Serendipity SOUL | Wednesday Open Thread | “The Police” Week!

Happy HUMP Day, Everyone! Hope ya’ll are enjoying The Police.  Every Little Thing She Does Is MAGIC!

This entry was posted in Current Events, Music, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Serendipity SOUL | Wednesday Open Thread | “The Police” Week!

  1. [wpvideo 2PbDZex7]

    A 103-year-old woman and her 83-year-old daughter got a last-minute eviction reprieve when sheriff’s deputies and movers decided they couldn’t uproot the women from their longtime Atlanta home.

    Fulton County Sheriff’s deputies and a moving company hired by the bank showed up at Vita Lee’s Penelope Road home on Tuesday, according to a report on Deutsche Bank apparently holds the mortgage that is being serviced locally by Chase, the station reported. The planned eviction was reportedly the latest move in a legal battle that dates back years.

    But when the men saw the frail woman, they opted to leave instead of carry through with the forced move, reported.

    The reprieve comes just three weeks shy of Lee’s 104th-birthday. Lee said she just wants to live out her last days in the place she has called home for more than half a century. “I love it. It’s a mansion,” she said about the modest house.

    Still, the stress of the situation was apparently too much for Lee’s daughter, who reportedly was rushed to the hospital. Lee said she hopes now the bank will leave her alone.

    “Please don’t come in and disturb me no more,” Lee told “When I’m gone you all can come back and do whatever they want to.”

  2. Marine One, carrying US President Barack Obama, approaches to land on November 30, 2011 at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. Obama is headed to Scranton, Pennsylvania to speak on payroll tax cuts and then goes to New York for campaign fundraisers.

  3. President Barack Obama walks from Marine One to board Air Force One, Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2011, at Andrews Air Force Base, Md. , en route to Scranton, Pa.

  4. US President Barack Obama makes his way to board Air Force One on November 30, 2011 at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. Obama is headed to Scranton, Pennsylvania to speak on payroll tax cuts and then goes to New York for campaign fundraisers.

  5. The First Lady Previews the 2011 White House Holiday Decorations

  6. The Littlest Bo

    • Ametia says:

      Simply genius. such creativity. BO’s cute as a button!

    • A replica of the White House made from 400-pounds of gingerbread, white chocolate and marzipan is on display in the State Dining Room during the first viewing of the 2011 White House Christmas decorations November 30, 2011 in Washington, DC. The theme, “Shine, Give, Share,” runs throught the White House with a 400-pound White House Gingerbread House and 37 Christmas trees, including the official 18-foot 6-inch balsam fir tree in the Blue Room that honors Blue Star military families.

  7. Ametia says:

    David Duke arrested in Germany

    Posted on November 30, 2011 at 8:12 AM

    Updated today at 10:06 AM

    David Duke, the former Louisiana lawmaker, white supremacist and Klu Klux Klan leader, has been arrested in Cologne, Germany, according to multiple news reports.

    Duke confirmed his arrest on his own website, but he wouldn’t elaborate on the circumstances surrounding the arrest.

    “I won’t go into many details of my arrest at this moment as a court case is yet to be fought, but I was imprisoned by a gross twisting of travel laws in a blatant attempt by the government to prevent a private and peaceful gathering of about a 100 German citizens eager to hear my message of heritage and freedom,” said Duke on his website.

    Duke was reportedly scheduled to speak to a right-wing nationalist group, before German authorities arrested him.

    “The statement by the Cologne police department said that Duke, 61, is ‘obliged to leave German territory without delay,'” said a Huffington Post story, and his arrest connected to his expulsion from Czech Republic in 2009.

    Additionally, an MSNBC report said, Duke “‘was dubbed an ‘undesirable foreigner’ and detained in Cologne before he could address a group called Outside the Network on Friday.”

  8. Ametia says:

    Ho Ho Hmm. Gun Club Offers Photos With Santa
    by The Associated Press
    November 30, 2011
    An Arizona gun club is offering a chance for children and their families to pose for photos with Santa while holding pistols and military-style rifles.

    One image shows Santa in a wingback chair with a snowflake background, a Christmas tree behind him and flanked by an $80,000 machine gun and a tripod-mounted rifle. Next to Santa is a man standing behind a boy, who is holding an unloaded AR-15 with an attached grenade launcher.

    In another photo, Santa cradles a toddler dressed in camouflage, while a man and woman stand close by with rifles with foldable stocks. In yet another image, five beaming young ladies pose with AR-15, an AK-47 variant and other rifles as they surround old Saint Nick.

  9. rikyrah says:

    Movers And Sheriff’s Deputies Refuse Bank’s Order To Evict 103-Year-Old Atlanta Woman
    By Zaid Jilani on Nov 30, 2011 at 11:15 am

    Yesterday, a Deutsche Bank branch in Atlanta had requested the eviction of Vita Lee, a 103-year-old Atlanta woman, and her 83-year-old daughter. Both were terrified of being removed from their home of 53 years and had no idea where they’d go next.

    But when the movers hired by the bank and police were dispatched to evict the two women, they had a change of heart. In a huge victory for the 99 Percent, the movers “took one look at” Lee and decided not to go through with it. Watch WSB TV’s Channel 2′s video report about the incident:

    The stress of the possible eviction made Lee’s daughter ill; she was rushed to the hospital the same day. Lee had one message for Deutsche Bank: “Please don’t come in and disturb me no more. When I’m gone you all can come back and do whatever they want to.”

  10. rikyrah says:

    Romney Gets Flustered On Fox: I Have Not Flip-Flopped — Except On Abortion

    Maybe Mitt Romney’s strategy of generally avoiding one-on-one interviews has been a wise one.

    Romney sat down Tuesday for a lengthy interview with Bret Baier of Fox News — and it didn’t go so well.

    Baier started off by asking Romney about his changes in political positions over the years. Romney then disputed Baier’s list — declaring, “Well, Bret, your list is just not accurate. So, one, we’re going to have to be better informed about my views on issues” — and chalked it up to “Democratic ads.”

    “And there’s no question, but that people are going to take snippets and take things out of context and try and show that there are differences, where in some cases, there are not,” Romney said. “But one place I changed my mind with regard to the government’s role relating abortion. I am pro-life.

    “I did not take that position years ago. And that’s the same change that occurred with Ronald Reagan, with George W. Bush, with some of the leaders in the pro-life movement.”

    Romney also strongly disputed the idea that he had ever, ever recommended the Massachusetts health care model of the individual mandate be adopted nationwide — while also standing by it as having worked for Massachusetts.

    “So, governor,” Baier said, “you did say on camera and other places that, at times, you thought it would be a model for the nation.”

    “You’re wrong, Bret.”

    “No, no. There’s tape —”

    “The tape out there — continue to read the tape, and the tape goes on to say for each state to be able to look at it.”

    At one point, an exasperated Romney declared:

    And if I were willing to say anything to get elected, wouldn’t I just say, oh, it was a mistake, because I’ve watched other people on the stage. When they talk about their cap and trade policies, they say, oh, that was a mistake. When someone says, oh, I did this ad on global warming, that was a mistake.

    So, they just dust it aside, and that makes them more attractive in a primary. I’m standing by what I did in Massachusetts. I’ve tried to dust it aside. The biggest issue that dogs me in the primary campaign, I’m absolutely firm that it was the right thing for our state. I’ll defend that. And I understand it has political implications, and if it keeps me from winning a primary, so be it. But that happens to be the truth.—-except-on-abortion.php?ref=fpa

  11. rikyrah says:

    November 30, 2011 2:20 PM

    The nature of the opposition to health reform
    By Steve Benen

    The latest Kaiser Family Foundation report on Americans’ attitudes towards health care reform included some pretty interesting tidbits.

    We learned, for example, that while those with unfavorable attitudes towards the Affordable Care Act outnumber supporters, most Americans want the law left intact or expanded, not repealed. That’s probably not what Republicans hoped to see.

    Also, KFF found that Americans tend to strongly support the provisions within the health care reform law, though they’re still unclear about what is — and isn’t — in the act.

    But this was the survey result that stood out for me:

    Unfavorable views of the health reform law may be a proxy for more general disillusionment with the state of the country and Washington politics. A plurality (44 percent) of those who view the law unfavorably say their negative view is more about their general feelings about the direction of the country and what’s going on in Washington right now, while just a quarter say it’s based on what they know about the law.

    Here’s the accompanying chart on this:

    I’ve long wondered whether this is true, and I find this result oddly reassuring.

    If the unemployment rate was 5% and President Obama enjoyed a 67% approval rating, it’s pretty damn likely support for the Affordable Care Act would be much higher than it is. Republicans would have us believe the law’s unpopularity is the result of overreach — the ACA is too liberal; it’s too much government, etc.

    But there’s ample evidence to the contrary. Americans aren’t satisfied with much of anything coming out of Washington lately, and so attitudes towards the health care reform law are caught up in a general sense of discontent.

    If/when conditions economic conditions improve, and the public gets a better sense of what the Affordable Care Act does (and doesn’t) offer the public, it still stands to reason the right will find it increasingly difficult to undo the entirety of the law.

  12. rikyrah says:

    November 30, 2011 1:40 PM

    Choosing among the Romney frames
    By Steve Benen

    Mitt Romney’s opponents — in both parties — are presumably investing some time right about now in choosing how best to define the former governor. I’ve been working under the assumption that there are two overarching frames, but Alec MacGillis suggests I’m missing one.

    The first is that Romney, after several ideological transformations, is a far-right ideologue. If elected, he’ll take the country backwards, pursuing a Bush-on-steroids kind of agenda.

    The second is that Romney is an unprincipled, cowardly flip-flopper, who voters simply cannot trust. He’s so lacking in a fundamental integrity, Romney will say anything to anyone to advance his ambitions, depending on how the winds are blowing at the time.

    And the third? Alec makes the case:

    [T]his debate is overlooking the other potential frame for attacking Romney, as a plutocrat who made a quarter-billion or so in a business known for cold-hearted layoffs, who is showing no compunction about allying himself with the likes of Steve Schwarzman, and who personally benefits from a skewed tax system that, by some estimates, has his own millions taxed at no more than 15 percent. Even the conservative Union Leader of New Hampshire has noted that this attack packs punch in an era of the 1 percent versus the 99 percent. It would not be hard to imagine what the attacks would look like — Ted Kennedy’s team drew them up 17 years ago.

    The plutocrat attack would not necessarily be in conceptual conflict with portraying Romney as a flip-flopper. But choices would still have to be made about which message to prioritize, which to use when and where. Presumably, the “lacking a core” frame is more potent now, as the Democrats seek to sow doubts about Romney among GOP voters. But that frame could become less productive during the general election, if, despite what Benen persuasively argues, it serves to reassure some independent voters that Romney will flip back to moderation in the White House. At that point, the plutocratic message could emerge as the more powerful one, especially in beleaguered battlegrounds like Ohio.

    Schwarzman, by the way, is the chairman of the world’s largest private-equity firm, Blackstone Group, who recently compared the administration’s efforts to raise taxes on the income of private-equity firms such as his to “when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.” Schwarzman will host a fundraiser for Romney at his Park Avenue apartment next month, and encourage other Wall Street elites to rally behind Romney’s candidacy.

    When Joe McQuaid, the publisher of the Union Leader, said Romney “sort of represents the 1%,” this is partly what he was talking about. Indeed, Jon Huntsman said the other day that Romney is “in the hip pocket of Wall Street,” and Romney doesn’t seem to mind proving him right.

    The problem for Romney’s opponents, though, is picking the right frame from the choices. Pushing more than one theme would muddle the message and dilute its potency. Which of the three would you choose?

  13. rikyrah says:

    November 30, 2011 12:35 PM

    Boehner’s radical departure on tax policy

    By Steve Benen

    The prospects for an extension of the payroll tax break are improving in the Senate, but what about the House, where far-right Republicans dominate? House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters today he’s open to the idea, but he has some conditions, most notably the fact that the tax cuts must be offset with savings elsewhere.

    Boehner, R-Ohio, said Republicans will continue trying to reach agreements with Obama on ways to create jobs. But he stopped short of saying he favored extending this year’s 2 percent reduction in the 6.2 percent payroll tax that workers pay or enlarging it, as Obama and many Democrats want.

    “If in fact we can find common ground on these extensions, I think you can take to the bank the fact that they will be paid for,” Boehner told reporters.

    Here are a few questions for enterprising Capitol Hill reporters who talk to the Speaker:

    1. Since when does Boehner believe in paying for tax cuts? Over the course of his 10 terms in the House, has he ever demanded that a tax break for American workers “be paid for”?

    2. If this is the first time Boehner has made such a demand — spoiler alert, it is — why do you suppose the Speaker is applying a new standard to these tax cuts, which would raise taxes on over 100 million American households next year, severely undermining the national economy, unless Boehner’s House agrees to an extension?

    3. When Boehner demands that all of the Bush-era tax breaks be made permanent before 2013, will he demand that these tax cuts are also “paid for,” or do these breaks, at a cost of $3.7 trillion over the next decade, not count in his mind?

    Inquiring minds want to know

  14. rikyrah says:

    For the readers in CHICAGO



    Don’t wake up to a towed car.

  15. rikyrah says:

    November 30, 2011 10:30 AM

    Overestimating presidential power
    By Steve Benen

    In our system of government, the president simply does not have the legal or institutional authority to approve sweeping economic legislation on his or her own. The number of voters who don’t seem to fully understand this is disconcerting.

    Greg Sargent flags a remarkable quote from a Democratic official in Pennsylvania, where President Obama will visit today to talk about the economy.

    “Enough with the soft approach,” said Corey O’Brien, a Democratic Lackawanna County commissioner and early backer of Mr. Obama. “He’s got to say, ‘I’m in charge, and I’m going to get it done with or without Congress.’ ”

    “People are furious,” Mr. O’Brien added. “Everybody here is petrified they are going to lose their jobs tomorrow, and I mean everybody.”

    Just to be clear, my point is not to pick on Corey O’Brien, an Obama supporter. He’s very likely frustrated and concerned, and knows plenty of people in his community who are equally frustrated and concerned. I don’t blame them in the slightest — given the larger economic circumstances, their anxiety is well justified.

    But look again at the line he wants to hear from Obama: “I’m in charge, and I’m going to get it done with or without Congress.”

    Based on nothing but my own perceptions, this seems like a fairly common sentiment. The public likes to think of the President of the United States, no matter who’s in office, as having vast powers. He or she is “leader of the free world.” He or she holds the most powerful office on the planet, making life and death decisions every day. If the president — any president — wants a proposal to create jobs and grow the economy, it must be within his or her power to force one into the Oval Office, if necessary, through sheer force of will.

    This notion has appeal. It’s also badly mistaken. There are some modest steps a president can take — and Obama is taking them through the White House’s “We Can’t Wait” campaign — but it’s simply not possible for a president to strengthen the economy “with or without Congress.” Obama has no such option; the American political system doesn’t work this way.

    This creates a dramatic political dilemma for the White House. Americans hate Congress, overwhelmingly dislike Republicans, and the notion that the GOP is sabotaging the economy just to undermine Obama is widely believed. And yet, the president may suffer politically because many voters expect Obama to succeed — despite unprecedented Republican obstructionism — by “getting it done with or without Congress.”

    Indeed, as we discussed last month, this actually creates an incentive for Republicans to be even more irresponsible — if GOP officials believe the public will blame the president for the breakdown of the American political process, even if it’s not Obama’s fault, Republicans will keep up their destructive tactics. The unstated goal is to put a simple-but-misguided concept in voters’ minds: Washington stinks, Obama’s the president, we want a better Washington, so must need a new president.

    Voters’ understanding of the process is severely limited, and many Americans likely fail to appreciate the role Congress must play in policymaking. The challenge for the president isn’t to teach Civics 101 to the populace; that would take too long. The task at hand is communicating who deserves credit for fighting to make things better, and who deserves blame for standing in the way.

  16. rikyrah says:

    The Tea Party’s Over
    by Geov Parrish
    Wed Nov 30th, 2011 at 01:43:54 PM EST

    A new Pew survey finds this:

    In Congressional districts represented by Tea Party lawmakers, the number of people saying they disagree with the movement has risen significantly since it powered a Republican sweep in midterm elections; almost as many people disagree with it as agree with it.
    … The number of people who disagree with the Tea Party has also risen among the general public, according to the most recent of the polls in the Pew analysis, taken this month. Among the public, 27 percent said they disagreed with the Tea Party and 20 percent said they agreed — a reversal from a year ago, when 27 percent agreed and 22 percent disagreed.

    In Tea Party districts, 23 percent of people now disagree with the Tea Party, while 25 percent agree. A year ago, 18 percent of people in those districts disagreed with the Tea Party, and 33 percent agreed.

    In another poll in the Pew analysis, conducted in October, 48 percent of people in Tea Party districts said they had a negative view of the Republican Party, while 41 percent said they had a favorable view. The favorable rating had dropped 14 percentage points since March.

    That drop was steeper than it was among the general public, where the percentage of people with a favorable opinion of the Republican Party had fallen to 36 percent, from 42 percent in March.

    This comports with what we’ve seen anecdotally in states like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida where Tea-affiliated governors have faced strong backlashes for their assorted idiocies. The more people are exposed to Tea Party ideology and tactics, and what that actually means for their lives, the less they like it.

    And where, in the last three months, has that exposure been brightest? Certainly August’s debt ceiling fiasco opened a lot of eyes. But at least as corrosive, and over a much longer term, has been the sustained buffoonery of the Republican presidential candidates and pseudo-candidates who’ve rushed to wear the Tea Party mantle: Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich. The more they talk, the more people even in heavily Republican districts are repulsed. Unlike the 2008 Democratic primary season – in which a fairly strong field of candidates, headed by Obama and Hillary Clinton, strengthened the Democratic brand – the Republican campaign so far is not helping the GOP. The entire field is catering to a base that is increasingly disliked by everyone else – including other Republicans.

    This is why there will be no populist insurgency in 2012 challenging the rule of the GOP’s money people. This is why Mitt Romney will be the presumptive nominee by February. In the minds of the people that matter, he already is, and the only force within the GOP that could challenge him has peaked and is losing its power.

    Of course, there has always been and will continue to be a populist right wing within the GOP, and it will keep making noise in the presidential and congressional races next year. But it’s hard to see a path where the kind of negatives the Tea Party is now racking up even in Republican base districts can be reversed to the point where, as in 2010, GOP incumbents and favored nominees are being toppled en masse.

    The question at this point is: where do 2010’s Tea Party supporters go? Not many will go to Obama in 2012, but will they reconcile themselves to Willard, or turn away in disgust at the whole process? And what will the impact be on volunteer enthusiasm and grass roots donations? On downticket races?

    Votes are up for grabs. This would be a good time to have a Democratic party leadership that is willing to contest everywhere, including heavily Republican states and districts. The Obama campaign did that beautifully in 2008. In 2010 Congressional races, it didn’t happen so much, and the slate of Democratic Congressional challengers in 2012 still has some major gaps.

    There is still going to be a hugely funded effort in 2012 to paint Barack Obama, and by extension his party, as evil incarnate. But don’t confuse it with the Tea Party. That’s over.

  17. rikyrah says:

    Soda Companies Aggressively Target Black And Latino Kids, Fueling Childhood Obesity Epidemic
    By Marie Diamond on Nov 30, 2011 at 11:55 am

    It’s well known that America’s obesity epidemic disproportionately affects poor and minority children because of the country’s glut of cheap, unhealthy foods. Soft drinks are such a major culprit in the childhood obesity epidemic that some local governments have tried to levy taxes on them to reduce consumption. The Obama administration announced a plan to ban candy and sweetened beverages from schools.

    Now, a new study reveals that soda companies have been targeting black and Latino children in high numbers, diminishing parents’ attempts to encourage their kids to eat right:

    A new report from Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity has found that beverage companies are aggressively targeting black and Latino kids with ads to promote sports, fruit and energy drinks. The products that are promoted to kids of color happen to be among the least healthy of the 644 products studied by researchers at the university.

    Black children and teens saw 80 percent to 90 percent more ads compared with white youth, including more than twice as many for Sprite, 5-hour Energy, and Vitamin Water.

    From 2008 to 2010, Latino children saw 49 percent more ads for sugary drinks and energy drinks on Spanish-language TV. Latino preschoolers saw more Spanish-language ads for Coca-Cola Classic, Kool-Aid, 7 Up, and Sunny D than older Latino children and teens did.

    Colorlines notes that the two largest soda companies, Pepsi and Coca-Cola, have repeatedly promised to market less to children, who are more susceptible to advertising: “Coca-Cola, for example, has previously stated publicly that they wouldn’t market ads in TV, radio and print programming aimed at kids under the age of 12.”

    But the report found that soda companies have just shifted to using more sophisticated and insidious forms of advertising that promise kids rewards for purchasing sugary drinks. Kids are exposed to these messages “often without their parents’ awareness.”

    Companies’ targeting of minority children is a social justice issue as well as an economic one. Just like mortgage companies that focused their predatory lending on minority communities, soda companies are preying on a particularly vulnerable group (poor children) who are already suffering the ill effects of their product and have the most to lose from consuming more. For instance, these children are less likely to have health insurance to cover the numerous medical problems associated with obesity.

  18. rikyrah says:

    Former Treasury Secretary Paulson Gave Insider Information To Hedge Fund Buddies |

    According to Bloomberg News, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who was at the helm when the financial crisis hit in 2008, leaked inside information regarding the government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to several hedge fund traders, including former colleagues of his at Goldman Sachs. There’s no evidence that the traders used the information, as “tracking firm-specific short stock sales isn’t possible using public documents,” but at least one trader contacted a lawyer and was told that “Paulson’s talk was material nonpublic information, and [he] should immediately stop trading” Fannie and Freddie. As Reuters’ Felix Salmon put it, “Paulson was giving inside tips to Wall Street in general, and to Goldman types in particular: exactly the kind of behavior that ‘Government Sachs’ conspiracy theorists have been speculating about for years.”

  19. rikyrah says:

    November 30, 2011 11:20 AM

    Why pay for the tax break?

    By Steve Benen

    As the debate over extending the payroll tax break shifts on Capitol Hill, reader F.B. flags an amusing moment from MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” earlier today.

    Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    Host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican member of Congress, noted that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he would block the extension of the tax break unless it’s fully paid for. And that’s when the mockery began: “[I]f Mitch McConnell is saying that, and it looks like he is saying that, he would appear to be the first Republican in the history of Washington D.C. to say they don’t want a tax cut unless it is ‘paid for,’ because we Republicans generally believe that tax cuts pay for themselves. The economy grows; daisies bloom in the backyard; male-pattern baldness is reversed.”

    For the record, if tax cuts cured baldness, I would have to reevaluate my commitment to my political/policy beliefs.

    As for the substantive point, Scarborough’s sarcasm is more than fair. Republicans never met a tax they didn’t want to cut — until now, that is — and have argued repeatedly that even trying to pay for tax cuts is a mistake. And yet, now GOP officials have not only argued against a tax break for American workers, Republicans have even given up the “tax fairy” belief about cuts paying for themselves.

    It’s almost as if GOP leaders aren’t principled at all, and will oppose Democratic efforts to help the economy just for the sake of doing so.

    For the record, at least one Republican yesterday raised the prospect of simply giving up on financing. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) said of extending the payroll cut, “It wasn’t paid for before, so why is it paid for now? Through economic activity, it will pay for itself.”

    Brown’s understanding of economics is wrong, but if the GOP decided to simply skip trying to pay for the extension, I suspect Democrats would go along.

  20. demsforprogress:

    Cain: ‘They Are Trying to Do Character Assassination On Me’ at

    Nigga Please!

  21. When Candidates Lie, What’s A Political Reporter To Do?

    Political reporters are notoriously unwilling to call even the most outrageous, intentionally deceptive untruths what they are: lies.

    But Mitt Romney’s very first campaign ad of the 2012 presidential race, broadcast in New Hampshire last week, is an indication that the year ahead may be full of them.

    The Romney ad in question used a quote from then-Senator Barack Obama in a deliberately deceptive way. “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose,” Obama is heard to say. He did say that, but in a context that made it clear he felt the opposite way. The full quote, from an October 2008 speech: “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

    Some of the mainstream-media coverage simply noted the deception in passing, some focused on its effectiveness as a campaign tactic. What was missing was sustained coverage about the lie itself.

    • What was missing was sustained coverage about the lie itself.

      The media is fine with a lie against the black president. They’re just as deceptive as the lying liar!

    • Ametia says:

      There is no LEGITIMATE USA media. The hacks are LIARS, and therefore they accept LIES and spew LIES. THE END.

  22. Whistleblower In Massive Foreclosure Fraud Found Dead.

  23. rikyrah says:

    November 30, 2011 9:55 AM

    Politicians don’t like being laughed at

    By Steve Benen

    At an event in South Florida yesterday, several leading Cuban-American members of Congress endorsed Mitt Romney’s Republican presidential campaign. But for one of the lawmakers, the interesting developments came after the event.

    Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) spoke to the Miami Herald’s Marc Caputo, who asked the congressman about President Obama’s foreign policy record. Diaz-Balart dismissed the president’s accomplishments, crediting George W. Bush for Obama’s successes. Caputo, who’s a reporter but also a human being, literally chuckled at the congressman’s nonsense.

    And that didn’t go over well.

    Diaz-Balart: “You laugh, are you a reporter or a debater? … It’s funny because — and I’m not giving you a hard time here, but usually reporters are reporters, not advocates.”

    Caputo: “I am not.”

    Diaz-Balart: “Oh yes you are.”

    Caputo: “Give me an example of advocacy,”

    Diaz-Balart: “Right now! You’re laughing about my position…. You’re an advocate! By the way, you have the right to be. I love advocacy.”

    Caputo: “I disagree with your characterization of advocacy.”

    Diaz-Balart: “You’re in advocacy. You’re an advocate.”

    Caputo: “I completely disagree.”

    Diaz-Balart: “And I completely respect your advocacy, I do. I respect your advocacy.”

    The two went back and forth for a while longer, with the congressman insisting that the reporter’s chuckle necessarily makes him a partisan advocate with no claim to objectivity, and the reporter insisting the opposite.

    For what it’s worth, I’m with Caputo on this. It’s not the journalist’s fault Mario Diaz-Balart said something amusing, and amorphous concepts of bias notwithstanding, reporters are human beings who are capable of finding humor in political silliness.

    Maybe if more reporters laughed out loud at politicians’ ridiculous talking points, the politicians’ talking points would be less ridiculous.

  24. The Senate GOP caucus meeting, where indefinite detention of US Citizens was debated, was attended by DICK CHENEY. #p2

  25. rikyrah says:

    Private jobs surge 206,000 in November

    Private U.S. companies added 206,000 jobs in November, the highest job growth in 11 months, according to the national employment report released today by ADP, a nationwide payroll service.
    Employment growth was stronger than the 130,000 anticipated by economists and could cause a decline in the national unemployment rate that the Bureau of Labor Statistics will report on Friday, unless large numbers of people started looking for work again, said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, which compiles the widely watched monthly report from ADP payroll data.

    ADP only reports private sector jobs, so Friday’s BLS report may be lower because it includes government employment, Prakken said. But he expects that number to be higher than economists expect as well.
    ADP also revised its October employment gain to 130,000, up 20,000 from the initial report.
    November jobs were added by all sizes of companies and in all major sectors, Prakken said. Those gains include:
    • Firms with fewer than 50 employees, +110,000
    • Businesses with 50 to 499 employees, + 84,000
    • Companies with 500 or more employees, +12,000
    • Service companies, +178,000
    • Goods producers, +28,000 with manufacturers contributing 7,000 of those jobs
    • Construction, +16,000
    • Financial services, +7,000
    “Today’s number is a notable acceleration, which is consistent with the notion that the U.S. economy skirted a double dip recession,” Prakken said. “Still employment is below the previous peak so we would need many months of this level of growth for me to call the job market robust.”
    ADP President and CEO Carlos Rodriguez said, “This month’s jobs figures show positive growth in all major sectors of the economy and are in line with the recent drop in the national unemployment rate and weekly jobless claims. Despite fiscal uncertainties here and abroad, owners of small- and medium-sized businesses found ways to grow and hire in November.”

  26. BREAKING NEWS:Dow soars 300+ points as central banks join forces.

    Stocks surge as central banks join forces
    The world’s largest banks make a coordinated effort to enhance liquidity. China’s central bank cuts reserve requirements. US companies add more jobs than expected. October home sales spike.

    U.S. stocks were surging Wednesday after the announcement of a coordinated effort among the world’s central banks to enhance liquidity.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average ($INDU +3.33%) was adding 391.5 points at 11,947. The S&P 500 ($INX +3.23%) was up 38.4 points at 1,234, and the Nasdaq ($COMPX +3.05%) was rising 78.4 points at 2,593.

    The central banks of Canada, England, Japan, Europe, Switzerland and the US announced measures to “ease strains in the financial markets and thereby mitigate the effects of such strains on the supply of credit to households and businesses and so help foster economic activity,” the Fed said.

  27. Clinton to get first top-level peek at Myanmar in over 50 years

    Updated at 5:15 a.m. ET: Hillary Clinton arrives in Myanmar, becoming the first U.S. secretary of state to visit the country in decades.

    YANGON, Myanmar – U Nine Nine has spent 17 of the past 21 years behind bars as a political prisoner, and on the face of it, he would seem to have little reason to be upbeat about Myanmar’s recent reforms.

    “Time will tell,” he told me. “But I’m cautiously optimistic. It is difficult for them to turn back now [from the recent changes]. The next few weeks will be crucial.”

    After 49 years of totalitarian rule, Myanmar’s military junta is beginning to loosen up.

  28. Holiday Press Preview
    November 30, 2011 1:30 PM EST

    The White House

  29. President Obama speaks at Scranton High School
    November 30, 2011 2:45 PM EST

  30. rikyrah says:

    November 30, 2011 9:20 AM

    Huntsman won’t fully commit to GOP

    By Steve Benen

    It’s not exactly a secret that former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, up until recently a member of the Obama administration, is struggling to get ahead in the Republican presidential field. A moderate by contemporary GOP standards, Huntsman simply appears to be out of step with his radicalized party.

    But exactly how uncomfortable is he?

    Asked in September, whether he’d consider running as an independent if his Republican bid came up short, Huntsman seemed to rule out the possibility. Asked again yesterday, Huntsman offered a different line.

    Republican Jon Huntsman today refused to rule out running as an independent candidate for president should he fail in his quest for his party’s 2012 nomination.

    Asked, “Is there any situation in which you would run for president as an independent?” Huntsman told The Boston Globe, “I don’t think so.”

    Told that anything but a flat denial could perpetuate speculation about the possibility, Huntsman replied: “I’m a lifelong Republican. I’m running as a Republican, and I fully anticipate that that’s where we’re going to be.”

    It doesn’t take much effort to notice the wiggle room. Huntsman doesn’t “think” he’d run as an independent, and he “anticipates” staying with the Republican Party.

    The former governor obviously doesn’t seem willing to rule this out, even when given multiple opportunities to do so. I suspect if a reporter were to ask Romney, Perry, and Gingrich whether they’d be open to a third-party presidential run against the GOP nominee, they’d all say, “Of course not.” Huntsman is taking a very different line.

    I rather doubt Huntsman would seriously pursue this — a third party candidate hasn’t seriously competed for the presidency in 150 years — but he has a considerable personal fortune and he doesn’t seem to think highly of Mitt Romney.

    After Huntsman comes up short in New Hampshire in January, this is something to keep an eye on.

  31. rikyrah says:

    Film honcho donates $5 million to U. of C. Laboratory Schools
    Sherry Lansing: ‘It’s truly the most wonderful school in the world’

    By Barbara Brotman, Chicago Tribune reporter

    12:07 a.m. CST, November 30, 2011
    There is a place in Chicago that profoundly influenced Sherry Lansing, shaping her 30-year career as one of the most powerful producers in Hollywood and the philanthropic role she has taken on since leaving it.

    On Wednesday, she will say a $5 million thank-you.

    The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools plan to announce that Lansing, who graduated from the Lab’s high school in 1962, has pledged that amount to support a new arts wing. The centerpiece, a 250-seat performance venue, will be named the Sherry Lansing Theater.

    Describing her experience at Lab, Lansing, who grew up in Chicago’s South Shore neighborhood, reached for superlatives.

    “It’s truly the most wonderful school in the world,” she said by phone from Santa Barbara, Calif., where she was spending the Thanksgiving holiday.

    “It was a totally nonjudgmental environment,” she said. “You were totally free to be yourself.”

    Housed in Gothic, vaguely Hogwartian buildings on the U. of C. campus, Lab is one of the city’s top private schools. The Obamas and the Pritzkers have sent their children there. Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s children enrolled there when he returned from Washington.

    Lansing’s gift, part of the Lab Schools’ campaign to raise $55 million — the largest fundraising effort in their history — and her account of her years at Lab offer a window into the institution.

    It is actually several schools, encompassing preschool through high school. Lansing attended Lab’s high school at the urging of her mother and stepfather, a furniture manufacturer.

    “The only thing that was valued was your brains. And that was it,” she said. “Nobody cared what you looked like; nobody cared if you had money or you didn’t have money; nobody cared about social status.”

    But having brains didn’t mean you couldn’t also be a cheerleader. “I loved being a cheerleader,” she said. “It was very exciting. We played all the other private schools, Parker and Latin. We cheered our hearts out, and it was really fun.”

    She loved Lab’s openness so much that she sought it out as an adult. “The movie business was as close to the Lab School as I could possibly imagine because idiosyncratic behavior was applauded,” she said.

    Fifty years later, several students attending Lab sounded like they could have been part of Lansing’s class.

    “Lab is very much a place where everyone does their own thing. It’s very free,” said Adam Wills Kelsick, 16, whose thing is theater.

    “There’s a stream of ideas, and almost no one says ‘no,'” said Maddie Lindsey, 17, who also is involved in theater. “They say, ‘That might not be the best idea, but you can certainly try it.'”

    Lab feels like a family, Kelsick said. Earlier that day, he said, a teacher had invited him to make himself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in the classroom, sit down and talk.

    Children of prominent families are treated no differently than anyone else, Lab students say.,0,1753432.story

  32. rikyrah says:

    November 30, 2011 8:35 AM

    A rare Romney interview
    By Steve Benen

    Mitt Romney, despite having been a presidential candidate non-stop for over five years, is still reluctant to sit down for lengthy media interviews. So when the former governor sat down with Fox News’ Bret Baier yesterday in Miami, it seemed like a rare treat for the political world.

    The two covered a fair amount of ground, but a few exchanges jumped out at me. For example, Baier asked Romney about Newt Gingrich.

    “You know, Speaker Gingrich is a good man. He and I have very different backgrounds. He spent his last 30 or 40 years in Washington. I spent my career in the private sector. I think that’s what the country needs right now.”

    That’s not quite true. Romney spent some of his career leading a vulture capital fund, breaking up companies and firing American workers, but he’s also been a Senate candidate, a governor, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, the head of a political action committee, and a two-time presidential candidate. He spent his career “in the private sector”? Not really.

    Baier also raised the issue of Romney’s flip-flops, and asked a good question: “How can voters trust what they hear from you today is what you will believe if you win the White House?” Romney didn’t answer, choosing instead to condemn President Obama. So, Baier tried again, noting that Democrats and Republicans have raised this point. Romney didn’t appear pleased.

    “[T]here’s no question, but that people are going to take snippets and take things out of context and try and show that there are differences, where in some cases, there are not. But one place I’d change my mind which regards to the government’s role relating abortion. I am pro-life.

    “I did not take that position years ago. And that’s the same change that occurred with Ronald Reagan, with George W. Bush, with some of the leaders in the pro-life movement.”

    First, Romney should never complain about taking people out of context. Second, Bush was consistent on his position on abortion. And third, abortion is only one of dozens of issues on which Romney has flip-flopped.

    Later, when pressed on whether he’s changed his views on health care, Romney got testy and complained, “This is an unusual interview.” It’s only unusual because Romney isn’t used to facing any questions at all.

    When Baier turned the focus to immigration, Romney said, “My view is pretty straightforward.” The reality is the opposite — Romney struggled badly to explain why he’s criticized Gingrich’s position that appears to be identical to his own. When Baier pressed the candidate on what he’d recommend for the millions of undocumented immigrants who are already in the United States, Romney couldn’t answer.

    You know, there’s great interest on the part of some to talk about what we do with the 11 million. My interest is saying, let’s make sure that we secure the border, and we don’t do anything that talks about bringing in a new wave of those or attracting a new wave of people into the country illegally.

    “The right course for us is to secure the border and say nothing about amnesty or tuition breaks to illegal aliens or anything else that draws people into the country illegally. The right course, secure the border, and then, we can determine what’s the right way to deal with the 11 million and to make it as clear as I possibly can.”

    Romney’s campaign couldn’t answer the question last week, and Romney himself couldn’t answer the question this week. These guys have had plenty of time to think of something to say; there’s no excuse for coming up empty now.

    I don’t imagine he’s interested in my advice, but I suspect Romney would be more comfortable, less awkward, and more proficient in these interviews if he didn’t go to great lengths to avoid them. Practice makes perfect, Mitt.

  33. symmetry11:

    Herman Cain had daily contact with White in November: ABC

    Herman Cain had almost daily contact this month with the woman who says she had a 13-year extramarital affair with him, even as he battled sexual harassment allegations from other women, ABC News reported on Wednesday.

    Ginger White, the Atlanta businesswoman who says she has had an on-and-off relationship with Cain since the mid-1990s, told the network’s “Good Morning America” program that she remained in contact with Cain until last week.

  34. Dick Quote of the Day

    “We’ve got real issues to talk about not the latest bimbo eruption.” Jon Huntsman on coverage of the Herman Cain campaign

    It’s unbelievably sexist to label all of Cain’s accusers as “bimbos” — especially the women who Cain sexually harassed. The word implies the women are sexually promiscuous and stupid. Weird how Huntsman jumped to that conclusion.

    Your “reasonable” Republican.

  35. rikyrah says:

    November 30, 2011 8:00 AM

    A major shift in the payroll debate
    By Steve Benen

    For months, Republican leaders have balked at the notion of a payroll tax-cut extension. Despite the fact that the tax break was largely their idea in the first place, GOP officials have said they would block President Obama’s request, regardless of the economic consequences.

    But Democrats assumed this position was untenable, and they were right. If the payroll break, approved last December, expires at the end of the calendar year, over 100 million U.S. households would see a fairly significant tax increase during difficult economic times — and it would be entirely Republicans’ fault.

    Sure, the standard GOP response is that they disapprove of the particulars, most notably the fact that Dems would pay for the tax-cut extension with a modest surtax on millionaires and billionaires. But as David Firestone explained yesterday, that still leaves the GOP in an awkward position.

    Are Republicans going to deny the average working family a $1,500 tax break in order to spare millionaires a modest increase? That $1,500 or so, multiplied by every paycheck in America, would have a huge effect on economic growth next year, widely estimated as between 1.5 and 2 percentage points. The tax increase would affect only a tiny fraction of small businesses with employees, despite the endless Republican claims that it would stifle job creation.

    If Republicans refuse that deal, it will play directly into Democratic hopes of shaping next year’s election around the increasingly popular theme of income inequality. (“Why did your taxes go up? So that Republicans could protect millionaires.”) They could pay for it with cuts to federal programs that benefit the middle class, which would be self-defeating. Or, if they approve the payroll tax cut without paying for it (as they did last year), that would increase the deficit and reveal the Republican hypocrisy in preferring low taxes for the rich over deficit-cutting.

    Either way, the anti-tax crowd is boxed in.

    This point is not lost on Republicans, who just yesterday, started changing their tune. After months of saying they would oppose an extension, GOP leaders finally said they would support another year of the payroll break — but only if it’s paid for in some other way.

    When push comes to shove, Republicans will do just about anything to protect millionaires and billionaires from having to sacrifice anything at all.

    All told, the package would cost about $115 billion in 2012. How would the GOP cover the costs? As of yesterday, Republicans wouldn’t say.

    The fact that the GOP has come around on the issue itself, though, set some minds at ease. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Republican reversal “virtually assures that American wage-earners will continue to receive the benefit next year.” Ezra said something similar this morning.

    That’s probably correct, though it might be a little premature to assume success on this. There’s a very real chance that the parties will struggle over financing, the effort will collapse, and Republicans, who don’t support the workers’ tax break anyway, will say, “Democrats raised taxes when they rejected our version of paying for the bill.” The media would say “both sides” are to blame because the two parties “wouldn’t compromise,” and the economy will take a very serious hit.

    Yesterday’s GOP shift was a major step in the right direction, but the hurdles between here and passage remain significant.

  36. rikyrah says:

    Desperate Conservatives Beg Sarah Palin To Run

    Ah, don’t say I didn’t warn you about this possibility years ago.

    Watching the last “conservative” Great Hope going down in flames as Herman Cain reassesses his campaign approach (code: okay, maybe I did do something inappropriate), Conservatives for Palin see an opening for the Mama Grizzly. Yes, only she can save America from the evil socialist, even though she was the most socialist governor in America during her brief tenure as Governor of Alaska.

    Still. God still loves her best — a point that Palin, in an act of supreme humility, demonstrated while Mayor of Wasilla. Yes, Palin had “God Loves You Sarah Palin” put on her official mayoral computer but that pales in comparison to the sweet letter she signed as “Your Heavenly Father” to her friends and family. No one knows God like Sarah. Move over, Michele, Rick and Herb!


    I have always told you that if Palin were going to run, she would wisely wait out the vetting season of debate as she can not compete in that arena (see her hand for her three ideas for America). She would wait to be begged as all of the other “conservative” candidates fell by the wayside so that she could step in at the last moment as the Hail Mary (that worked so well in 2008!) pass for her faithful.

    Now, I wouldn’t even take this seriously if Fox News hadn’t also mentioned their desire for her to run last week, because where Fox goes, so goes the base.

    Would Palin step in as a Tea Party candidate, a “Constitution party” (secessionist/militia/ “Christian”) candidate or does God’s chosen one think she can run on the Republican ticket? She has until next summer to decide if she chooses to run as an Independent or third party candidate. While I previously thought a Palin run would be a disaster for this country, not to mention an international humiliation, all of the Palin alternatives the Republicans have tried on haven’t worked and some of them have even managed to make Palin appear remotely sane and stable in comparison.

    So, I’ve changed my mind and I am going to join the Conservatives for Palin and urge Queen Esther to man up and give the people what they want: Run, Sarah, Run! What exactly is stopping her? Does she lack the courage, the fortitude, or the desire to fundamentally change this country? If she really thinks that Obama is the anti-Christ and only she can save us, she would ignore the polls and just run, Sarah, run.

  37. Brezzydee:

    WTH???Pres Obama gallup poll 43%.Something is wrong.Donations,Over a Million Volunteers,& Money collected don’t match up with these polls.

    I smell fish and it ain’t Friday!

  38. rikyrah says:

    November 30, 2011
    Cookie-cutter idealism

    Once again, participatory democrat Katrina vanden Heuvel extols more democracy as a cure for the unpleasantness of democracy, while also recommending the singular brutality of an imperial presidency to deliver blunt-force trauma to the contentious democracy we have:

    We need a transformational presidency, able to smash the failed, entrenched and corrupt politics of the center…. And what this nation desperately needs isn’t partisan unity, but a fierce and growing movement that will challenge not just the wing nuts of the right, but an establishment in both parties that has failed the country.

    In unrealistic brief, a putsch, a revolutionary cadre, a proletarian dictatorship led by anyone but the complacent proletariat — and all of it topped by a somewhat violent though resplendently virtuous Man of Steel.

    You know, cookie-cutter idealism, freshman-year progressivism, an MGM-musical kind of splashy boosterism which, in vanden Heuvel’s cool and precise 1,000 words, manages to advance absolutely nothing.

    What, exactly, does Ms. vanden Heuvel oppose? “Failed, entrenched and corrupt politics.” What does she propose? “Challenging” those who have “failed the country.”

    Sort of takes your breath away, does it not? A new kind of politics, a new age of enlightenment; one in which we soundly reject failure and corruption, while embracing, well … success and clean living.

    How do we get there? I haven’t the vaguest fucking idea. Nor does Katrina vandel Heuvel.

  39. rikyrah says:

    Surprise, Surprise! David Sirota Misses the Point Entirely about Ron Paul

    Salon writer and head boy at the Glenn Greenwald School of Sock Puppetry and Scream-Infested Bullying, David Sirota has discovered Ron Paul.

    Like the rest of the EmoProg Left, whose tactics and emotions play closer and closer every day to the Tea Party fringe.

    Politics are circular; thus if one moves further to the Left, he risks coming out on the Right, and Sirota’s probably at a hat shop in downtown Denver right now being measured up for his tinfoil one.

    Sirota’s little love piece about Paul told me something I already knew – that Paul draws huge support from voters aged between 18 and 29. That’s been obvious from disclosures that Ron Paul is the only politician in whom any of the young people participating in the Occupy movement are interested.

    That’s not only oxymoronic, it’s scary and ignorant.

    Here I thought OWS was all about the interests of the 99% – all of us plebs together, universal health coverage, peace and all that caring for your fellow man an kumbayah moments. The stuff of hippies.

    Well, Ron Paul is Libertarian to the core, the most selfish of any political philosophy, and caring for your fellow man at the government’s expense is not on Ron Paul’s agenda. Neither is “taxing the shit out of the rich” as one fervent Paul supporter at Zuccotti Park stated.

    Libertarians hate taxes. They hate government. In fact, if Libertarians were British, the motto of their party would be, “I’m all right, Jack, fuck you.”

    No, indeedy, David Sirota fluffs past all that. Commenting on the fact that the oldest candidate for President appeals to the youngest (and most fickle, inept and intellectually bereft) tranche of voter, Sirota dispels as myth one of the things that makes youngsters cleave so closely to Paul’s politics: the fact that he wants all drugs legalised.

    That’s undoubtedly one of Paul’s attractions to young voters – ne’mind the fact that Paul’s attitude to drug use is that if a person makes himself deathly ill over drug use or addiction, the outcome is down to him. Don’t expect the government to pay for any medical care.

    “I’m all right, Jack, fuck you.”

    They never think to look at the other side of the equation; but then, neither does Sirota:-

    This degrading mythology ignores the possibility that young people support Paul’s libertarianism for its overall critique of our government’s civil liberties transgressions (transgressions, by the way, now being openly waged against young people), nor does the narrative address the possibility that young people support Paul’s drug stance not because they want to smoke weed, but because they see the War on Drugs as a colossal waste of resources.

    Well, you know, I understand the mystique of turning forty. I understand the mystique of turning fifty. You are no longer young, and so here we have not only Sirota, who’s a graying, middle-aged, fortysomething man, who joins the pathetic throngs of fiftysomethings (yes, I’m looking at you, Bill Maher, Joan Walsh and Michael Moore, who pimp your brand and tout for relevance amongst people young enough to be your children and grandchildren). Sirota’s just another in a long line of affluent, white privilegist, borderline racist ueber Progressives, who’ve suddenly discovered a police brutality that’s existed for decades as experienced by the African American and Latino communities, but who have only bothered to speak out about this injustice when it affects a movement that’s over 90% white and very middle class in make up.

    Why didn’t he speak out before, one wonders?

    • Ametia says:

      ALL.OF.THIS. “the pathetic throngs of fiftysomethings (yes, I’m looking at you, Bill Maher, Joan Walsh and Michael Moore, who pimp your brand and tout for relevance amongst people young enough to be your children and grandchildren). Sirota’s just another in a long line of affluent, white privilegist, borderline racist ueber Progressives, who’ve suddenly discovered a police brutality that’s existed for decades as experienced by the African American and Latino communities, but who have only bothered to speak out about this injustice when it affects a movement that’s over 90% white and very middle class in make up.”

  40. The Washington Post:

    Is this the end for Herman Cain?

  41. Ametia says:

    The wrong way to talk about China

    By Eugene Robinson, Published: November 29

    Even the briefest acquaintance with this smoggy, sprawling capital is basis enough to conclude that much of the campaign rhetoric we’re hearing about China is unrealistic, dishonest or just dumb.

    read on here:

  42. rikyrah says:

    November 29, 2011 3:40 PM

    What Gingrich doesn’t want us to talk about
    By Steve Benen

    Over the last three decades, wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top. The middle class is struggling with stagnant wages and a growing class gap; poverty rates are soaring; the jobs crisis seems never-ending; and a growing number of Americans are suggesting it’s time for a larger conversation about economic inequalities and tax fairness.

    Newt Gingrich believes that conversation must not occur. In fact, the Republican presidential candidate questions the patriotism of those who choose to draw attention to the problem.

    “I repudiate, and I call on the President to repudiate, the concept of the 99 and the 1. It is un-American, it is divisive, it is historically false…. You are not going to get job creation when you engage in class warfare because you have to attack the very people you hope will create jobs.”

    Even for a candidate who says truly ridiculous things on a daily basis, this is extraordinary.

    Let me get this straight. A disgraced multi-millionaire, who’s run an ethically-sketchy “business conglomerate” while spending vast amounts of money on high-priced jewelry for this third wife, feels comfortable lecturing struggling Americans about even noticing the growing class gap.

    And no one finds this disqualifying for national office?

    When Republicans demand the middle- and lower-classes sacrifice, while shielding millionaires and billionaires from any concessions at all, the American mainstream isn’t even supposed to talk about it? When GOP policies impose a new Gilded Age on society, it’s “un-American” to even debate the propriety of the regressive agenda?

    Since when is it consistent with the American tradition to try to shut down a debate over fairness and economic justice? For that matter, since when is it an “attack” on the extremely wealthy to ask them to pay Clinton/Gingrich-era tax rates that allowed the rich to thrive in the 1990s?

    What’s more, let’s also not overlook Gingrich’s selective approach to unity. Today in South Carolina, Gingrich said it’s un-American and divisive to pit a majority against a minority. But as my friend Kyle Mantyla noted today, Gingrich said the opposite at the recent “One Nation Under God” event where he told religious right activists “that they are the majority in the country who must stand up and take this nation back from the ‘minority elite’ who are ruining it.”

    So to recap, when it comes to the economy, Gingrich believes we’re all one people, and we must pay no attention to the wealth that divides us. When it comes to the culture war, we’re not one people, and those who believe as Gingrich does should target and defeat those Americans who disagree.

    If a right-wing voice rails against the “minority elite,” he’s speaking the truth. If an Occupy activist rails against the “minority elite,” he’s an un-American radical.

    Got it.

    • Let me get this straight. A disgraced multi-millionaire, who’s run an ethically-sketchy “business conglomerate” while spending vast amounts of money on high-priced jewelry for this third wife, feels comfortable lecturing struggling Americans about even noticing the growing class gap.

      White privilege 101!

  43. rikyrah says:

    Poll: Gingrich Cements His Second Place Position In NH
    Republican Presidential Candidates Newt Gingrich And Mitt Romney

    David Teich November 29, 2011, 3:08 PM

    A new Rasmussen Reports survey shows Mitt Romney leading the 2012 New Hampshire Republican primary by 10 points, with Newt Gingrich maintaining the second place status he has solidified in recent polling. The poll of the January 10th contest is the first since the New Hampshire Union Leader, the state’s largest newspaper, issued Gingrich a high-profile endorsement on Sunday.

    34% of respondents supported Romney in the poll, with 24% supporting Gingrich. Ron Paul received 14% support, Jon Huntsman 11%, and all other candidates were mired in single digits.

    Most respondents were aware of Gingrich’s recent triumph: 76% of respondents could identify him as the recipient of the Union Leader’s endorsement. But Romney’s and Gingrich’s numbers are not out of synch with the most recent polling of the state. TPM’s current poll average shows 36.6% support for the first-place Romney, compared to 18.8% for the second-place Gingrich. The numbers are not wildly different from those in the Rasmussen poll, and the poll is not proof of a spike for Gingrich, or drop for Romney, in the wake of the Union Leader endorsement.

    In truth, Gingrich’s support level in New Hampshire has been steadily improving over the last month, and the Rasmussen poll may just be showing a continuation of that trend. It is not yet clear what effect the Union Leader’s endorsement is having on the race.

  44. rikyrah says:

    Can Romney Ever Seal The Deal?

    Despite all his seeming frontrunner status, there’s one thing Mitt Romney hasn’t been able to do: Establish any kind of dominance that would actually justify calling him the frontrunner.

    To be clear, Romney is certainly a frontrunner — but is he the frontrunner? Now, it is true that Romney was for a long time the highest-rated candidate in the national polls. But in fact, Romney has never managed to escape the mid-20s, and stay there, as the numbers keep going up and down for the other candidates.

    As has been noted many times, the Republican contest has gone through a cycle of one candidate or another gaining a sudden, massive amount of support against Romney, only to collapse after a combination of blunders and media scrutiny — see Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain. The big question, then, is whether any candidate will be able to put up a stable anti-Romney front, or if the competition are too flawed, and Romney can take it by default. (Newt Gingrich, you’re now up at bat.) And if Herman Cain should now drop out of the race — he suggested on Tuesday he was ‘reassessing’ things — that could mean a sudden turn to a much rougher road for Romney. The numbers suggest Gingrich would be much more the beneficiary of a Cain departure than Romney.

    Granted, Romney has consistently been ahead in one state — New Hampshire, right next door to the state where he was once governor, Massachusetts. But even then, Romney’s leads in New Hampshire have been pluralities, not majorities, with Romney’s own support fluctuating from the mid-30s to the low 40s:

    This seems to suggest that Romney could remain vulnerable to a close showing here, if the race lines up with Romney against an anti-Romney candidate. As of the latest polls, Romney is still ahead — but Newt is gaining some steam.

    By comparison, the last time Romney ran for president in 2008, he got 32% of the vote in the New Hampshire GOP primary, behind John McCain’s 37%.

    Romney has also had problems in Iowa polling, very similar to the national picture — not to mention Christian right activists in the state who don’t like how he has repeatedly snubbed their big events:

    For a take on the situation among right-wing activists, Erick Erickson puts it simply: “The race for the GOP nomination is well settled at this point. It is settled in ‘Not Romney’s’ favor. The reason the race is so volatile is that ‘Not Romney’ is not on the ballot making a Romney nomination not just possible, but probable.”

    Probable? Compared to any other candidate at the moment, yes. But inevitable?

  45. rikyrah says:

    Dressed like wealthy donors, protesters try to disrupt Romney fundraiser in Tampa
    By Jodie Tillman, Times Staff Writer
    In Print: Wednesday, November 30, 2011

    They decided to look the part of people who could afford to contribute $2,500 apiece to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

    One wore a black dress and high heels. One a crisp business suit. One a tie; another, pearls.

    But not long after gliding into the Tampa Museum of Art, where the GOP candidate held a fundraiser Tuesday evening, the interlopers showed their hand.

    Wall Street is bankrolling Romney’s campaign, they read from notes. And “Occupy Tampa wholeheartedly rejects this.”

    Security and police officers rushed toward them in a scene that unfolded in front of the roughly 75 protesters watching through the museum’s glass atrium walls.

    “Shame! Shame!” protesters on the outside shouted as they saw their brethren on the inside get booted.

    One of the interlopers, Bill Livsey, a 47-year-old out-of-work music teacher, initially resisted the officer but ended up leaving through the revolving door.

    “Look at this crowd!” said Livsey, whose shirt came untucked during the tussle. “Multiply it by 3,000. Welcome to the (2012) RNC.”

    None of the handful of protesters inside was arrested. Fundraiser organizers said Tuesday night they were uncertain whether Romney had heard any of the commotion.

    It was another small disturbance by the Occupy Tampa protesters, who have been encamped near Curtis Hixon Waterfront Park since early October — but one they hoped would advance their message.

    “People are talking about income inequality, whereas before it was taboo,” protester Jeannine Coreil, a retired public health professor, said of the Occupy movement.

    One of the protesters who went inside the museum, Becky Rubright, 38, said she had called fundraiser organizers a few days ago and said she wanted to attend but could not afford the entire $2,500. An organizer, she said, told her to come and pay what she could. That got her name on the guest list.

    But the protesters never saw Romney, who arrived in an SUV that pulled into a garage. Outside, they carried signs making fun of him as a flip-flopper and highlighting his “corporations are people” quote.

    “Show me what people look like!” the protesters shouted in unison outside the museum, where they could see some of the reception patrons drinking wine and chatting. “This is what people look like!”

    Protester Jon Talbot, 47, said he wondered what the food was like at a $2,500-a-plate event. “I’m a chef,” said Talbot, who works for a cruise line. “There’s no food worth that.”

    The crowd also made an issue of what Romney eats for dinner: “I eat dried beans for dinner three or four times a week,” protesters said in unison. “Do you think Mitt eats dried beans?”

  46. rikyrah says:

    New Poll: Republicans Suffering In Tea Party Districts
    Pema Levy November 30, 2011, 5:59 AM

    A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows that support for the Tea Party — and with it the Republican Party — has dropped precipitously in the last year. Now just 20% say they agree with the Tea Party, less than the 27% who disagree. But the news gets worse for Republicans: their favorability has dropped even further in Tea Party districts.

    This is part of an ongoing trend, with polls this year consistently showing a narrowing of support for the Tea Party movement. In April, Pew found that as recognition of the Tea Party grew, their favorability declined. Specifically, disapproval rose 15 points between March 2010 and April 2011. And as TPM reported in September, according to a CBS/ORC Poll, fully 53% of the public had an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party compared to a meager 28% with a favorable view. By October, the Occupy Wall Street movement had eked out a higher approval rating than the Tea Party.

    Despite this trend, the new numbers represent a new low not only for the Tea Party but for the Republican Party. Whereas before, the growing disapproval of the Tea Party came from Democrats, moderates, and even moderate Republicans, these numbers show that Republican favorability has fallen steeply in Tea Party districts, 41% favorable to 48% unfavorable. Just a few months ago in March, GOP approval in these districts was a much higher 55%.

    Last November, when Republicans swept up dozens of seats to take the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, the Tea Party’s favorability was way up, meaning today’s numbers do not bode well for Republicans trying to hold the House in 2012. Moreover, during the last election cycle, approval of the Tea Party in these 60 districts — including 17 freshmen elected in 2010 — had outstripped disapproval, now approval is about the same as disapproval, 25% to 23%. And while Tea Party disapproval has steadily increased across the board, the debt-ceiling debacle this summer seems to have been a turning point in public opinion both of the Tea Party and the Republican Party. This fall, Republican intransigence against Obama’s jobs plan didn’t help them either. As all eyes turn towards 2012, Republicans need to shake off what appears to be buyers’ remorse in these key districts.

  47. rikyrah says:

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011
    Cain Unable, Part 11
    Posted by Zandar
    Herman Cain will here in Cincinnati this morning on the “campaign trail”, which apparently means “the slow, agonizing death of his run for President where everyone but Herman Cain himself admits it’s over.” His first stop this morning: Orange Julius country up in the northern suburbs.

    Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain will appear at a 9 a.m. rally Wednesday at the Marriott Hotel off Interstate 75 and Union Centre Boulevard.

    The former pizza company executive is making a three-city swing through the state. West Chester is in a key Republican belt in Ohio, typically a pivotal swing state in presidential elections

    The longtime married man has denied allegations in recent days he had a 13-year affair with a Georgia businesswoman. The allegations come after several women alleged he sexually harassed them.

    Speculation swirled in the national media Tuesday night that he may quit the race. But Cain has said he will not quit unless his wife tells him she no longer believes in him.

    Good god, Gloria Cain. Spare the country this nonsense, tell him it’s over, and let’s get back to the GOP doing something insane like nominating Newt Gingrich, assuring an Obama win. I mean at this point, Team Cain Unable has even lost J-Mart:

    Herman Cain is in the midst of “reassessing” whether to continue his 2012 bid, but its legacy is already settled: His campaign will go down as one of the most hapless and bumbling operations in modern presidential politics, setting a new standard for how to turn damaging press coverage into something far worse.

    We’ve got work to do to get him to leave, I guess.

  48. rikyrah says:

    from another blogger…this one’s for Uncle Herbie:

    “See, the black race can’t afford you no more. Oh, there used to be a time we’d see somebody like you singing, clowning, yes sir bossing and we wouldn’t do anything. Folks liked that. You were good, homie kinda nigga. When they needed someone to mistreat, call a name or two, they paraded you. Reminded them of the good old days. Not no more. The day of the geechie is gone boy and you goin’ with it. We can’t let nobody go on believing that we’re all fools like you.”
    —-Sergeant Waters, A Soldier’s Story


  49. rikyrah says:

    Good Morning, Everyone at 3CHICS!!

Leave a Reply