netanyahu risks alienating Israel’s strong base of support among the U.S. public and in Congress.

    Netanyahu’s office declined immediate comment.


  19. rikyrah says:

    They’re Just Not That Into Him, Are They?

    “Mitt Romney is not the George W. Bush of 2012 — he is the Harriet Miers of 2012, only conservative because a few conservative grand pooh-bahs tell us Mitt Romney is conservative and for no other reason. That is precisely why Mitt Romney will not win in 2012. But no worry, once he loses, Republican establishment types will blame conservatives for not doing enough for Mitt Romney, never mind that Mitt Romney has never been able to sell himself to more than 25% of the GOP voters. It’s not his fault though, it is the 75%’s fault.

    Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. And his general election campaign will be an utter disaster for conservatives as he takes the GOP down with him and burns up what it means to be a conservative in the process,” – Erick Erickson.


  20. rikyrah says:

    November 08, 2011 10:55 AM

    The blame game, redux

    By Steve Benen

    The new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows a frustrated public, unhappy with nearly everyone. And yet, the same poll shows President Obama leading all of his Republican rivals.

    Why is that? Part of it probably has something to do with 71% of Americans liking the president personally, but digging through the internals (pdf), two other questions stood out.

    “Who is most to blame for current economic problems: Wall Street bankers, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama?”

    Wall Street Bankers: 36%
    George W. Bush: 34%
    Barack Obama: 21%

    this is why the MSM IS SO MAD. FOLKS CAN SEE THE TRUTH.

    “When you think about the current economic conditions, do you feel that this is a situation that Barack Obama has inherited or is this a situation his policies are mostly responsible for?”

    Situation Obama inherited: 60%
    Situation Obama’s policies mostly responsible for: 28%
    Some of both: 9%

    These results have been pretty consistent for a long while. The public isn’t satisfied with the president’s performance, and they’re not at all convinced that his efforts have improved conditions, but ultimately, voters just don’t blame him for the mess he didn’t make.


  21. rikyrah says:

    November 08, 2011 11:25 AM

    What the right considers ‘inherently meaningless’

    By Steve Benen

    When the public learned last week of the sexual-harassment allegations levied against Herman Cain, the Republican responses varied a bit. Some blamed the media, some blamed racism, and some blamed both.

    But there was a related concern raised by conservatives about the nature of the allegations themselves. On Fox News, for example, Greg Gutfeld called the claims against Cain “inherently meaningless.”

    It struck me as an interesting choice of words. If Republicans wanted to characterize the allegations as baseless and without merit, fine. But to call them “inherently meaningless” is to suggest that accusing an employer of sexual harassment is ultimately unimportant — true or not, the thinking goes, the allegations have no value because they can’t have value.

    Gutfeld was hardly the only one to offer such a tack. Dahlia Lithwick had a terrific report explaining that many conservatives are simply “denying the very existence of sexual harassment.” Lithwick highlighted some jaw-dropping examples, including National Review’s John Derbyshire, who went so far as to ask, “Is there anyone who thinks sexual harassment is a real thing?”

    Lithwick went on to explain that this the right’s “new trick” — to say that this issue “is a mass delusion of hyper-sensitive ladies.”

    This isn’t just an effort to discredit Cain’s accusers. It’s an effort to dissuade women with genuine complaints from coming forward to report them. Recall that one of Cain’s accusers has declined to come forward precisely because she is afraid to be the next Anita Hill. The cost of reporting harassment is not just “the filing fee and a printer.” It’s the fear of being treated precisely the way these still-nameless women have been treated: like hysterics and liars out of the Chaucer era. […]

    Nobody is suggesting these claims [against Cain] are necessarily true. But to claim that they must be false because all women lie and all harassers are just joking is a terrifying proposition. Even more than the outright antagonism of so many conservative pundits, what’s worrying to me is the indifference of so many Republican voters: New poll results show that 70 percent of Republicans say the sexual harassment scandal makes no difference in their vote. It’s no longer just a Republican war on women. It’s a war on the idea that any woman might ever tell the truth.


  22. rikyrah says:

    November 08, 2011 9:35 AM

    The limits of the ‘Not Mitt Romney’ campaign

    By Steve Benen

    It makes sense for conservative critics of Mitt Romney’s campaign to get organized, but this initiative needs some work.

    A coalition of conservatives have launched a campaign against Republican front-runner Mitt Romney’s candidacy to prevent him from becoming the GOP nominee next year.

    The group’s website, NotMittRomney.com, already features a web ad against the former Massachusetts governor — and they plan more “aggressive” steps in the coming months.

    The website offers this dire prediction if Romney were to become the Republican choice to face President Barack Obama in 2012 — though most members of the group say they would support Romney against Obama if it came to that.

    Organizers, in explaining the purpose of the “Not Mitt Romney” campaign, argue that because of the candidate’s lack of core principles, Republicans will “have a White House that believes in little” if Romney “some how [sic] squeaks it out.” They added that a Romney nomination will produce a Republican Party “split at the seems [sic].”

    The campaign features some fairly prominent right-wing voices, including GOP activists, operatives, and media figures. The names that jump out include Pamela Geller, Roger Stone Jr Robert Stacy McCain, and Matt Mackowiak, led by a conservative public-relations professional Ali Akbar.

    I can understand their dissatisfaction with the Republican frontrunner, and I can also understand their willingness to get organized in opposition to Romney. What makes less sense to me is the underlying strategy — Republican voters are going to nominate the party’s presidential candidate, and “Not Mitt Romney” won’t be on the ballot. If these right-wing players want to stop Romney from winning the GOP nod, they’re going to have pick an alternative.

    Whether they like it or not, the party’s non-Romney wing is already huge — polls show the former Massachusetts governor struggling to get past the mid-20s nationwide, suggesting roughly three out of four Republican voters either already support someone else or remain undecided.

    The trick is, Romney is in an eight-way contest, and he’s fully capable of winning the nomination despite having such weak party-wide support. The task for his GOP detractors, then, isn’t to point out his flaws, it’s to elect someone else. “Not Mitt Romney” isn’t, and can’t be, the goal; nominating one of his rivals is.

    As Alex Pareene put it, “If the people behind ‘Not Mitt Romney’ actually cared about electing someone other than Mitt Romney, shouldn’t they actually be devoting their time and resources to campaigning for a non-Mitt Romney candidate? Because otherwise, all their campaign does is reinforce the message that while Mitt Romney is flawed, he has no credible competition.”


  23. The Associated Press:

    BREAKING: Washington circuit appeals court upholds Obama health care law as constitutional.

  24. Ametia says:

    November 8, 2011 5:23 AM
    Sarkozy to Obama: I’m fed up with Netanyahu

    President Obama and his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, were reportedly caught in a candid moment expressing their exasperation with Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu – with the French president referring to him as a “liar”.

    The remarks were part of what the American and French leaders believed to be a private chat after a news conference in Cannes last week, during the G20 economic conference. The pair were still wearing microphones, and some journalists who still had their headphones on for translation caught the remarks, which were first reported by the French photo agency Arret Sur Images.

    A Reuters news agency reporter who was also present has since confirmed the exchange.

    As the two leaders discussion turns to Israel and the Palestinians, Sarkozy is first to express his distaste for the conservative Israeli Prime Minister.

    “I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar,” the French president was heard to say.

    In response, according to the account by Arret Sur Images, Mr. Obama sympathizes with Sarkozy’s frustration, saying, “you’re fed up, but I have to deal with him every day.”

    There is no immediate indication as to whether a recording of the private conversation exists.

    Arret Sur says all the reporters present in Cannes who were privy to the exchange agreed not to publish details.

    It is unclear why Arret Sur decided to go public with the details late on Monday, days after Mr. Obama returned to Washington, or whether they were among the French organizations which agreed to the alleged no-report pact at the time.

    The White House, when asked about the exchange by CBS News, would not comment.


  25. Witness: Cain accuser hugged him during Tea Party meeting a month ago


    The Cain Encounter …

    They hugged each other backstage in a full embrace like old friends.

    She grabbed his arm and whispered in his left ear.

    She kept talking as he bent to listen, and he kept saying “Uh, huh. Uh, huh.”


    “I don’t know if what she was giving him was a sucker punch, but he didn’t put his arm down while she was talking to him,” said the Sneed source.

    ◆The “he”… is GOP presidential contender Herman Cain, who has been accused of sexual harassment by several women.

    ◆The “she”… is Chicagoan Sharon Bialek, who held a news conference Tuesday as the only woman to PUBLICLY accuse Cain of sexual harassment.

    ◆The Sneed source … is WIND radio co-host Amy Jacobson, who tells Sneed she witnessed the Cain/Bialek encounter a month ago while backstage at the AM 560 WIND sponsored TeaCon meeting in Schaumburg Sept. 30-Oct. 1 at the Renaissance Hotel and Convention Center.

    ◆Quoth Jacobson: “I had turned on TV to find out who was Cain’s accuser, and I almost fell over when I saw it was Sharon Bialek accusing Cain of groping her genitals.”

  26. Cain Accuser Defends Allegations


    WASHINGTON — The recurrent theme of questions for the woman who has publicly accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment is not why him, but why now.

    Making the rounds of morning television news shows Tuesday, Sharon Bialek was asked repeatedly about her motives in coming forward against the pizza business executive and Republican presidential hopeful years after the incident of sexual harassment that she alleges.

    She said she was “embarrassed” by the incident and wanted to move on. Bialek said she had nothing to gain financially, and in fact wasn’t even paying a fee to Gloria Allred, the nationally known attorney whose name has become synonymous with women’s rights issues. And Bialek said she decided to go public at this time mostly because her 13-year-old son told her to.

    [wpvideo gnsBNsjb]

  27. rikyrah says:

    November 08, 2011 8:00 AM

    Daley shifts White House responsibilities

    By Steve Benen

    Bill Daley’s tenure as White House chief of staff has proven to be more difficult than administration insiders had expected. When he was brought in, Daley, a former Commerce Secretary and banking executive, was supposed to help improve relations with Congress, set the stage for constructive negotiations with Republicans, and strengthen White House ties with business leaders.

    Those efforts haven’t gone well. Congressional Democrats have found Daley hard to work with; Republicans don’t want to negotiate with anyone about anything, and the White House has adopted a more combative tone overall.

    It’s not a surprise, then, that Daley’s “responsibilities are shifting” in the West Wing.

    On Monday, Mr. Daley turned over day-to-day management of the West Wing to Pete Rouse, a veteran aide to President Obama, according to several people familiar with the matter. It is unusual for a White House chief of staff to relinquish part of the job.

    A senior White House official who attended Monday’s staff meeting where Mr. Daley made the announcement said that his new role has not yet been fully defined. But in recent weeks, Mr. Daley has focused more on managing relations with influential outsiders.

    Some of the relevant details are unclear, most notably whether Daley was demoted or whether he initiated the shift. Insiders are characterizing this change as an “enhancement” of Daley’s responsibilities, but there’s no getting around a simple fact: the job of a president’s chief of staff is to manage the day-to-day operations of the White House, and Daley will no longer do this.

    Instead, according to the Wall Street Journal piece, he’ll be more of an “ambassador,” focusing on cultivating relationships “on the outside,” while Rouse will be the “inside manager.”

    I’d note, by the way, that Rouse served as acting White House CoS from October 2010 to mid-January 2011 — a time when the White House put together quite a winning streak. Rouse also enjoys strong support among White House staffers and, as a former leading Hill staffer, will get along much better with congressional Democrats. (Harry Reid, in particular, had no use for Daley, and was known to have complained about Daley directly to the president.)

    As someone who was less than thrilled when Daley got the job, I’m not exactly sorry to see the “shift” in his responsibilities. Regardless, I’d argue the more Rouse is helping run the West Wing, the better.


  28. rikyrah says:

    Political AnimalBlog
    November 08, 2011 8:40 AM

    The GOP’s idea of a debt deal

    By Steve Benen

    As far gone as they are, congressional Republicans at least seem to understand that Democrats will not accept a spending-cuts-only debt-reduction deal. Dems aren’t known for being tough negotiators, but they’re not that bad.

    With this in mind, GOP leaders have been crafting a proposal that they consider more balanced — at least by Republican definitions of the word.

    Republican members of a Congressional panel seeking ways to cut the federal budget deficit indicated on Monday that they might allow some additional tax revenue as part of a deal with Democrats.

    The Republicans met Monday to consider a proposal that would raise additional revenue by limiting some income tax deductions that primarily benefit higher-income households. […]

    Under the proposal, Republicans would agree to limit certain itemized tax deductions in return for a permanent reduction in marginal tax rates. This would not just extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, but reduce the rates that apply to each additional dollar of a taxpayer’s income.

    There’s simply no way Democrats can take this offer seriously. Republicans are using this offer to effectively say, “See? We’re open to new revenue, which proves we’re not crazy,” but even GOP leaders have to realize how weak a con this really is.

    Here’s how the Republican plan would work: they would accept some new revenue by agreeing to eliminate some tax expenditures, including, by some accounts, mortgage-interest deductions on second homes. Exactly how much revenue would the GOP be prepared to accept? That’s still unclear, but all of it would come from limiting tax deductions, and none of it would come from actually increasing anyone’s taxes.

    In exchange some undetermined amount of revenue, Democrats on the super-committee would be expected to accept massive spending cuts, including cuts to entitlements, and Dems would have to agree to make all of the Bush tax cuts permanent.

    That’s just crazy. The Bush-era tax rates are due to expire at the end of next year; why in the world would Democrats give up their only leverage, in exchange for a few eliminated deductions? As Jon Chait explained yesterday:

    The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of next year. This is a huge amount of leverage for Democrats — unless the House, Senate, and president can agree, taxes will return to Clinton-era levels at the beginning of 2013. The Republicans want to stop that from happening. The deal leaked [by Republicans] is that they will agree to reduce some tax deductions, in return for which Democrats will agree to make the tax cuts permanent, in return for which Democrats will also agree to reduce entitlement spending.

    Anybody see a problem with this deal? Yes: Democrats would be giving away an enormous amount of future leverage. Passing a bill to raise revenue is extremely hard. Passing any bill is extremely hard. When you stand to gain from nothing happening, you’re in a very strong position. Republicans used that leverage during the debt-ceiling fight — doing nothing meant the credit markets imploded, the economy melted down, and everybody started hating President Obama even more. That’s why Obama made a deal. Now “doing nothing” means the Bush tax cuts disappear. Democrats have no reason to give that away.


  29. rikyrah says:

    President Gets Win on Veteran’s Jobs Bill
    by BooMan
    Tue Nov 8th, 2011 at 12:34:45 AM EST

    I’m not really thrilled with how they plan on paying for it but late this afternoon the Senate finally agreed to have a vote on part of the president’s jobs bill. They needed 60 votes to invoke cloture and they got ninety-four. It seems that McConnell’s steal curtain of obstruction melted when it came time to deny veterans a chance at employment.

    Aimed at helping unemployed veterans, the bill gives employers tax credits of up to $5,600 for hiring those who have been unemployed longer than six months. It would also give employers a tax credit of up to $9,600 for hiring long-unemployed disabled veterans.
    The October unemployment rate for veterans who left the military after 2001 was 12.1%, leaving about 240,000 veterans out of work, according to the White House. The measure to help veterans is one small piece of President Obama’s job package.

    This bill will probably pass both houses of Congress, get signed by the president, and become law. And that means that the president’s persistence in demanding that Congress do something about high unemployment will finally pay off. Nothing pretty is going to get through this Congress, and this bill is paid for by making it harder to qualify for Medicaid, making it easier for contractors to evade their tax obligations, and charging veterans more for their mortgages. But any progress on the jobs front is welcome.


  30. rikyrah says:




    Cainwreck: Fifth Woman Steps Forward
    by ABL

    Like sands through the hour glass, these are the Cains of our lives.

    The slow drip of allegations continues, folks. It’s turning into a soap opera.

    A fifth woman, former USAID worker Donna Donella, has come forward and claimed that after Herman Cain gave a speech in Egypt in 2002, Cain asked her to ask some other woman (an audience member) to have dinner with him. (Presumably, he did not ask Donella to pass a note to the audience member, asking “Do you like me? Check the box—‘yes’ or ‘no.’ No ‘maybe so’!”)

    When Donella declined to play matchmaker, Cain asked Donella out to dinner. (If at first you don’t succeed, try again, eh Hermy?) When Donella declined, two other women jumped in and defused the situation by suggesting they all have dinner with Cain… together. In response, Cain probably flashed his creepy grin, thrilled that he was going to tap all those asses at once. Sadly for Cain, no asses were tapped that night (that we know of).

    From Politico:

    A former USAID worker claims Herman Cain asked her to set up dinner with a woman who attended a speech he gave in 2002, the Washington Examiner is reporting tonight.

    The worker – 40-year-old Donna Donella, of Arlington – told the paper that the moment came after Cain gave a paid speech in Egypt that year. A woman in the crowd posed a query to Cain during the speech, the Examiner said.

    Donella told them “And after the seminar was over, Cain came over to me and a colleague and said, ‘Could you put me in touch with that lovely young lady who asked the question, so I can give her a more thorough answer over dinner?’”

    She was “suspicious of Cain’s motives and declined to set up the date,” the Examiner reporter wrote.

    That prompted Cain to reply, “Then you and I can have dinner.” Instead, some of Donella’s co-workers suggested a group outing.

    Donella, who no longer works for USAID, said they were suspicious of Cain’s motives and declined to set up the date. Cain responded, “Then you and I can have dinner.” That’s when two female colleagues intervened and suggested they all go to dinner together, Donella said.

    Donna Donella (if that isn’t a name fit for a soap opera character, then I don’t know what is) also said that she didn’t witness any inappropriate sexual behavior from Cain at dinner, but that Cain ordered two $400 bottles of wine and then stiffed the group when the bill came.

    Really? Herman. Dude. Naw. How are you going to score all these extramarital chicks if you’re not going to at least pay your tab?

    Not cool, bro.

    Not cool.


  31. rikyrah says:

    Don’t Be Pathetic, Go Vote
    by BooMan
    Tue Nov 8th, 2011 at 08:31:46 AM EST

    I got a robocall yesterday about a school board election. That has never happened before, and it’s an indication of how the Citizen’s United ruling is going to screw us over in this country. When the wingnuts have enough money to buy robocalls for school board races, the rest of us don’t have much of a chance. And it’s our kids who will suffer. So, don’t be pathetic and forget to vote today. If you don’t know where your polling station is, go here. Figure out what time of day you’re going to vote. Combine it with some chore or trip you are already making, or set aside the time right now. And take ten minutes to research the candidates on the ballot so you know what you’re doing. No commenting on blogs for non-voters.


  32. rikyrah says:

    November 08, 2011
    Mitt Romney is, yet isn’t, the ’99’
    Think Progress’ “99 Facts About Mitt Romney” is, for the politically masochistic, a pleasure to read. Here, I’ve culled only 10 from the mounting collection’s squalid litany of skin-crawling Mitticisms, but by all means, you should scour them all sometime (with all the lights on).

    (8) Mitt Romney’s plan for a “middle class tax cut” would provide zero benefits to 73.9 percent of the middle class.

    Actually, this first one isn’t so bad. For a modern Republican pol to assist, in any way, an entire one-fourth of the middle class is astonishingly progressive.

    (15) Mitt Romney called the Occupy Wall Street movement “dangerous.”

    U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    (30) Mitt Romney said he “cannot see that a Cabinet position would be justified” for an American Muslim.

    Hey, that sort of bigotry shot Herman Cain to the top, and Mitt (let us pass on the Mormon irony of this) is nothing if not creatively thieving.

    (41) Asked if Iraq was a mistake, Mitt Romney said “Well, the question is kind of a non sequitur.”

    Did he mean to say “tautology”? Indeed, did he mean to say anything at all in actual response to the actual question?

    (43) Mitt Romney won’t say whether he thinks waterboarding is torture.

    Dear Mitt: It is.

    (49) Mitt Romney said the Clean Air Act doesn’t apply to carbon emissions.

    One must agree with Mitt on this one. As his bigotry-in-action adviser, Mr. Cain, has also noted, no legislation should ever exceed three pages, and it would prove impossible to skillfully limit carbon emissions in any concise, clean air bill. Best not to muddy up a regulatory bill with a bunch of regulations.

    (53) Mitt Romney supports penalties for doctors who perform an abortion [although he also] (58) … pledged to expand a Bush-Era policy of permitting doctors to deny women access to contraceptives.

    Forget mere pandering to the religious right. In this we find a titanic battle between hypocrisy and misogyny.

    (72) Mitt Romney’s first act as president would be to allow all states to opt out of health reform through executive action, which would be illegal.

    And so it would begin.

    (84) A leaked strategic document from Mitt Romney’s 2007 campaign lists “perfect hair” among the candidate’s flaws.

    Eighty-four is probably my favorite.


  33. rikyrah says:

    Mayor Bloomberg, Gov. Cuomo deaf to suffering masses as Occupy Wall Street movement grows
    Bloomberg, Cuomo oblivious to how this movement’s fury resonates with public

    I n just a few months, Occupy Wall Street has mushroomed into an astonishing nationwide movement against corporate greed and political corruption in American life.

    During a trip around the country the past 10 days, I visited 14 cities — among them, Oakland, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, San Antonio, Houston, Denver and Washington.

    Each of those cities has its own homegrown, round-the-clock occupation. There are hundreds of them in communities big and small.

    In Oakland, protesters succeeded Wednesday evening in shutting down the city’s busy port. That followed a day of demonstrations outside major Bay Area banks.

    On Thursday, labor unions and the Occupy Washington movement rallied outside the U.S. Treasury building, pressing for a new financial transaction tax on trades of stocks and bonds — a tax the European Union is also considering.

    But right here in New York, where the entire movement started, establishment politicians like Mayor Bloomberg and Gov. Cuomo just don’t get it.

    They are oblivious to how deeply this new movement’s fury resonates with the public.

    New Yorkers are sick and tired of rampant unemployment, a never-ending mortgage crisis and the crushing debts of credit cards and student loans. They are aghast at how the politicians and the courts have never held the banks that created this crisis accountable.

    Nowhere else in America is there a greater gap between the 1% and the 99% than right here.

    In 2007, less than 1% of New York City households — 23,000 in all — had incomes of more than $1 million. That’s the equivalent of earning about $20,000 per week.

    That same year, 37.5% — or 1.3 million households — made less than $20,000 a year.

    Yet both Bloomberg, the Republican turned Independent, and Cuomo, the Democrat, oppose extending a “millionaire’s tax surcharge” that expires in December.

    They oppose the tax, even though New Yorkers overwhelmingly support it.

    Bloomberg’s class solidarity with his mega-rich friends is at least understandable. But that of Cuomo’s is not.

    The man who once prided himself on building housing for the homeless has the nerve to compare his stand on the millionaire’s tax to his father Mario’s moral opposition as governor to capital punishment.

    What is the morality in refusing to raise taxes for those swimming in cash while cutting services to the least fortunate?

    With tone-deaf leaders like these two, no wonder the protest in Zuccotti Park keeps growing.

    Where wide walkways existed only weeks before, hundreds of tents now fill the park. One kiosk even dispenses free warm coats for the coming winter.

    On Thursday, in the park, Princeton University philosopher Cornel West and former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges presided over a mock “people’s trial” of Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs.

    Several hundred occupants then marched to Goldman’s headquarters. As they chanted, “We got sold out; banks got bailed out,” dozens of Freedom Tower construction workers on their lunch break smiled approvingly.

    One of those marching was a middle-aged, well-dressed black man. He said his name was Alvin David, and he hadn’t been able to find much work these days.

    “I come here two or three days a week to join the marches,” he said. “This movement is waking the country up, and I want to be a part of it.”

    As the camps keep growing, the politicians will be forced to listen. That is how social change has so often come in America.


  34. rikyrah says:

    LePage: Welfare recipients should take drug tests

    Gov. Paul LePage wants welfare recipients to submit to random drug testing before they receive benefits, and he plans to submit legislation in January calling for that requirement.

    Speaking at a Chamber breakfast in the Franklin County town of Jay on Friday, the governor said he doesn’t think it’s unreasonable to ask welfare recipients to do what all truck drivers must do.

    The idea could have trouble getting off the ground.

    A measure to require MaineCare recipients to take a drug test failed during the last legislative session and the constitutionality of drug testing for welfare recipients is under scrutiny in other states, including Florida.

    Robyn Merrill with Maine Equal Justice Partners said she doesn’t think LePage’s proposal would make it through the Legislature, but if it does, she predicted a legal challenge here, too.

    “It comes down to the fact that a drug test is a warrantless search,” she said. “There needs to be reasonable suspicion.”

    Welfare reform has been one of LePage’s top priorities, dating back to when he was a gubernatorial candidate, but the drug testing requirement is his most controversial idea to date.

    On Friday, the governor said Maine’s generosity encourages residents of other states to migrate here, according to media reports of the event. He even said he received an email from someone asking him if Maine could beat New Hampshire’s welfare benefits.

    LePage said he told the person not to ask what “Maine can do for you, ask what you can do for the state of Maine. Have a nice life.”

    The governor’s claim that people are coming to Maine because of the benefits is not supported by data, according to Merrill. She also said Maine’s benefits are not generous and are among the lowest in New England.

    The governor did not release any details about his proposal or define what programs he would include for drug testing.

    Welfare is a nebulous term. To some, welfare means the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program; to others, it’s general assistance, an emergency benefit offered through communities and to others, MaineCare should be included.

    Some believe welfare encompasses all federally or state-subsidized benefits.

    Phone calls to the governor’s spokeswoman and his chief legal counsel on Friday were not immediately returned.

    House Democratic Leader Emily Cain of Orono panned the idea.

    “This is just deja vu all over again,” she said. “The Legislature already rejected this idea for good reason — it is unconstitutional and it costs more than it saves. The governor continues to propose the wrong solutions for Maine, from cutting unemployment insurance, to loosening child labor laws, and now this.”


  35. rikyrah says:

    Black, Asian teens less likely than whites to abuse drugs, Duke study concludes

    Black and Asian adolescents are much less likely than their white peers to abuse or become dependent on drugs and alcohol, according to a Duke University-led study based on an unusually large sample from all 50 states.

    “There is certainly still a myth out there that black kids are more likely to have problems with drugs than white kids, and this documents as clearly as any study we’re aware of that the rate of . . . substance-related disorders among African American youths is significantly lower,” said Dr. Dan Blazer of Duke’s Department of Psychiatry, a senior author of the study.

    The findings, based on analysis of confidential federal surveys of 72,561 adolescents ages 12 to 17 from 2005 through 2008, were released Monday and appear in the November issue of the journal Archives of General Psychiatry.

    About 9 percent of the white teenagers in the study sample used substances in ways that indicated they had disorders, meaning abuse or dependency. That’s nearly twice the percentage of blacks nearly three times the rate for a group classified as Asian/Pacific Islander, which were mostly Asians.. The prevalence of disorders was by far highest among Native Americans, at 15 percent.

    Abuse was defined as substance use that caused at least one problem such as legal or relationship issues. Dependence meant meeting several criteria from a list that included inability to cut down, giving up other activities and continued use despite problems.

    Across all racial and ethnic groups, 37 percent reported using drugs or alcohol in the past year and nearly 8 percent met the criteria for a substance abuse disorder.

    Among kids who abused illegal drugs, marijuana was the most prevalent choice, followed by prescription opioids such as oxycodone, which have passed inhalants such as glue as a means of getting high.

    Nearly 26 percent of the kids using marijuana had problems with abuse or dependency on the drug.

    The study should give researchers a starting point for further study into topics such as the specific reasons that substance use and disorders are less common in some groups than others, Blazer said.

    It’s widely known among substance-abuse counselors and psychiatrists who work with Native Americans that problems vary greatly from one tribe to another, Blazer said. A shortcoming of the data is that it couldn’t be broken down into smaller subsets such as tribes, or to separate the Asians and Pacific Islanders, to make it easier to dig deeper into the questions raised by the study, he said.

    In addition to three Duke researchers, the study also involved a scientist from the University of Pennsylvania and another from the Veterans Health Administration in Washington.

    Earlier studies, in some cases restricted to narrower slices of population or geography, had previously indicated that black kids were less likely to have drug problems than white adolescents, Blazer said. But the new study uses a particularly broad and representative sample, with large numbers surveyed in each racial and ethnic group.

    Given the strength of the data, the findings should give policymakers firm facts to use in making decisions about how to better tackle drug problems among kids, Blazer said.

    Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/07/129604/black-asian-teens-less-likely.html#ixzz1d7hXYWfn

  36. rikyrah says:

    OF COURSE, his dumb azz would.


    Rick Perry: I would support strike on Iran
    The State Column | Staff | Monday, November 07, 2011

    Republican presidential candidate and Texas Republican governor Rick Perry said over the weekend that he would support an Israeli attack on Iran if there is proof Tehran is moving closer to having a nuclear weapon.

    “Obviously, we are going to support Israel. And I’ve said that we will support Israel in every way that we can, whether it’s diplomatic, whether it’s economic sanctions, whether it’s overt or covert operations, up to and including military action,” the Texas governor said in an interview on CNN.

    “We cannot afford to allow that madman in Iran to get his hands on a nuclear weapon period,” Mr. Perry added.

    Mr. Perry, who continues to lag in the polls, said that the latest report set to be released by the International Atomic Energy Agency was further proof that Iran would continue to seek nuclear weapons.

    The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to strengthen suspicions that Tehran is seeking to develop the capability to make atomic bombs and lead to Western calls for further U.N. sanctions on Iran.

    Mr. Perry’s comments come as the White House said Monday that it is concerned with the path taken by Iran.

    “We certainly expect it to echo and reinforce what we have been saying about Iran’s behavior and its failure to live up to its international obligations,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said. “It will I’m sure echo our concern about Iran’s nuclear program.”


  37. rikyrah says:


    come through for the people.


  38. Ametia says:



  39. Ametia says:

    Keep your eyes on OHIO today. The media loves themselves some sex scandals; it’s a DISTRACTION!!!!!!

  40. Ametia says:

    In Penn State’s scandal, where was the leadership?

    By Eugene Robinson, Published: November 7
    Legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno said, “I did what I was supposed to.” In fact, nobody at Penn State did what basic human decency requires — and as a result, according to prosecutors, an alleged sexual predator who could have been stopped years ago was allowed to continue molesting young boys.

    The arrest Saturday of Jerry Sandusky, the school’s former defensive coordinator, on felony child sex abuse charges, involving at least eight victims, has sent university officials scrambling to justify a pattern of self-serving inattention and inaction.


Leave a Reply