O come, O come, Emmanuel is a translation of the Latin text (“Veni, veni, Emmanuel“) by John Mason Neale and Henry Sloane Coffin[1][2] in the mid-19th century. It is a metrical version of a collation of various Advent Antiphons (the acrostic O Antiphons), which now serves as a popular Advent and Christmas hymn. Its origins are unclear, it is thought that the antiphons are from at least the 8th Century, but “Veni, veni Emmanuel” may well be 12th Century in origin.[3][4] The text is based on the biblical prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 that states that God will give Israel a sign that will be called Immanuel (Lit.: God with us). Matthew 1:23 states fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
Christmas in Washington
GOP Collapse: Obama Leads Gingrich And Romney In South Carolina And Florida
New polls of South Carolina and Florida hint that the GOP’s chances of taking the White House are evaporating as Barack Obama leads both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in each state.
The biggest surprise is in the new NBC/Marist poll of South Carolina, where Obama’s approval rating is a not too upside down for a reliable red state 44%/48%. The big shock is that President Obama has small leads over both Newt Gingrich (46%-42%), and Mitt Romney (45%-42%). Both of Obama’s narrow leads are outside the poll’s 2.1% margin of error. A new Winthrop poll has also found that President Obama is more popular that Republican South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. The Winthrop Poll gives Obama nearly identical to NBC 44.8% approval rating, and only 34.6% approve of Gov. Haley.
Gingrich is absolutely destroying Romney in South Carolina among likely primary voters 42%-23%. Newt Gingrich leads Mitt Romney 51%-20% among tea partiers. Romney’s biggest problem in the state is that Republicans are more interested in a candidate who shares their values (29%), and is close to them on the issues (26%) than one that can beat Obama (20%). By a margin of 61%-53% Republicans found Gingrich more acceptable than Romney, and 44% of Republicans believed that Romney was acceptable with reservations or not acceptable at all. Only 26% of likely primary voters considered Romney a conservative.
In Florida, Obama has seen his approval rating jump five points since October. It is within the margin of error, but more voters now approve of Obama than disapprove (46%-45%). Obama now leads Romney by seven points, (48%-41%), and Gingrich by 12 points in the Sunshine State, (51%-39%). Newt Gingrich is blowing out Romney in Florida for the same reasons that he is trouncing him in South Carolina. Florida Republicans said that it was more important to them that a candidate shared their values (26%) and is close to them on the issues (28%) than can beat Obama (23%).
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-gingrich-romney-sc-fl
Right Wing Stalkers Obsess Over Obama Girls’ Lunch
Warning: contains racist, misogynistic language as quoted from the comment section of The Blaze.
I’m sure you were careful to not eat anything remotely Asian on Pearl Harbor Day as a freedom lovin’ American, but of course, you can’t expect the same care from our President’s children’s school.
Glenn Beck’s site The Blaze picked up a story of national concern this past week that you may have missed in your obsession with the liberal media. The Obama girls were served Asian food at their chichi private school in DC on Pearl Harbor Day. Why aren’t you freaking out? Don’t you get it?
Clearly, the President hates America, but wait! Are the girls pallin’ around with terrorist food on Pearl Harbor Day? Will our national nightmare never end?!
The Blaze (Glenn Beck’s site) picked up this story from WUSA News:
WASHINGTON (WUSA) — What are President Obama’s kids eating at school on Pearl Harbor day? Japanese food and other Asian items.
Sidwell Friends School’s website shows the menu for Wednesday December 7th, 2011, the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day, as an Asian food day.
Snip
MS/US
Asian Mushroom Soup
Oriental Noodle Salad
Classic Spinach Salad
Teriyaki Marinated Chicken Strips
Szechuan Tofu & Veggies
Garlic Roasted Edamame
Vegetable Fried Rice
Fortune Cookies
Fortune cookies!? OMG! How do we know the commies aren’t putting secret Asian messages in the fortune cookies?! Also, edamame? Come on. Who loves America?
The Blaze nicely pointed out that it wasn’t the girls’ fault that their school was so anti-American, “It’s obviously not Sasha and Malia Obama‘s fault but Sidwell Friends School, the private school they attend in Washington, is serving Japanese food on Wednesday– Pearl Harbor Day…. Up until 9/11, the attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii by the Japanese in 1941 was the bloodiest day in U.S history.”
However, the smart conservative commenters were not as easily fooled into buying that this isn’t Obama’s fault. (Too bad they didn’t see as easily through the Goldline scam. Meh.)
http://www.politicususa.com/en/right-wing-stalkers-obama-lunch
Obama Defeats Romney in Global Poll Showing Republican Weakness
Global investors, skeptical about President Barack Obama’s ability to turn around the economy, nonetheless aren’t enamored with the Republican alternatives.
While a plurality of investors said Obama’s re-election would be a bad thing for U.S. markets, 57 percent said in a Bloomberg Global Poll that the current contenders for the Republican presidential nomination aren’t offering good ideas to lessen U.S. economic woes.
Globally, Obama ran slightly ahead of Republican Mitt Romney in a hypothetical matchup, 39 percent to 35 percent, when investors were asked whose presidency would be better for the world economy. That’s a reversal from the last poll, in September, in which Romney led Obama, 37 percent to 34 percent.
In the latest poll, Obama beats Republican Newt Gingrich more decisively on the global economy question, 45 percent to 29 percent.
Obama’s advantage is driven by non-U.S. investors. American investors expressed a clear preference for either Republican — favoring Romney over the president 65 percent to 24 percent, and backing Gingrich 52 percent to 33 percent.
The quarterly poll, conducted Dec. 5-6, surveyed 1,097 investors, traders and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers, including 419 in the U.S.
“I can imagine re-election of Barack Obama could be a disappointment for U.S. markets in the short term, but his policy could support the global economy,” said Michael Fuxa, 41, a poll respondent and head of investments for uniVersa Life Insurance Co. in Nuremberg, Germany.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/obama-defeats-romney-in-global-poll-showing-republican-weakness.html
BWA HA HA HA
Saturday, December 10, 2011
The Miseducation On Newt Gingrich
Posted by Zandar
If you want to know why I believe there’s a enough solid chance Newt will win enough primaries to seriously panic the GOP establishment into doing something amazingly stupid that may blow up the entire party, I direct you to Pajamas Media’s Bryan Preston, who has this analysis of the Newt.
Newt Gingrich is such a mixed bag it’s hard to know where to start in assessing his true record. He helped scuttle HillaryCare. He balanced the budget for the first time in forever. He authored, and forced President Clinton to sign, welfare reform. These are all historic achievements for which Newt Gingrich deserves credit.
But he resigned in disgrace after being the only Speaker of the House in US history to be punished and fined by his own majority for ethics violations. He fell for global warming. He lobbied — despite what he says, that’s what he did — for Freddie Mac. He raked in tens of millions promoting big government health care including the individual mandate, all the way up to 2009. He called Paul Ryan’s budget reforms “right wing social engineering.” In an anti-establishment national moment, he’s the embodiment of much that’s wrong with the establishment. He is, ironically, more of an establishment figure than the incumbent president. That “crossroads where government meets enterprise”? Gingrich has occupied it for 30 years. And then there are the private life problems, which stretch all the way to the beginning of his political career. You can’t even argue that he has always been faithful to his next wife. He’s an opposition researcher’s dream opponent. His nomination would take several major issues off the table.
But at least he can debate well and swat the media. There’s no chance that either can wear thin and end up turning voters off, right?
What an amazing mix of fact and fiction there to create Gingrich’s larger than life persona…or more importantly, the facts are the part where Preston is attacking him. The fiction is where anyone other than a die-hard Republican voter over the age of 40 has any positive connotations of Newt at all, and even with the silly nonsense about Newt “balancing the budget” and “reforming welfare”, not even a winger hack like Preston can make up enough winger nonsense to rehabilitate Newt Gingrich. There’s just too much baggage there.
On the other hand, the fact that the GOP establishment despises Newt Gingrich only hands the Tea Party nutjobs all the motivation they need to vote for him. And should Newt actually start winning and the polls stay where they are into the January primaries, I wouldn’t put it past the GOP powers that be to put Newt down like a rabid animal. And if they don’t, and they accept him, he augers into the ground at Mach 4 in the general. Who would be pick as his VP in order to help him win? Palin again? Bachmann? Cain? Please.
Either way then things will get really, really fun.
http://zandarvts.blogspot.com/2011/12/miseducation-on-newt-gingrich.html
OMG! Texans touchdown! Texans come from behind to win! 20-19.
Texans won…..AGAIN!
10-3
*****tears*****
LOL go Texans! I’m justing getting home. Do you know if the Redskins won?
The New Agtivist: Edith Floyd is making a Detroit urban farm, empty lot by empty lot9
Edith Floyd is the real deal. With little in the way of funding or organizational infrastructure, she runs Growing Joy Community Garden on the northeast side of Detroit. Not many folks bother to venture out to her neighborhood, but Edith has been inspiring me for years. I caught up with her on a cold, rainy November afternoon. While we talked in the dining room, her husband Henry watched their grandkids.
Q. You haven’t always been an urban farmer. What did you do before this?
A. I worked at Detroit Public Schools. I started out with the Head Start Center and then I went to the middle school, to the Ed Tech, [which is] now the Computer Lab. I started farming because they laid me off and didn’t call me back. Farming is not making a living, it’s just keeping food in my freezer. I try to sell some so I can get some more equipment, so it will be easier for me to farm.
Q. What neighborhood are we in? What is it like?
A. This is the northeast side — near the city airport. It’s surrounded by graveyards on three sides and then the other barrier is the railroad track; we are surrounded by railroad tracks, and sometimes those trains stay for like 30 minutes, so you are trapped; ain’t no way out.
Q. How long have you lived in this neighborhood?
A. Let’s see. I came here when my son was 4, so about 36, 37 years.
Q. So you’ve seen a lot of changes.
A. Yeah, when I came it was beautiful — there were grocery stores in the center, like in the middle of the neighborhood, but when the city came though here and bought everything up, they said [they were going to] enlarge the city airport. They bought up three and four blocks of houses and then left the rest of them there. They came in and ruined our neighborhood, and said they ran out of money and left us over here like that. I’m still here and I’m gonna stay here, ’cause I don’t want to go somewhere and start all over again. I don’t think I’d be able to pay for another house, and this one is already paid for. There was like 66 houses on this block, and now [there are] about six that people live in, and three need to be torn down, and the rest of it is empty. That’s where I’m putting my farm on, all the lots. [Editor’s note: some are calling this practice “blotting.” Here’s a recent NPR story on blotting in Detroit.]
Q. How many lots are you farming now?
A. It’s like 28 lots.
http://www.grist.org/urban-agriculture/2011-12-08-new-agtivist-edith-floyd-is-making-an-urban-farm-lot-by-lot
December 11, 2011
Consumer agency logs 5,000 credit card complaints in first months
Posted by Linda H on 7:07 AM
In its first three months of operation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau got more than 5,000 complaints about credit cards, the federal agency said in a report.
“When consumers contact us, we get a snapshot of how the consumer finance markets are working,” said Raj Date, the special Treasury Department advisor who is running the bureau until the Senate confirms a director.”Many complaints show consumers struggling to understand the terms of credit cards and associated products like debt protection services,” the report said. “These complaints show a mismatch between consumer expectations and the way the product functions.”Billing disputes were the most common problem, with 13.4% of the complaints, followed by disputes about interest rates, at 11%, and complaints about identity theft and other fraud issues, with 10.8%.
Banks and other credit card issuers said that 74% of the complaints had been resolved. But 13% of consumers involved in those cases disputed the way the credit card companies resolved their complaints.
The American Bankers Assn. said that resolving customer complaints was the priority of financial institutions, and the data showed the industry is doing a good job.
“There are more than 383 million credit card accounts in the U.S., and less than one-tenth of 1% of those have submitted a complaint to the bureau,” said Kenneth Clayton, the trade group’s chief counsel.
From July 21 to Oct. 21, the agency received 5,074 credit card complaints. It sent most of them — about 84% — to the card issuer to try to resolve them. The rest were either incomplete or the consumer requested the complaint not be sent to the issuer.
The agency said it plans to expand its complaint system to cover mortgages and home equity loans by the end of the year.
http://www.whatisworking.com/2011/12/consumer-agency-logs-5000-credit-card.html
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Supreme Suppression
Posted by Zandar
A case just as potentially important as the health care reform’s individual mandate provision will now go before the Supreme Court in January: the question of Texas’s congressional redistricting.
The Supreme Court Friday night blocked a redistricting plan for Texas drawn by a panel of federal judges, putting the justices in the middle of a partisan battle over how the state’s electoral maps should change to recognize the state’s burgeoning minority population.
Texas had objected to the judicially drawn maps, which analysts said would increase chances for Democrats and minorities, and favored maps drawn by the Republican-dominated legislature. Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) requested the Supreme Court’s intervention; the justices will hear arguments Jan. 9.
Candidates already have begun to register to run under the districts drawn by the panel of federal judges in San Antonio, and it appears likely the state’s March primaries now will be delayed.
The plans drawn by the legislature do not have the approval needed by several southern states, including Texas, that are covered by a part of the Voting Rights Act that requires federal “pre-clearance” of any electoral changes that could affect minority political power.
A federal court in Washington, meanwhile, has denied Texas’ initial request for approval, and will hold a trial on claims that the legislature’s plan dilutes minority political power. The Supreme Court’s brief order did not appear to affect that review.
Earlier, the panel of federal judges was charged with drawing new maps so that Texas elections could proceed on time. The qualifying period has already begun.
And now we have a problem. The conservative Roberts Court, for all its talk on leaving individual state issues to states, has stepped in on a case that may end up determining if the Democrats can win enough seats to take back the House, or if millions of Texas Latinos have a chance at fair representation at all.
The original Texas redistricting plan was drawn up by the Republicans in the state legislature. It was a disaster, a plan that failed to pass Justice Department muster so badly that the panel of federal judges were required by law to create a non-partisan redistricting plan.
Now the Roberts Court has stepped in. Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog (emphasis mine):
Stay applications such as the ones that put these cases before the Court are usually only for temporary remedies, and, most often, seek simply to maintain the status quo while the underlying decision at issue is reviewed. The Court, this time, converted the applications into what it calls “jurisdictional statements,” which is the label it uses for cases that are appealed directly to the Justices from a three-judge District Court. Federal law provides that challenges to redistricting cases are to be heard initially by three-judge District Courts, with direct appeals to the Supreme Court, bypassing the usual transit through a federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
By granting review, the Court, of course, gave no indication of how it would rule on the constitutionality of the District Court’s interim plans. But the Court appeared to have taken seriously and heard perhaps somewhat sympathetically the Texas lawyers’ argument that a 1982 Supreme Court precedent — Upham, et al., v. Seamon, et al. — strictly limits the power of a federal court to craft its own interim redistricting plan that deviates greatly from one drafted by a state legislature. In the San Antonio District Court, the dissenting judge in the 2-1 rulings at issue had argued that the Upham decision barred a court-ordered map that strayed so far from what the state legislature had drawn.
Because the three cases reached the Justices as stay applications, they did not spell out specifically the legal or constitutional questions being laid before the Court. But it does appear, at least at this stage, that the Court will only be ruling on the validity of the San Antonio court’s decision to draw up interim maps of its own. No lower court has yet ruled on the underlying question of whether any of the districts — for the legislature or for the House delegation — actually violate federal law or the Constitution.
It’s those precedents that Texas Republicans are hoping to use in order to get their own plan through, and as many as 4 or 5 Democratic seats could be at stake here. That’s certainly enough to make a difference in who controls the House after November’s elections. At stake is who has the authority here, the states to draw their own redistricting, or the federal government, since these are congressional districts that can potentially affect the makeup and political power of the Congress itself.
In addition to that, the entire primary process in Texas is now a huge question mark. SCOTUS won’t even hear the case for another month, and Texas primaries are in March. Those primaries aren’t going to happen on time now.
Judicial activism? Possibly. But for such an important event, SCOTUS kicks down the door and then says “We’ll hear this in a month”? Really?
That’s just bad form.
http://zandarvts.blogspot.com/2011/12/supreme-suppression.html
December 11, 2011 8:10 AM
Romney’s 10,000 regrets
By Steve Benen
The debate for Republican presidential candidates in Iowa last night lasted two hours, but it was a 35-second exchange that’s likely to be remembered.
The subject was Mitt Romney’s support for an individual health care mandate, and the nuances of his shifting positions. It led to this proposed wager, via TPM:
Rick Perry levied the initial charge, telling Romney, “I read your first book and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts which should be the model for the country. And I know it came out of the reprint of the book. But, you know, I’m just sayin’, you were for individual mandates, my friend.”
Romney responded, “You know what? You’ve raised that before, Rick. And— you’re simply wrong.” When Perry insisted the allegation is true, Romney replied, “Rick, I’ll tell you what. 10,000 bucks? $10,000 bet?”
Perry demurred, saying he’s not in “the bettin’ business,” but offered to show Romney a copy of his book.
On the substance, who’s right? Romney did make significant revisions to the second edition of his book, including language on health care policy, all of which appear to have been politically motivated. But while Romney supported a national health care mandate, it wasn’t explicitly part of his book. Perry was right on the larger point about the policy, but wrong about the source.
The larger problem, however, was the politics of a multi-millionaire vulture capitalist trying to intimidate a rival with his wealth. The vast majority of Americans don’t have $10,000 lying around to be used as a wager — it’s three months pay for most U.S. workers — and Romney’s off-the-cuff offer only reinforced the perception that he’s the out-of-touch elitist in the race.
The problem is compounded by the fact that it’s part of a pattern. Romney’s the guy who owns several mansions, one of which he’s quadrupling in size; he thinks it’s funny to joke about being unemployed; and in one striking instance, he didn’t have anything smaller than a $100 bill in his wallet while on the campaign trail.
Adding insult to injury, in the same debate in which Romney offered to make a $10,000 bet, he also dismissed a middle-class payroll tax break as an insignificant “band aid.”
The next time Romney presents himself as being in the middle class, despite his $250 million, voters might be inclined to just laugh in his face.
Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior Romney adviser, seemed to think this wasn’t a damaging moment at all for the former governor. I doubt even he believes this line. The other Republican candidates are already pouncing on this; Democrats can hardly believe their good fortune; and the media appears to have latched onto this as the key development of the night. If this was the night Romney planned to stop Newt Gingrich’s momentum and get back on track, it was a failure.
One more thought on this: watching the clip, it looked to me like this was Romney just saying what was on his mind. In other words, for all of Romney’s overly-slick, robotic presentation, I doubt this was a scripted talking point or a prepared response. It was just the candidate being the candidate.
It’s why “just be yourself” probably isn’t good advice for Mitt Romney.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/romneys_10000_regrets034039.php
Iowa Debate Reax
Taegan Goddard:
Mitt Romney didn’t do very well. He made a major mistake offering a $10,000 bet to Rick Perry. It trivialized what is a large amount of money to most families and highlighted that Romney lives a very different life than most Americans. He’s in a real danger.
Tim Murphy:
Romney didn’t just give President Obama grist for a campaign ad—he’d also lose the bet. Romney did, at least until recently, believe that his Massachusetts health care plan offered a model for the rest of the country.
Paul Constant:
This is not the dumbest thing Mitt Romney’s ever said. It’s not even the most outrageous thing he said at the debate tonight. But it could be the most damaging 35 seconds of his entire political career. Americans don’t mind if their presidential candidates are filthy rich, but they sure don’t like to be reminded that their presidential candidates are filthy rich. Romney’s gonna have to have a whole lot of great days between now and January 3rd to make people forget about this.
Josh Marshall:
This exchange over Israel is really the key exchange. From the point of view of the intended audience, I think both of them had good points. It pointed to a lot of Newt’s problems, but in a way that I’m not sure will damage him in a GOP primary audience. But Mitt got a chance — which he hadn’t remotely up till now — to make his basic point which is that Newt’s a “bombthrower”, a person who is just not temperamentally suited to be president — something that is unquestionably true.
Josh scores the debate as a win for Gingrich overall. Richard Adams focuses on the same moment:
“I’m not a bomb-thrower, rhetorically or literally,” says Romney. Gingrich smiles like someone who has been offered a large plate of shit to eat. That was Romney’s best play: subtle but underlined his differences with Gingrich: that he’s got a big mouth who says dumb things and then claims he’s just got the big ideas.
Tim Carney tackles Gingrich’s claim that he worked in the private sector:
Gingrich was paid to help drug companies win new subsidies through Medicare. Gingrich was paid to protect and expand ethanol subsidies. Gingrich was paid to help protect Freddie Mac, which, thanks in part to that protected, blew up and pocketed millions in taxpayer bailouts. In all of these cases, Gingrich was profiting, at taxpayer expense, by increasing the size of government.
Will Wilkinson:
Gingrich showed again that he’s a formidable debater no one should want within 100 yards of the nuclear football. Mitt Romney didn’t look great when Diane Sawyer baited him into tussling with Newt, but mostly he stuck with sticking to the economy and sticking it to the president, and he had the second-best hair. Who won? I dunno. Barack Obama?
Joe Gandelman:
Best Performance: Romney for independent voters, Gingrich for Republican conservatives who are Tea Party members or sympathizers or talk show groupies. Gingrich was not cut down by the debate. His front runner status REMAINS. Romney didn’t advance himself.
Stephen Green:
Romney had the most to lose tonight, and he certainly did.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/iowa-debate-reax.html
December 11, 2011 11:40 AM
Those who saw Romney’s leadership up close
By Steve Benen
There’s a traditional model for presidential candidates when it comes to their pre-announcement career trajectory. It’s pretty straightforward: an official gets elected to a prominent office, he/she does well, his/her constituents are impressed, and the official parlays that success into a national campaign.
In recent decades, this is the path Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan all took from statewide office to the White House. It’s always fascinated me how poorly Mitt Romney fits this model.
He was governor from 2003 to 2007, and as Edward Mason and Tom Mashberg explained the other day, Romney failed to impress much of anyone.
“His favorability was basically a straight line down from his honeymoon,” said David Paleologos, director of Suffolk University’s Political Research Center and a longtime Massachusetts pollster. “Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt.” […]
Romney entered the Massachusetts State House in January 2003 with a flashy favorability rating of 61 percent…. By November 2004, voters were souring, and a Suffolk poll found his favorable rating had dropped to 47 percent.
A year later, that rating sank another 14 points. Just 33 percent of Bay State voters had a favorable opinion of Romney in 2005, according to Suffolk, while 49 percent were unfavorable.
Things did not improve in 2006, when Suffolk found that his unfavorable rating had risen to 55 percent while his favorable remained stagnant.
By November 2006, as he closed out his increasingly absentee term, his overall job approval rating had cratered to 36 percent.
Thomas Whalen, a Boston University political science professor, put it this way: “To know Mitt Romney is to dislike him. That is the moral of the story.”
Maybe he looks better in hindsight? No, Romney’s former constituents still don’t like him and still don’t want him to be president.
Maybe it’s because he was a GOP governor in a reliably “blue” state? No, Massachusetts has had plenty of modern Republican governors — Weld, Cellucci, Swift — and all were more popular with their Bay State constituents than Romney.
This is all generally overlooked, which is a shame because it seems pretty important. We’re talking about a politician who’s held public office just once, for a grand total of four years. During that one term, his constituents got a good look at his leadership, and came to actively dislike him.
Romney looked at this and thought, “Hey, now I’m ready for a promotion to the White House!”
This really ought to come up on the campaign trail more often. Here’s the sample question reporters can ask Romney: why were you so woefully unpopular with your own constituents when voters gave you a chance to lead?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/those_who_saw_romneys_leadersh034044.php
A $10,000 bet between Romney and Perry tops chatter at GOP debate
By Associated Press, Published: December 10
Key moments in Saturday night’s Republican presidential debate in Des Moines, Iowa:
BIG MOMENT:
What’s $10,000 among friends?
Mitt Romney challenged Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s claims that the former Massachusetts governor backed a requirement that individuals purchase health care coverage.
“I’m just saying, you’re for individual mandates, my friend,” Perry told Romney during Saturday evening’s debate, returning to a criticism that has dogged Romney’s campaign.
“You’ve raised that before, Rick, and you’re simply wrong,” Romney responded, extending his hand toward Perry. “Rick, I’ll tell you what, 10,000 bucks?”
It was a rich bet that perhaps reminded some voters that Romney has a fat enough bank account to make such wagers. But Perry wasn’t playing.
“I’m not in the betting business,” he said.
Romney’s rivals seized on it. Democrats were giddy about the moment, which they planned to use to cast Romney as an elitist who could afford such lavish bets.
And aides to GOP hopeful Jon Huntsman — himself, the son of a famously wealthy family — announced they planned to criticize Romney on a website: http://www.10KBet.com.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/campaigns/a-10000-bet-between-romney-and-perry-tops-chatter-at-gop-debate/2011/12/10/gIQASmezlO_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop
MEDIA ALERT:
TONIGHT IS CHRISTMAS AT THE WHITE HOUSE OVER AT HGTV.
8PM EST, 11 PM EST, 2AM EST.
Last Night’s Debate: The Winners and Losers
Gingrich does well, Romney flubs, but was Obama the big winner
Newt Gingrich was the big winner of last night’s GOP debate, along with Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, says Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post. “The former House Speaker seems to be adjusting nicely to his newfound frontrunner status.” The big losers were Mitt Romney, thanks to his $10,000 bet and an unfocused performance, and the GOP establishment in general, many members of which were hoping Gingrich would fall. To put it more succinctly: “Newt wins; Romney loses; Paul rises,” sums up Andrew Sullivan at the Dish.
“Romney had the most to lose tonight, and he certainly did,” writes Stephen Green at PJ Media. Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice thinks Romney actually won with independent voters, but Gingrich did the best with Republicans. “Gingrich showed again that he’s a formidable debater no one should want within 100 yards of the nuclear football,” writes Will Wilkinson at the Economist, calling Ron Paul “most avuncular,” Bachmann “most devastating,” and Rick Santorum, “due to some unfathomable tear in the fabric of the cosmos,” “most likeable.” But overall who won? “I dunno. Barack Obama?,” guessed Wilkinson
http://www.newser.com/story/135159/reactions-newt-gingrich-won-last-nights-debate-mitt-romney-lost.html
Go Texans! Lets Rock & Roll
Heads up, 3 Chics!
President Obama is on 60 minutes tonight
Thanks for the heads up,sG2. Saw it this morning on CBS Sunday Show. Looking forward to it. Steve Kroft gets another go at it with PBO.
FOX NEWS Shocked polls says Obama will win
Obamas Walk To Church Across From White House
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/11/obamas_walk_to_church_across_from_white_house/
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama and his family are attending a worship service at a church just across the street from the White House where presidents frequently have visited.
The president, first lady Michelle Obama and daughters Sasha and Malia made the short walk across Lafayette Park to St. John’s Church.
One of the pews at the Episcopal church has a small brass plaque designating it as “The President’s Pew.” Church history claims that every president since the nation’s fourth chief executive, James Madison, has visited.
President Barack Obama with first lady Michelle Obama, left, and their daughters Sasha and Malia, right, walk from the White House in Washington to attend a Sunday service at nearby St. John’s Church, Sunday, Dec. 11, 2011
President Barack Obama with first lady Michelle Obama, left, and their daughters Sasha and Malia, right, walk from the White House in Washington to attend a Sunday service at nearby St. John’s Church, Sunday, Dec. 11, 2011. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)President Barack Obama with first lady Michelle Obama, left, and their daughters Sasha and Malia, right, walk from the White House in Washington to attend a Sunday service at nearby St. John’s Church, Sunday, Dec. 11, 2011
OH MY…
Our First Family looks wonderful
U.S. President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and their daughters Malia (2nd L) and Sasha walk out after attending Sunday service at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington December 11, 2011.
TRUTH!
Wisconsin Voter ID Law May Force 84-Year-Old Woman To Pay $200 To Get A Voter ID http://thkpr.gs/vrNjsR
CLOWNS to left of me, JOKERS to the RIGHT…. LOL
ThinkProgress:
Perry also claims Americans “are not looking for a robot that can spit out the name of every Supreme Court justice” http://bit.ly/tWQY6p
Another Oops?: Rick Perry Misstates Number of Supreme Court Justices
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/another-oops-rick-perry-misstates-number-of-supreme-court-justices/
DES MOINES, Iowa – As he railed against “activist” judges, Texas Gov. Rick Perry slipped up on not only the name of one of the Supreme Court justices but also on how many sit on the bench.
“When you see his appointment of two, from my perspective, inarguably activist judges whether it was …” Perry said in the Des Moines Register editorial board meeting, pausing for six seconds. “Not Montemayor …”
“Sotomayor,” a member of the editorial board interrupted.
“Sotomayor, Sotomayor,” Perry said. “And Kagan are both activist judges.”
[wpvideo eEQZSIbS]
Shortly after this flub, Perry referred to ”eight unelected” judges when discussing who should decide whether prayer is allowed in schools.
“For Washington to tell a local school district that you cannot have a prayer and a time of prayer in that school is, I think, offensive to most Americans. I trust the people of the states to make those decisions. I trust those independent school districts to make those decisions better than eight unelected, and frankly, unaccountable judges,” Perry said.
But there are nine Supreme Court justices, not eight.
[wpvideo rWxPzgJm]
FL POLL: Obama 51, Newt 39. Obama 48, Romney 41. —
SC POLL: Obama 46, Newt 42. Obama 45, Romney 42.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/11/9365498-gingrich-opens-up-big-leads-in-south-carolina-and-florida
Good Morning Sg2 & Everyone! :-)
DNC Vice Chair RT Rybak says Republicans Views Are Too Extreme in Advance of IA GOP Debate
Original Tea Partier
I love this song, 3 Chics. So beautiful. So Holy! You can feel the presense of God. It makes me want to lay before the throne of God and worship him.
Good Morning, Ametia, Rikyrah, 3 Chics, Friends & Visitors!
Happy Sunday!
Good Morning, Everyone at 3CHICS!!
I certainly have enjoyed the daily Christmas musical treat.
Me too, rikyrah. I love the stockings graphics. I’ve been a good girl, really, I have!