Serendipity SOUL | Tuesday Open Thread | Minnie Riperton Week!

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

104 Responses to Serendipity SOUL | Tuesday Open Thread | Minnie Riperton Week!

  1. President Barack Obama signs the prosthetic arm of Sgt. Carlos Evans, USMC, after greeting wounded warriors in the East Room during their tour of the White House, March 6, 2012. First Lady Michelle Obama first met Evans, who was injured in Afghanistan while on his fourth combat deployment, during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

  2. annie american ‏ @kbreality

    @KeithOlbermann lol “@LOLGOP: BREAKING: All of the voting machines in Ohio just rebooted and now George W. Bush is leading by 12,000 votes.

  3. Ohio House primaries: Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Jean Schmidt fall

    Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur defeated fellow Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich in the 9th District, a loss that will likely bring the longtime liberal congressman’s Capitol Hill career to an end.

  4. Ametia says:

    Romney’s speech tonight in Massachuessetts, was more of the SAME-LIES!

  5. rikyrah says:

    we’re at 72%, and Little Ricky’s still leading :)

  6. rikyrah says:

    70 percent in and Little Ricky’s up by 15k!!!

    go Little Ricky!

  7. rikyrah says:

    March 06, 2012
    The Scarborough-Schmidt smackdown

    Joe Scarborough and Steve Schmidt just appeared on “Hardball” and together they delivered a eulogy for Mitt Romney. It was brutal. In effect, they said Romney’s got nothin’ — nothin’ at all to work with.

    Scarborough called him “an incredibly flawed candidate” for whom it is “going to be hard to put this party back together.” By that he meant, what GOP faction does Romney rule? He hasn’t the libertarians (see RomneyCare) or the social conservatives (see Mormonism, although Scarborough didn’t say that, since he didn’t need to); then Schmidt graced the show by declaring that candidates like Romney need “more circumspection” when it comes to foreign policy — in other words, neoconservatism (Romney’s latest personification) should shut the hell up. Ouch.

    So there you have it. All three major factions standing in some form of alienation from Establishment opinion — which Romney represents. Thus Romney is actually alienated from his own shrinking and marginalized faction. It’s one thumper of a paradox.

    The Scarborough-Schmidt duo gave quite a performance. Here were two lifetime, professionally partisan Republicans essentially saying what I wrote this morning: that “There are no absolutes, therefore anything is possible, even a President Mitt Romney. But, seriously …”

    Here’s the video for you:

  8. rikyrah says:

    how the heck is Ohio ‘ too close to call’ with 56% of the state’s precincts in?

    they just need to gird their loins and call it for Little Ricky.

  9. rikyrah says:

    March 06, 2012
    Obama’s presser

    President Obama’s response to a question about the potential of war with Iran — an unthinkable calamity which utterly reckless GOP presidential candidates are promoting — decisively put to rest any thoughts of presidential misapprehensions.

    The “casualness” of Republican irresponsibility was the president’s judicious word of the day: “The casualness with which some of these folks talk about war,” said Obama, is a unfortunate matter of their confusing the vast loss of human life and a further squandering of the public treasury with a mere political “game.”

    That was Obama’s thrust, and it was dead on.

    The economy promises to be the central issue of the general campaign, and that’s understandable. But frankly, Mitt Romney’s horrifying neoconservatism and his frightful intimations of a return to Bush-Cheneyism should be enough for voters to oppose, entirely on their own.

  10. rikyrah says:

    By Brad Friedman on 3/6/2012 11:48am
    Former U.S. Marine Turned Away From TN Poll For Refusing to Present Photo ID Under New GOP Law
    ‘I took the oath to prevent these kinds of laws’…

    55-year old former U.S. Marine Tim Thompson was turned away from the polls today, Super Tuesday 2012, in the state of Tennessee, after refusing to present a photo ID before voting, as required by a new law recently passed by Republicans.

    Thompson was documented by videographers attempting to cast his vote under the new polling place Photo ID restrictions instituted by TN’s Republican-majority legislature and signed into law last year by the state’s Republican Gov. Bill Haslam.

    The former Lance Corporal, who left the service in 1978, has lived in Nashville since 2004 when he first cast his vote at the same precinct where he was turned away today. In an act of protest, planned in advance and video-taped by a number of media outlets, Thompson refused to show any more than the voter registration card he has previously used for voting in the state.

    Video of the confrontation that ensued is posted below.

    “This is my voter registration card,” Thompson said as he challenged the poll supervisor. “I’ve used this for 37 years. This was good enough for my father. This was good enough for my grandfather, and I refuse to show you a picture ID”…

    After refusing to vote on a provisional ballot, which may or may not be counted after an election, Thompson tells the supervisor, “I’m objecting to the law that they implemented on my right to vote.”

    “I served my country. I served my country so you can vote. I’ve earned my right to vote. This is my ID,” he is seen explaining angrily in the video, as he points to the U.S. Marine insignia on his jacket.

    “I’ll be damned if I’ll stand here and allow you to not let me vote because some governor of this state decided he wanted to eliminate my right to vote — and put conditions on it — that I fought for.”

    “I took an oath in 1974 that stated I want to defend and protect American citizens on their rights to vote — their basic right to vote in an open and free election. But I guess he [Gov. Haslam] forgot about his, his oath. He did forget about his oath, because he’s not protecting our rights. And it’s a slap in our face,” Thompson says during the confrontation.

    The former Marine turned chef in Nashville is just the latest of those to confront and/or be confronted by new draconian restrictions on voting rights this year, as passed by Republicans in more than a dozen states in the wake of their 2010 electoral victories. In TN today, for the first time, those without state-issued Photo ID (a U.S. passport, a federal photo ID, a U.S. military ID or a gun permit card with photo) must receive a state-issued Photo ID prior to casting a vote at the polling place, from a Department of Safety and Homeland Security facility at one of 48 Driver Service Centers across the state, according to the Department’s website.

  11. rikyrah says:

    These are some trifling mofos here:


    Group sues for Michelle Obama vacation records

    A conservative legal group is suing the U.S. Air Force for access to first lady Michelle Obama’s travel records from a 2010 vacation to Spain.

    Judicial Watch filed suit Tuesday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for access to all records pertaining to an August 2010 vacation taken by the first lady and her daughters — including cost estimates and passenger manifests.

    “Evidently, American taxpayers were stuck with a sizable bill so Mrs. Obama could tour around Spain with her family and friends, This administration, as a supposed steward of taxpayer dollars, has an obligation to disclose the full costs of the Obama family’s luxury trip,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton in a statement.

    The White House has insisted that the Spanish vacation was paid for by the Obama family — but taxpayers generally pick up the tab for security and other assorted costs.

    • Ametia says:

      Only PO-LUTI-CO would publish such garbage it’s the same old meme. Black folks livin off de white folks hard-earned money.

      Fuck Tom Fitton and this racist bullshit.


  12. rikyrah says:

    I loved Minnie Riperton. her voice was amazing.

  13. Ametia says:

    Santorum is pulling ahead of Romney in OHIO and has already won Tennessee and Oklahoma.

    • rikyrah says:

      the evangelicals are NOT going for the Mormon south of the Mason/Dixon

      • Ametia says:

        Yep. Chuck Todd has been fingering the map tonight. Romney’ won in alll the heavily Mornom-populated states and the North East. He basically bought Florida.

        Santorum is nailing down the midwest

  14. Brian J. Scott ‏ @flossofer:

    Callista Gingrich introduces Newt as the next President of the United States. That’s really an Alternate Universe too far. Science Fiction.

  15. Ametia says:

    March 06, 2012
    The Scarborough-Schmidt smackdown

    Joe Scarborough and Steve Schmidt just appeared on “Hardball” and together they delivered a eulogy for Mitt Romney. It was brutal. In effect, they said Romney’s got nothin’ — nothin’ at all to work with.

  16. Ametia says:

    Mitt Romney will win the Vermont Republican primary, CNN projects, based on exit polls.

    All 17 Vermont delegates are tied to the Super Tuesday contest, and the state will award those delegates proportionally. A total of 1,144 delegates are needed to clinch the GOP nomination.

    Tune in to CNN TV now for live coverage of the Super Tuesday contests and follow real-time results on, on CNN’s apps and on CNN’s mobile website. Follow CNN Politics on Facebook and on Twitter at #CNNElections.

  17. Ametia says:


  18. Ametia says:


    Ohio Senate Bill Offers Male Lawmakers A Taste Of Their Own Medicine

    Source: Talking Points Memo

    On Tuesday, Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) will introduce a bill aimed at cracking down on prescription drugs like Viagra that treat erectile dysfunction. Turner’s legislation would make men jump through certain hoops — such as psychological screenings — before they could obtain the meds. The bill follows FDA recommendations to determine the underlying causes of erectile dysfunction — but that’s certainly not the only reason Turner is putting the measure forward.

    “All across the country, including in Ohio, I thought since men are certainly paying great attention to women’s health that we should definitely return the favor,” Turner told TPM. Her bill is one of several pieces of legislation offered over the past several weeks by women lawmakers eager to prove a point about the raging contraception debate.


    Turner’s bill mimics language found in Ohio’s so-called Heartbeat Bill, which passed the Ohio state House and is now pending in the Senate. The bill would ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, sometimes as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Turner’s bill, she says, offers men a taste of their own medicine — it would require physicians to inform patients in writing of the risks involved in taking erectile dysfunction drugs and requires men to sign a document acknowledging the risks, just like the anti-abortion bill does.

    “I care about the health of men as well, and I thought it only fair that we illustrate that and make sure that a man is fully informed of the risks involved in taking these drugs and also the alternatives such as natural remedies or also celibacy,” Turner said.

    Read more:

  19. BREAKING NEWS: Report: Colts to release Peyton Manning.

    Peyton Manning’s career with the Indianapolis Colts will come to a close this week, ESPN reported Tuesday.

    According to the report, the Colts will officially cut ties with the four-time NFL MVP quarterback on Wednesday.

    The Colts have until Thursday to pick up a $28 million option on Manning’s contract for next season, but it was widely believed the team would not choose to pay the 35-year-old Manning that amount after he missed the entire 2011 season following several neck surgeries.

    Negotiations on a new contract could continue up until Friday afternoon. After that point, the Colts would be on the hook for a $28 million “non-exercise” fee for not picking up the option.

    If Manning is not retained by the Colts he would become a free agent when the NFL year begins March 13.

  20. Romney on Israel and the Palestinians: Now is not the time to be “talking about a peace process”

  21. New numbers show how health reform is helping Louisiana. http://OFA.BO/FxpVWv

  22. Ametia says:

    Good GAWD; this dude is just…… NO WORDS

  23. rikyrah says:

    Driving Latino voters to Obama
    By Steve Benen – Tue Mar 6, 2012 12:32 PM EST.

    We talked a couple of weeks ago about the ways in which Republican presidential candidates, most notably Mitt Romney, have alienated Latino voters. A new national Fox News Latino poll helps quantify matters a bit.

    In a head-to-head match-up against [President Obama], none of the Republican candidates polled higher than 14 percent among Latinos.

    Additionally, 73 percent said they approved of the job the president has been doing, well above Gallup’s national average of 45 percent. Fifty-eight percent said they approved of the president’s handling of the economy, which polls show voters rank as the most important issue in the 2012 election.

    Here’s the kicker: among Latino voters who supported John McCain in 2008, a plurality of those voters now prefer Obama to whomever the Republican nominate.

    I put together a chart to help drive the point home. On the left, those columns show Obama’s edge over the GOP nominee in 2008, when exit polls showed McCain losing this constituency by 36 points. On the right, those columns show Obama’s advantage over Romney based on the Fox News poll.

    What’s more, there’s no great mystery here. Romney is an inflexible opponent of the DREAM Act; he’s palling around with Pete Wilson and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach; he endorses a “self-deportation” agenda; he’s critical of bilingualism; and his casual dismissals of “amnesty” and “illegals” are a staple of his campaign rhetoric.

    Of course he’s struggling badly with these voters.

    The conventional wisdom suggests Romney can narrow the gap by naming New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio to the 2012 ticket. And while the Fox News poll found Latino voters more willing to support the GOP if Martinez or Rubio is the running mate, Obama still trounces those tickets in either case.

    This is, in other words, a problem that is not easily fixed.

  24. rikyrah says:

    McDonnell translated: Please stop talking about my ultrasound bill
    By Laura Conaway – Tue Mar 6, 2012 3:50 PM EST.

    We’re still hoping Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell will be a guest on our show, sometime, maybe, hopefully, please. Today, though, McDonnell did talk with Andrea Mitchell for her show. As you’ll see from the transcript below, Andrea started right in with a question about Mitt Romney — the candidate he supports — and the Romney response to Rush Limbaugh’s tirades against Sandra Fluke and birth control.

    Shorter McDonnell: President Obama started this, please stop talking about my forced vaginal probe ultrasound bill, and seriously, please stop talking about my forced vaginal probe ultrasound bill.

    Transcript’s after the jump.


    McDonnell says the left does wrong, too:

    Andrea Mitchell: I wanted to talk about the campaign and this whole issue of women and how Mitt Romney did not come out and strongly criticize what Rush Limbaugh said. What is your position on what Rush Limbaugh said?

    Bob McDonnell: Well, there’s a lot of comments, I think, probably on the right and the left about important social issues that people probably say things that they shouldn’t. I think Rush Limbaugh said things he probably shouldn’t. He apologized for it. We see a lot of things in debates here in Richmond and in Washington where people on the left say things as well. So I think the issue in this campaign, though, Andrea, really it’s about jobs and the economy and taxes and spending. So while these important issues about life and family and faith and marriage and religious freedom are important – people want to know where you stand – I think most importantly people want to know what are you going to do about getting us back to work, what are you going to do about getting us out of debt and how are you going to lead the nation into the next century. That’s what people want.

    McDonnell says President Obama started it:

    Mitchell: But isn’t that message getting lost precisely because the Republicans have detoured into some of the social debate? Rick Santorum certainly is the one who started it, but some are suggesting, and some women are suggesting – Republican women – that Mitt Romney’s response was not strong and declarative enough.

    McDonnell: I can’t speak for all the candidates, I can only say that I think that those kinds of over-the-top condemnations have no place. I talk all the time in Richmond about having more civility. We need to be fighting for our principles on both sides, but we’re all American. Let’s do it in a civil way. I would say, Andrea, really, that this started probably a month ago when President Obama decided to have essentially an attack on religious freedom, and people in the Catholic church responded fairly negatively about some of these things that interfered with their religious freedom. Look, it’s been a month, I think, where people have weighed in on these social issues. But that’s not what’s going to control this election. It’s going to be about jobs and the economy, taxes, spending, energy and leadership. That’s what American needs new leadership on and that’s why I’m supporting Mitt Romney.

    Note that Governor McDonnell talks about bills that require a woman to be offered an ultrasound, but Virginia’s bill requires her to have one regardless of whether she wants to or her doctor recommends it. For further reference, the Guttmacher Institute keeps this list (pdf) of states that have some form of ultrasound legislation.

    • Ametia says:

      Of course Gov.Bob “VAGI PROBE” McDonnell will blame the president for him and the GOP’s desire to invade our vaginas. GTFOH

      If it were about jobs, economy, and taxes, and energy, then why did you and the GOP not help pass the AMERICANJOBS ACT BILL? Nope, you and your ilk are WAGING A WAR ON WOMEN with your TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUND BILLS, AND YOUR ANTI-CONTRACEPTION BILL.

  25. U.S. Oil Production is Up: President Obama’s Energy Record

  26. rikyrah says:

    Romney struggles with the basics in Iran
    By Steve Benen – Tue Mar 6, 2012 3:30 PM EST

    At the most recent debate for the Republican presidential candidates, Mitt Romney wanted to show off his understanding of international affairs, and told the audience that Syria is Iran’s “key ally” and Iranians’ “route to the sea.”

    Iran, of course, has 1,520 miles of its own coastline — and doesn’t share a border with Syria. In trying to demonstrate his foreign policy acumen, most notably regarding Iran, Romney helped prove he hasn’t even looked at a map of the region in a while.

    And yet, the former governor continues to feign expertise on the subject matter. Today he has an op-ed in the Washington Post, calling for Iranian sanctions (which Obama has already imposed); backing Israel (which Obama has also already done); and shaping a U.S. policy towards Iran that’s “the same as Ronald Reagan’s.”

    Um, Mitt? The Reagan administration sold Iran weapons, in violation of an arms embargo, in order to help illegally finance the Contras in Nicaragua. Reagan also sought a check on Iranian power by cozying up to Saddam Hussein after he used chemical weapons against his own people.

    A Romney administration’s approach to Iran would be “the same as Ronald Reagan’s”? Seriously?

    Ed Kilgore was unimpressed.

    If this all sounds a bit like foreign policy as it would be conducted by a seventeen-year-old boy with an addiction to energy drinks, that is almost certainly intentional. If the chronic liberal vice in foreign policy is excessive faith in international organizations, the chronic conservative vice is the belief that America must perpetually prove its willingness to kill instantly and remorselessly. Romney’s handlers want to make sure conservatives are reassured he fully shares that vice.

    For his part, President Obama responded to an NBC News question at a White House conference this morning that referenced Romney’s criticism on Iran. Obama rejected “the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war,” adding, “This is not a game — and there’s nothing casual about it.”

    The president went on to say, “If some of these folks think that it’s time to launch a war, they should say so, and they should explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be. Everything else is just talk.”

    • Ametia says:

      THIS: “The president went on to say, “If some of these folks think that it’s time to launch a war, they should say so, and they should explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be. Everything else is just talk.”

      …AND HOW ANOTHER WAR IS GOING TO BE PAID FOR! Lemme guess, with our SOCIAL SECURITY $$$. Isn’t that how BUSH & CO. thought they were going to finance the 2 wars they started? STEALING FROM OUR SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS FOR WARS. Then when a Dem President steps in, they fight him on said SS funds, calling them entitlements and want to further TAKE AWAY WHAT HARD-WORKING AMERICANS HAVE EARNED!

  27. rikyrah says:

    he really can’t help himself

    Uppity Niggers….Uppity Women..

    he can’t help himself.

    me? pass me the Reeses mini-cups.


    Limbaugh Bemoans Uppity ‘Overeducated’ Single Women |

    Rush Limbaugh refrained from directly attacking Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke today, spending most of the first hour of his show warning about a coming liberal war on food. But he still apparently couldn’t resist throwing a jab at women. In lengthy screed against a new book on the American food system by author Tracie McMillan, asking rhetorically, “What is it with all of these young, single, white women, overeducated — doesn’t mean intelligent.” Listen here:

  28. Lilly Ledbetter

    [wpvideo Y8hD6qjY]

  29. rikyrah says:

    White, male and heteronormative (On, Wisconsin!)
    By Laura Conaway – Tue Mar 6, 2012 1:28 PM EST.

    Last night, we were excited to have Lilly Ledbetter on the show. Ledbetter is the living embodiment of equal pay for equal work. She spent her working life as an exemplary staffer in an Alabama Goodyear tire factory, only to discover that for years she’d been paid 40 percent less than her male colleagues.

    The U.S. Supreme Court said Ledbetter was entitled to nothing, because she had not filed a complaint within 180 days of the discrimination beginning. She managed to get the change in Congress that she couldn’t in the courts. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the first bill signed into law by President Obama.

    But equal pay for equal work is not a done deal. In Wisconsin, the Republican legislature has sent Governor Walker a bill that strikes the enforcement from the state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act. If you read the bill, you’ll see that it’s about deleting; it adds nothing and takes away the protections the state had offered beyond the Lilly Ledbetter law. All it needs now is Scott Walker’s signature.

    The lead sponsor of the anti-equal-pay bill is Republican state Senator Glenn Grothman. He’s got another project this session, a bill that blames single parenting for child abuse. His bill (pdf) is not shy about this. Three times in two pages, his bill mandates that informational material from the state shall “emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.”

    In Wisconsin now, about a third of all parents are single. Mining the 2010 Census, the Williams Institute finds (pdf) that 16 percent of Wisconsin’s same-sex couples are raising kids, and 34 percent of those who identify as spouses though they cannot marry in Wisconsin.

    But never mind them. In Senator Grothman’s world, the idea is to make it harder for women and minorities to get fair pay, then cast them as potential child abusers for trying to raise their families in ways that don’t suit his conservative ideals, even if they haven’t got a choice.

  30. rikyrah says:

    comment from TOD about POTUS and the jackals of the press:

    March 6, 2012 at 3:14 pm
    Bashir just excellent again, saying the WH press—-and Repub candidates— were exposed as children today with their casual questions and promotion of war. Guest David Corn is always good too—-saying it was like a Clint Eastwood moment——and noting that President Obama always thinks long term. Bashir and Corn noted that this may not always be good politically—-not reacting impulsively to the cause du jour—-but it is good when you consider the possibility of World Peace. They noted what we did—that President Obama is always 1000 rungs above all the shallow riff raff below.

  31. rikyrah says:

    Alienating students, too
    By Steve Benen – Tue Mar 6, 2012 10:04 AM EST.
    Associated Press

    Romney campaigns against student aid in Ohio.
    When it comes to alienating key voting constituencies, Republicans are on a roll. The GOP has already gone out of its way to push Latino voters away, and seems to operating under the assumption that women no longer vote at all.

    Yesterday, Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, decided to alienate students, too

    The high school senior who stood up at Mitt Romney’s town hall meeting here today was worried about how he and his family would pay for college, and wanted to hear what the candidate would do about rising college costs if elected. He didn’t realize that Mr. Romney was about to use him to demonstrate his fiscal conservatism to the crowd.

    The answer: nothing.

    Mr. Romney was perfectly polite to the student. He didn’t talk about the dangers of liberal indoctrination on college campuses, as Rick Santorum might have. But his warning was clear: shop around and get a good price, because you’re on your own

    Romney could have talked about student loans, Pell Grants, or efforts to help curtail sharp increases in tuition rates, but the Republican instead urged the Ohio student to find a college “that has a little lower price.”


    Maybe the kid can get a break after graduating? Romney rejected that, too: “[D]on’t expect the government to forgive the debt that you take on.”

    This isn’t exactly surprising, since Romney endorsed Paul Ryan’s House GOP budget plan that includes severe cuts to college aid, but as the New York Times report added, Romney’s blunt you’re-on-your-own response was “pretty brutal.”

    In the 2008 presidential election, there was a striking age gap — Obama not only beat McCain among younger voters, he did so by a two-to-one margin. Four years later, with Republicans now showing unrestrained hostility towards higher ed and helping students, don’t be too surprised if younger voters rally behind Obama in even greater numbers in 2012.

    Indeed, the contrast is striking. The president considers his student-loan reforms to be among his key domestic achievements, including doubling the investment in Pell Grants, and creating the “American Opportunity Tax Credit” that gave 9.4 million families a break on tuition rates. His likely GOP challenger’s advice to students? Good luck figuring something out.

  32. rikyrah says:

    Political AnimalBlog
    March 06, 2012 12:49 PM
    By Ed Kilgore

    We have a new data point today on the impact of the GOP nominating contest on the general electorate, and if I were a Republican, I’d be worried, per ABC pollster Gary Langer:

    All four Republican contenders remain underwater in overall favorability in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, marking the difficulties the survivor may face against Barack Obama. More Americans hold negative than positive views of Romney by a 10-point margin, Rick Santorum by 8 points, Ron Paul by 9 points and Newt Gingrich by a whopping 33 points.

    Among customarily swing-voting independents, moreover, all but Paul is seen more unfavorably than favorably in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. And Paul’s got trouble, as does Gingrich, within the GOP itself.

    Mitt Romney, responding to immediate market pressures like any good corporate consultant would do, has managed to boost his ratings among conservatives without improving his overall general election standing:

    Romney has improved among both “very” and “somewhat” conservative Americans, as well as among conservative Republicans in particular – up by 12, 10 and 11 points in these groups, respectively, versus a week ago. His gain among very conservatives comes from the ranks of the undecided in this group; among somewhat conservatives, by contrast, negative views moved to positive ones.

    Indeed Romney, after falling to new lows among conservatives before the Michigan and Arizona contests, has moved back to parity with Santorum among some conservative groups, notably conservative Republicans. In this group, 67 percent now see Romney favorably; Santorum, 68 percent.

    As has been increasingly apparent throughout the contest, Ron Paul has been firmly rejected by actual Republicans:

    He’s at 38-35 percent among independents, better than his rivals; but, at 38-44 percent among Republicans, numerically the worst of the lot within the GOP.

    And Newt, as might well have been predicted, has spent an awful lot of Sheldon Adelson’s money in order to achieve pretty much the same national pariah status he earned in the mid-to-late 1990s:

    Deepest into the sea is Gingrich – 23 percent of Americans see him favorably, a new low this election cycle; 56 percent unfavorably, a new high. Republicans essentially divide on Gingrich, but independents see him negatively by a vast 58-21 percent.

    Democrats, of course, deeply regret that Newt’s return to his familiar public standing didn’t occur much later—say, after he won the GOP nomination. But donkeys hold out hope that Mitt Romney will succumb to the same force of gravity—and the same tradeoff of “swing” for “base” voters—that’s already evident in the numbers.

  33. rikyrah says:

    Obama comments on Limbaugh controversy
    By Steve Benen – Tue Mar 6, 2012 2:41 PM EST.

    President Obama held his first press conference in a few months this afternoon, and while the bulk of the discussion was focused on Iran and international affairs, two reporters inquired about the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh’s recent misogynistic remarks.

    The president didn’t want to address the decisions of advertisers that are fleeing Limbaugh’s program, or the sincerity of the host’s so-called “apology,” but Obama was willing to talk about what prompted him to reach out directly to Sandra Fluke.

    In short, the president explained that his reaction was driven by thoughts of his own daughters.

    “One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” he told reporters today. “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

    Obama added, “I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her, and that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate. And we want you to be engaged, and there’s a way to do it in a way that doesn’t involve you being demeaned and insulted.”

    The response reminded me of something Connie Schultz told Rachel on the air last night: Limbaugh’s outrageous verbal assault, deliberately or not, ended up attacking millions of women, not just one law student who wanted to speak on behalf of an ailing friend.

    As Schultz put it, “He went after my girls. He went after the girls of mothers all across this country regardless of their politics. And that is what he has completely underestimated…. He called her a slut because she wanted to be responsible about birth control. They have no idea yet it seems to me, what’s been unleashed, but they are about to find out. There is no going back on this one.”

    Limbaugh has picked a lot of fights over the years, but even he may not have been prepared for the righteous anger that comes with an attack on Americans’ daughters

  34. rikyrah says:

    Strange Things At The CATO Institute, Ctd
    Pareene sticks up for Cato:

    [Y]ou should wish for an independent Cato Institute even if — maybe especially if — you’re a socialist statist tool (like me). Cato is mostly antiwar, decidedly anti-drug war, and sponsors a lot of good work on civil liberties. That … is basically what the Kochs don’t like about them, because white papers on decriminalization don’t help Republicans get elected. As Jonah Goldberg complains in a post that otherwise resolutely refuses to come to a conclusion or have a point, Cato has an annoying habit of not always seeing itself as a natural member of the glorious Republican coalition. (Current Cato headline: “It’s Not Obama’s Fault That Crude Oil Prices Have Increased.” Oh, man, don’t tell Americans for Prosperity that!)

    Julian Sanchez, a Cato employee, will resign should the Kochs take control. Jane Mayer sees the takeover as part of a trend:

    As Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist who was drummed out of the National Center for Policy Analysis for criticizing President Bush, told me yesterday, “This is not all together surprising. It happened at the American Enterprise Institute to David Frum. Staying on the good side of the Republican Party was more important than maintaining its integrity. The conservative right-wing Republicans who fund all these places now see they can serve their own agenda of paying no taxes, and screwing the hell out of the poor. They’ve drunk their own Kool-Aid on Obama. They see the guillotine around the corner, and they want to do anything they can to stop it.”

    Weigel has useful background on the legal battle over the think tank.

  35. rikyrah says:

    Social Media And Rush Limbaugh’s Donnybrook
    I was struck by this quote from a Limbaugh advertizer who pulled his sponsorship:

    When reached by telephone, Michael Rozbruch, the chief executive of Tax Resolution Services, said that his company had been a sponsor of Mr. Limbaugh for “just over a year.” He said he had been “inundated” by messages from online protesters that wanted him to drop the sponsorship.

    “What put me on the map 14 years ago was ‘The Howard Stern Show,’” Mr. Rozbruch said. Mr. Stern is a famously controversial radio host, and Mr. Rozbruch said he once had a “similar experience” with opponents of that show. “But social media was nowhere where it is today,” he said.

    The power of Limbaugh’s vocal connection with millions was overwhelmed in the end by the collective chorus of disdain – and its speed and immediacy. That seems to have made the difference here – as well as the cut-and-dried offense of deploying the words “slut” and “prostitute” and demanding that a law student provide a sex tape.

  36. rikyrah says:

    The Latino Polling Bombshell

    Currently, according to a big poll conducted by Fox News, Obama is leading Romney among Latino voters by 70 – 14 percent. Last time, Obama beat McCain by 67 – 31. Money quote:

    While the poll indicates that four of five Latinos who voted for Obama in 2008 would vote for him later this year, Latinos who voted for Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain four years ago are now divided between voting for Obama and the Republican candidates. Forty percent said that they favored Obama while 38 percent said they would vote for Romney. Obama also leads Santorum 38 percent to 34, and Gingrich 40 percent to 38.

    I cannot see how the GOP has a future with this kind of gap.

  37. rikyrah says:

    Omigod!!!!! They Found the Whitey Tape!!!!!
    by SteveM

    No, not that whitey tape. This is another whitey tape! (Or maybe it’s even worse than a whitey tape!) And it hasn’t been located, exactly—but, as Ben Shapiro tells us over at World O’ Breitbart, or whatever it is they’re calling the site these days, the tape has been identified….

    Sources inform today that Pam Dickler, director of the 1998 production of The Love Song of Saul Alinsky in Chicago that included a panel discussion featuring then-State Sen. Barack Obama, has a video tape of the play.

    And she won’t release it.

    “There is only one archive tape of the play and I have it,” Dickler informed our source. “It is not in Chicago.”

    Dickler told our source that she doesn’t believe she’s ever watched the tape, and she doesn’t know if it “can be viewed.” But she added: “No one is going to see the tape.”

    She said she felt “very protective over it … due to all of the interest from conservatives recently.”…

    Oh, this is going to keep a large crew of wingnut-welfare cases occupied for months—years, maybe. But really, who knows—does the damn thing even exist? Or is Dickler just messing with Young Ben’s head? And if it does exist, is it just of the play or of the discussion as well?

    If the discussion was taped, it’s really hard to imagine that Obama said much—according to the previous story about this, the discussion panel included nineteeen different boldface names, most of whom, unlike the then-little-known “Sen. Baraka Obama,” were locally prominent enough to have their names spelled correctly on the theater’s press release. And those nineteen promised play-discussers were “among many others.” (Click to enlarge:)

    Have you ever been to a discussion like this? I know Ben Shapiro and the other Breitbartniks would never have had such an experience, because it’s too commie-liberal for them, but really, if you’ve got that many participants, a lot of them aren’t going to say very much. I’m sure Shapiro thinks this would have been like some Party Congress that went on for hours and hours after the play, with everyone smoking Russian cigarettes, but people get bored after a while, especially if they just sat through a play, so my guess is that it broke up after an hour or so at most, and Obama’s contribution mostly consisted of nodding in agreement. (Though if the tape is ever found, that’s going to be the source of another Breitbart EXCLUSIVE!—“Look! Studs Terkel says, ‘It’s a class issue,’ and Obama nods in agreement! IT’S NOD-GATE!” Or some brief remark by Obama, barely audible over the inevitable feedback whine-note and lost in the theater’s echo, will be misinterpreted: he’ll have said, “How can we raise their standard of living?” and the Breitbartettes will say, “ARGH! ARGH! HE SAID, ‘HONKY, RAISE THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING’!”)

    If the tape exists, will it ever be found? My guess is that it fell into the hands of some member of the troupe who subsequently unloaded it after a move to Vancouver or Brooklyn, and now it’s gathering dust in some junk shop, cryptically labeled and wedged in between an Alf lunchbox and a stack of Gino Vannelli LPs. But that’s not going to stop some right-wing plutocrat from doling out several million dollars in expense money to a bunch of pasty-faced College Republicans to try to find it. Wow, that will be money and time well spent.

  38. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 08:00 AM ET, 03/06/2012
    In more Romney money awkwardness, Ann Romney doesn’t consider herself wealthy
    By Alexandra Petri

    Congratulations, Ann Romney! You have just joined the ranks of Romneys Who Speak Awkwardly About Money.

    The interview was going well. Ann Romney has a powerful narrative, and Neil Cavuto was listening compassionately. She has struggled against breast cancer and multiple sclerosis, and it has taught her compassion and lent her a warm, generally relatable presence on the campaign trail.

    But the trouble with nine-plus minutes of interview is that you can generate twelve seconds of sound bite, and then no one cares about the Lessons of Compassion because they are too busy repeating your excerpted statement that “I don’t even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing.”

    Yes, quite interesting.

    Whether or not Ann Romney considers herself wealthy, most of America does. Twitter erupted in mockery. Of course Ann doesn’t consider herself wealthy! Her household staff doesn’t wear livery! How could she be wealthy? Wealthy? Have you heard of a fellow named Sheldon Adelson? Wealthy? She hasn’t bought new boat shoes in over a month! Wealthy? With just three sets of monogrammed oyster spoons? Wealthy? Without a single Picasso?

    Americans don’t mind rich people. We would love to be rich ourselves. What we mind is when people insist that they know Just What It’s Like To Be Us because once, they had to wait six minutes for the chauffeur to find them.

    Context is everything. Unfortunately, in context, the remark is not that much better. Ann had just spoken at length about having “horses in every port.”

    I’m sympathetic to the bawling that “really, you comb through an interview about Ann’s struggle with multiple sclerosis in order to find the one ten-second clip that paints her in a bad light? Shame!”

    But the interview consisted of Cavuto’s repeatedly asking whether it was a problem for voters that the Romneys were too perfect.That seems almost to be begging for trouble. It turns out that the Romneys are not off-puttingly perfect. It’s the occasional fits of astounding tone-deafness, mostly around money, that are off-putting.

  39. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 11:08 AM ET, 03/06/2012
    Blaming Obama can’t bail Limbaugh out this time
    By Greg Sargent

    His advertisers are defecting. He’s facing increasing criticism from his own side. And the evidence is mounting that his continued tirades against Sandra Fluke are damaging the GOP. So Rush Limbaugh is attempting a last ditch, but tried-and-true strategy to stop the bleeding: Blame Barack Obama for creating the whole mess.

    “Obama is sorely hurting with women in preelect polls,” Rush is now claiming. “He wanted to turn this into an issue much as they used to use abortion. So the Democrats played the game.”

    Limbaugh’s latest theory: He alleges that Dems sprang a trap by pushing Sandra Fluke as a witness for the House hearing on contraception and religious liberty. “They wanted to turn this from a committee hearing on Obama and his unconstitutional mandate to the issue of contraception so as to bring back to life page 1-A of the Democrat playbook: Republicans Hate Women,” Rush says.

    No one denies that Democrats see political advantage in this fight or that they think this debate should be about contraception. But it’s hard to see how this has all flowed from a secret plot hatched by Obama himself. The chronology is straightforward: After Obama took a beating over the original Obamacare rule requiring religious institutions to cover contraception — which Joe Biden himself conceded was a screw-up — Obama unveiled a new compromise exempting those institutions. This compromise was supported by some Catholic groups and — according to some polls — a majority of Catholic voters.

    House Republicans held a hearing on February 16th on Obama’s new rule. Dems wanted Sandra Fluke to testify, but Republicans said Dems had submitted her name too late. Later in the week, Dems held their own hearing featuring Fluke. That is what triggered Rush’s original tirade. Beyond this, the battles over Planned Parenthood and the Komen foundation — which Republicans happily joined, and which laid the groundwork for the current contraception fight — predate Fluke’s entry into the fray.

    At any rate, Rush’s latest effort to blame Obama for his whole mess doesn’t appear to be working. Since he made this case, five more advertisers have deserted his show, bringing the total to 20.

    Meanwhile, a new Washington Times poll finds that a full 30 percent of Republican primary voters think this battle is about women’s health, and not about religious liberty. As pollster John Zogby puts it: “Drop this baby right now. Drop it. This is not a winner.”

    Rush is discovering that not even blaming Obama can change this. It must be a pretty disorienting discovery.

  40. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 12:30 PM ET, 03/06/2012 GOP losing birth control framing war?
    By Greg Sargent

    Folks on the left are highlighting this extraordinary interview that Senator Lisa Murkowski gave to the Anchorage Daily News, in which she admitted she now regrets her vote for the Blunt amendment.

    But perhaps the most interesting nugget in the interview is her apparent concession that voters see this battle as one about contraception, and not about religious liberty — which is to say that Republicans may be losing the framing war. From reporter Julia O’Malley’s account:

    What Murkowski told me I already suspected. She’s a moderate. She supports abortion rights and contraception coverage. She also doesn’t line up completely with the Catholic Church when it comes to birth control. She regretted her recent vote.
    “I have never had a vote I’ve taken where I have felt that I let down more people that believed in me,” she said.
    She’d meant to make a statement about religious freedom, she said, but voters read it as a vote against contraception coverage for women. The measure was so broad, it’s hard not to read it that way. I suspect Murkowski saw that, but for reasons she didn’t share with me, voted for it anyway.
    By Murkowski’s own admission — it’s parahprased, but there’s no reason to doubt the sentiment, given the larger context — voters are seeing her vote for the Blunt amendment as a vote against access to contraception for women. Partly because of this, Murskowski now regrets her vote.

    As Steve Benen notes, “the fact that she voted against a proposal the senator knew to be an awful idea — in order to send an ambiguous `statement’ — isn’t at all encouraging.”

    Indeed, this exposes yet again the hollowness of the complaints by GOP “centrists” about how both sides are responsible for creating a polarized atmosphere in Washington that has made bipartisan compromise impossible. As you’ll recall, Olympia Snowe recently cited this as one of her leading reasons for retiring, prompting a round of hand-wringing about the vanishing “center” in Washington.

    But here you have a case where a self-described “moderate” Republican didn’t support the compromise solution proposed by Obama even though by her own admission opposing it meant letting down her constituents, who view this issue (she concedes) the way Dems have framed it.

    Most polls have shown that broad majorities, including of independents, support Obama’s birth control coverage mandate. If bipartisan “centrist” compromise is no longer possible in Washington, perhaps the fact that self-described moderate Republicans are not willing to vote for centrist compromises — even ones they believe are right on the merits — has something to do with it

  41. rikyrah says:

    Murkowski Regrets Voting For Blunt’s ‘Religious Conscience’ Measure: ‘I Have Let These Women Down’
    By Igor Volsky on Mar 6, 2012 at 8:30 am

    Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski told a local newspaper yesterday that she regrets her vote for the so-called Blunt amendment, the GOP’s alternative to President Obama’s rule requiring employers to provide contraception coverage as part of their health care insurance plans. Under the amendment, which the Senate tabled with the help of just one Republican, employers would have been empowered to deny coverage of health services to their employees on the basis of personal moral objections.

    “I have never had a vote I’ve taken where I have felt that I let down more people that believed in me,” Murkowski told the Anchorage Daily News’ Julia O’Malley, claiming that the amendment’s language went “overboard”:

    “If you had it to do over again, having had the weekend that you had with women being upset about the vote, do you think you would have voted the same?” I asked.

    “No,” she said.

    Murkowski said she believes contraception should be covered and affordable, except when it comes to churches and religiously affiliated organizations, like some universities and hospitals. She sponsored a contraception coverage bill as a state legislator in 2002. That bill exempted “religious employers.” She said her position hasn’t changed.

    “I have always said if you don’t like abortion the best way to deal with it is to not have unwanted pregnancies in the first place,” she said. “How do you do that? It’s through contraception.”

    I pointed out that her support for birth control conflicts with the Catholic mandate against it. “You know, I don’t adhere to all of the tenets of my faith. I’m a Republican, I don’t adhere to all of the principles that come out of my party,” she said. “I’m also not hesitant to question when I think that my church, my religion, is not current.”

    Murkowski called the Blunt Amendment a “messaging amendment” that “both sides know is not going to pass” and said “Republicans didn’t have enough sense to get off of it.” She also condemned Rush Limbaugh’s deragatory comments about a Georgetown law student testifying in favor of greater access to birth control. “I think women when they hear…mouthpieces like that say things like that they get concerned and they look to policymakers,” she said. “That’s where I feel like I have let these women down is that I have not helped to give these women the assurance they need that their health care rights are protected.”

    Before the vote, ThinkProgress repeatedly called Murkowski’s office to ask how she would vote on the Blunt measure, but her office did not return our requests for comment. Retiring Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) was the only Republican to oppose the measure.

  42. rikyrah says:

    Yesterday at 4:53 PM

    Why Rush Limbaugh Is Facing a Perfect Storm of Outrage
    By Joe Coscarelli

    Rush Limbaugh is a storied shock artist not inclined to apologize or suffer for his blunt, often offensive language. This is the man who has suggested that parents would abort their pregnancies if they knew their kid would be gay and quipped that the NFL “all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.” And yet his verbal assault on Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke is still dominating the news, with real financial consequences: nine companies have pulled their advertising from Limbaugh’s show so far. (Update: Make that 12.)

    Why now? There comes a time when every blowhard, charged with talking for hours each day and constantly under scrutiny from ideologically opposed enemies, finally crosses the line in a way that allows critics to exact their vengeance. For Limbaugh, in this case, social media and the current political climate have concocted the perfect opportunity for disaster.

    1. Contraception is having a moment

    A war over birth control has been brewing at least since December, when the Obama administration reversed its planned support of over-the-counter Plan B, angering women’s rights proponents and calling increased attention to culture war battles that also included anti-abortion “personhood” amendments in states like Mississippi, Florida, and Ohio.

    Komen’s political decision to pull funding from Planned Parenthood, only to reverse the move after an uproar, followed soon after. Just days later, the Obama administration compromised on a health insurance mandate that would have required religious organizations to cover birth control for employees. Foster Friess, a billionaire donor to Rick Santorum, recommended that women just use aspirin between the knees to not get pregnant, which, while comically offensive, isn’t far off from the temporary front-runner’s actual position on birth control.

    After some high-profile setbacks and invigorating victories, the majority of average Americans that support access to contraception were fired up and ready to fight.

    2. The power and speed of social media

    As soon as Limbaugh opened his big mouth, his opponents wasted no time in rushing to the giant social networks filled with like-minded advocates. U.S. Army officer Jessica Scott’s #iamnotaslut hashtag quickly went viral, while retailers advertising with Limbaugh had their official accounts flooded on Twitter and Facebook.

    The CEO of Tax Resolution, who suspended his group’s ads today, said he was “inundated” by messages online urging a Limbaugh boycott. He compared the experience to working with controversial radio host Howard Stern, but said “social media was nowhere where it is today.” (Limbaugh’s supporters have enacted their own social media push.)

    Joining companies like Quicken Loans and Pro Flowers, AOL said today that they too would pull advertising. Tellingly, they made the announcement on their Facebook page.

    • Ametia says:

      IT’S THE GOP’S WAR ON WOMEN & SOCIAL MEDIA. AND FOLKS HAD BETTA RECOGNIZE! Limbaugh’s listeners obviously don’t do Twitter, do they?

  43. Calling All Students: Last Chance to Enter the White House Poster Contest

    The White House is inviting elementary and middle school students from across the country to submit poster designs for the 2012 Easter Egg Roll. The posters should interpret this year’s theme, “Let’s Go, Let’s Play, Let’s Move”, and highlight ways kids can have fun while staying active, a key component of of Let’s Move!, First Lady Michelle Obama’s national campaign to combat childhood obesity. The First Lady will select the winning design, which will be used as part of the this year’s official Easter Egg Roll program.

    The poster contest is open to all elementary and middle school students, and the deadline for submissions is Wednesday, March 7th, 2012 at 11:59p.m. EST. Please note, submissions may be made public during the selection process. You can submit entries here:

  44. Ametia says:

    Israel-Iran Tension Mounts: Live Updates On The Drumbeat Of War
    Posted: 03/05/12 09:26 AM ET

    The prospect of a high-profile military conflict looms again in the Middle East. National security analysts believe Israel’s government is giving serious consideration to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming months, an action that would trigger a cascade of unpredictable military, political and economic reactions in the region and around the world.

    This blog aims to provide comprehensive, highly readable coverage of this story in realtime, and that won’t be possible without your help: please tweet me, subscribe to my updates on Facebook or RSS, or comment below to join the conversation or pass along tips or observations.

  45. Ametia says:

    WASHINGTON • Sen. Claire McCaskill wants her financial backers to know that a D.C. law student wasn’t the only female target of Rush Limbaugh last week.

    In a fundraising letter over the weekend, McCaskill’s campaign complained that in a “tirade” on Thursday the conservative radio host referred to her as a “commie babe liberal.”

    Read more:

  46. Ametia says:

    Tim Tebow Approached to Star on ‘The Bachelor’
    Chris Harrison says he has spoken with the Broncos’ QB, who recently signed with WME, about a stint on the ABC reality show.
    5:41 PM PST 3/5/2012 by THR Staff

    Could Tim Tebow join the ranks of ABC’s Bachelors?
    Tim Tebow Signs with Hollywood Talent Agency

    The NFL quarterback — who recently signed with William Morris Endeavor — has been approached by none other than host Chris Harrison to participate in the reality competition series. In an interview with Access Hollywood, Harrison recalls meeting the devout athlete, but says he doubts a deal will come to completion.

  47. rikyrah says:

    for those of you who have always had the side eye to AMERICANS ELECT..

    this is just more for you.


    How many ways can you say Republican?
    by Kay

    Because I believe Americans Elect is made up of a few wealthy Republicans, I’m not really surprised that they may be having trouble attracting small donors:

    One of the most salient criticisms of Americans Elect —a group that bills itself as seeking to “open up the political process” and “change politics as usual” — is its dogged refusal, using the legal shield of its status as a 501c4 corporation, to disclose the names of its financial backers.

    Americans Elect got off the ground with $20 million of seed money given by only 50-some anonymous donors. That’s 50 nameless investors ponying up an average of $400,000 apiece, although, in one rare case in which the name is known, Americans Elect founder and CEO Peter Ackerman has given at least $1.55 million and, according to Bloomberg — the news organization, not the draft Americans Elect presidential candidate — more than $5 million.
    Americans Elect has sought to rationalize its financial secrecy, by assuring the public that all of its early high-dollar contributions are structured as loans that will be repaid, and that, when all is said and done, no single donor will have contributed more than $10,000.

    Americans Elect says it “is funded by individual contributions, and intends to pay back the bulk of our initial financing as more delegates join, so that no single individual will have contributed more than $10K.”

    Underscoring the point, Americans Elect last October published an open letter, signed by Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd, saying that “every donation above $10,000 is structured as a loan. We aspire for these loans to be paid back by the time this organization completes its core mission in 2012. If the American people embrace the Americans Elect mission as their own, then no one will have given more than $10,000. Growing evidence suggests that this will happen.”

    And, just last week (video above), Americans Elect COO Eliot Ackerman, appearing with Americans Elect Advisory Board member Mark McKinnon on MSNBC, told Chuck Todd — who had asked Ackerman (starting at 6:14) when and if Americans Elect was going to disclose its funders — that “all of [the funders’] donations have been given as loans.”

    Ultimately, in other words, “the people” will be the ones to reimburse the hedge funders and private-equity types who seeded the initial $20 million. Thus will the role of Americans Elect as a catalyst of democratic renewal be authenticated in financial terms.
    That’s been the story — and Americans Elect has been sticking to it.

    SO IT WAS jarring to read the following new ruling of the Americans Elect Board of Directors, posted this morning to the Americans Elect Web site:

    The Americans Elect Board unanimously voted to ensure that no supporter would cover more than 20% of AE’s budget. In the event that any one supporter exceeds that percentage, there are provisions created to expedite repayments to that supporter.

    What this Board decision basically says is that as few as five people can fund the whole damned thing.It also strongly suggests that Americans Elect is not getting — and does not expect to get — significant financial support at the grassroots level of delegates, Web site registrants and Facebook “like”-ers. At least, not significant enough — and not quick enough — to make good on all of the promises that it may have made to all of the seed investors from whom Americans Elect has taken high-dollar loans.

    Indeed, the counter-scenario that this new ruling opens up is that it will not be the grassroots, “the people,” who repay these seed investors in Americans Elect — but, rather, that wealthy donors who have not yet topped out the new 20% maximum (or maybe even some who have) are being asked to increase their donations by way of reimbursing investors who are having second thoughts.

    Is Americans Elect like the Tea Party? Just a new label and new branding for a certain group of Republicans who no longer want to call themselves Republicans? A very select group, sure, but just Republicans by (yet) another name?

  48. Santorum: Single Moms Are “Breeding More Criminals”

    EXCLUSIVE: The GOP candidate claimed in 1994 that single mothers were destroying the “fabric of the country.” His solution? “Kicking them in the butt.”

    During his first US Senate campaign, Rick Santorum warned voters of a growing menace that was “breeding more criminals” and threatened to destroy America from within: single mothers.

    “Most people agree a continuation of the current [welfare] system will be the ruination of this country,” Santorum told a town meeting in Clairton, Pa., in February 1994, according to transcripts of the appearance obtained by Mother Jones. “We are seeing it. We are seeing the fabric of this country fall apart, and it’s falling apart because of single moms.”

  49. rikyrah says:

    What to Look for Tonight
    by BooMan
    Tue Mar 6th, 2012 at 09:04:16 AM EST

    I’m as guilty as anyone of placing the most importance on Ohio among today’s primaries, but it should be remembered that, from a delegate point of view, Ohio doesn’t really matter. Today’s contests are all proportional to some degree. A handful of states (Ohio, Vermont, and Virginia) are winner-take-all by congressional district, with some at-large delegates doled out proportionately. Santorum didn’t qualify for delegates in all of Ohio’s congressional districts, so he’s likely to lose the delegate battle even if he wins the popular vote. Romney and Ron Paul are the only candidates on the ballot in Virginia and write-in votes are not allowed, so Romney will win almost all the delegates there because he will win in every congressional district. Vermont only has one congressional district, and Romney will win the popular vote and therefore all the CD delegates.
    In the states Romney is likely to lose, he will still win a fraction of the delegates. The real question is whether Romney will win more than 50% of the delegates today or he won’t. My guess is that he will. So, from a technical standpoint, Romney will probably improve his position tonight even if he loses Ohio’s popular vote.

    So, why is Ohio so important? Mainly because it’s the best chance for Santorum to prove that he can actually beat Romney. It’s also Romney’s best chance to exceed expectations. No one is going to give Romney credit for winning his home state of Massachusetts or for winning in tiny Vermont or for winning in Virginia in a one-on-one contest with Ron Paul. He needs to win somewhere else to impress. If Santorum can carry Tennessee and Oklahoma, that will be nice and provide him with an excuse to keep going, but blowing a big lead in Ohio will be the main message people take away.

    A good night for Romney will be if he can win Ohio, Virginian, Massachusetts, and Vermont. A great night will be if he can also win in Tennessee and come in second behind Gingrich in Georgia. A bad night will be if he comes in third in Georgia and loses in Ohio and Tennessee.

    If Romney has a good or great night, we’ll probably see the electorate start to rally around him. But if he has a bad night, the contest will continue in its present form, and move to Alabama and Mississippi and Missouri with Romney looking to take a beating.

    Ohio and, to a lesser degree, Tennessee are the keys tonight. If Romney falls short, the Republicans may simply give up on the idea of winning the presidency.

  50. rikyrah says:

    Tuesday, March 6, 2012
    Pinhead Wizards
    Posted by Zandar
    Well, if Tom Jensen’s poll numbers are to be believed (and PPP has been pretty much spot on in the past with a good track record) then Stupor Tuesday it could be a long, long day for the forces of Romnevibility(tm).

    The news is good for Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich and bad for Rick Santorum in PPP’s final polls of the three biggest Super Tuesday states.
    In Ohio Romney leads with 37% to 36% for Santorum, 15% for Gingrich, and 11% for Ron Paul.
    In Tennessee Santorum leads with 34% to 29% for Romney, 27% for Gingrich, and 8% for Paul.
    In Georgia Gingrich leads with 47% to 24% for Romney, 19% for Santorum, and 8% for Paul.
    A week ago Santorum had a huge lead in Tennessee, a decent sized one in Ohio, and seemed like he had a good chance for second in Georgia. Now he’s barely holding on in Tennessee, ever so slightly behind in Ohio, and seems doomed for third in Georgia.
    Romney’s fortunes have swung the other direction. What was looking like a runner up finish in Ohio is looking more like a win with each passing day. He has an outside chance at pulling off an upset win in Tennessee. And it looks like he’ll finish a solid second in Georgia.
    The news for Gingrich is good too. It’s been expected he would win Georgia, but it looks now like he could even hit the 50% mark. And he’s pulled within striking distance of Santorum and Romney in Tennessee.

    We’re at a tipping point. A Gingrich win in Georgia with him getting over 50% keeps him in the game, as does a Santorum win in Tennessee (especially if Romney slips into 3rd there.) Should Slick Rick pull off a win in Ohio to boot, all balls will be locked for multiball and the chaos will truly begin, as Tuesday will only make the national GOP picture even more messy.

    If on the other hand Romney can win Ohio and surprise in the Volunteer State, Romnevitability(tm) will rise. It could go either way at this point. Me, I’m rooting for multiball, then for the table to break and the balls to go flying everywhere. Maybe knock over a few bystanders, roll out into the street, cause hipsters to ironically fall. Yeah, the kind of multiball that makes the local news and forces some local reporter to schlep out to where they still have pinball machines and pizza by the slice with “cheese” and do a report with a straight face with the chyron underneath reading “BIZARRE PINBALL ACCIDENT DOWNTOWN INJURES FOUR.”. I’m all for that. Let’s go with that. Yeah.

  51. rikyrah says:

    March 05, 2012 5:15 PM
    Jim Wallis’ “Startling Statements”
    By Ed Kilgore

    The Blaze is Glenn Beck’s website so I’m not too surprised at anything that appears there. Still, there’s a leading article up (which has drawn well over 500 comments) by Billy Hallowell that’s rather a sad reflection of how the contemporary Right has lost all sense of history or perspective. It’s about some relatively banal comments by the Rev. Jim Wallis—an exceptionally well-known religio-political figure who is simultaneously a symbol of the “Christian Left” and a source of chronic irritation to religious liberals who don’t share his conservative leanings on cultural issues like abortion and same-sex marriage or much appreciate his constant efforts to encourage the president to compromise on them.

    But here’s what upsets Halloway and his readers:

    In an interview that will air nationwide at Lifetree Café locations in the coming days, Wallis made some startling statements about America’s history and heritage….

    “It’s not a Christian nation. It’s never been a Christian nation,” Wallis boldly proclaimed while speaking about America. “We set this up so that it would not be a Christian nation for any religious framework.”

    But Wallis wasn’t done there. In a preview clip, he goes on to claim that America isn’t mentioned in the Bible as having a “special” or unique place.

    “Where in the Bible is there a special place for America?,” he asks. “Where do we get that that’s bad theology…just bad theology.”

    For Wallis, who considers himself part of the Anabaptist tradition which has for five centures rejected any contamination of Christianity by official sanction, this is about as predictable a comment as he could make. But beyond Wallis himself, it’s just bizarre that anyone, whether or not they agree with strict church-state separation, would find advocacy of this position by an evangelical minister “startling.” In the days of the Founders, it was evangelicals who most strongly urged Jefferson and Madison to take a hard line against any religious establishment, and indeed, it was in a letter to a group of Connecticut Baptists that Jefferson coined the phrase “wall of separation” to describe the ideal relationship of church and state.

    One can only speculate why Halloway or anyone else would be shocked by Wallis’ truism—relevant or not—that there is no biblical sanction for “American exceptionalism.”

    Sure, many Americans over the decades, believers or not, have thought of the country as a “Christian nation” in the common-sense meaning of that term—as a nation in which professed Christians were an overwhelming majority of the population. Its polemical use as a term promoting government sanction of Christian observances or tenets is a lot more recent, and its retroactive projection into American history by ideological warriors like David Barton is what I personally find most “startling.”

    Any time the “Christian nation” dispute is raised, I think of a moment (unfortunately not linkable) back in the late 1980s, when the U.S. House was in one of those silly end-of-year around the clock sessions and a nearly empty chamber was being addressed by some conservative Member who was making a paen to America as a “Christian nation.” The junior House member forced to sit in the Chair at this ungodly hour happened to be Barney Frank, who interrupted the speaker to say: “If this is a Christian nation, how come some poor Jew has to get up in the middle of the night to preside over the House of Representatives?”

    I’m sure Frank’s target was “startled,” but he shouldn’t have been, and nor should anyone be when this strongly traditional notion of church-state separation is articulated.

  52. rikyrah says:

    Limbaugh loses favor with those who pay his bills
    By Steve Benen – Tue Mar 6, 2012 8:00 AM EST

    During his lengthy career in broadcasting, Rush Limbaugh has ignored the boundaries of decency on countless occasions, but he’s never lost so many sponsors, so quickly, as he has over the last week.

    Six days after the right-wing host’s verbal assault on Sandra Fluke, Limbaugh no doubt enjoys the condemnations and attention, but can’t be pleased with the reactions from those who pay his bills.

    Many thought Limbaugh’s initial apology was inadequate, and their outrage helped compel advertisers to pull their commercials from Limbaugh’s program.

    Two more national advertisers — online giant AOL and tax service Tax Resolution — said Monday that they were suspending their sponsorship of Limbaugh, bringing the total number of companies fleeing Limbaugh to nine. […]

    Whether Limbaugh’s on-air apology will stanch further losses remains unclear. A boycott campaign on Twitter and online petitions urging sponsors to remove their ads continued to draw supporters Monday.

    If one includes local advertisers in the overall count, Limbaugh has lost 11 sponsors. ThinkProgress’ running count reached 12 late yesterday after Allstate Insurance pulled its ads, too.

    Making matters slightly worse, two stations that have aired Limbaugh’s radio show — WBEC in Pittsfield, Massachusetts and KPUA in Hilo, Hawaii — dropped the program yesterday. WBEC’s general manager said yesterday, “This time he’s taken it too far.”

    I guess the half-hearted, not-exactly-sincere “apology” didn’t persuade the Republican’s detractors that he felt genuine regret.

    Of course, the news for Limbaugh wasn’t all bad — the Missouri Legislature will apparently still honor the right-wing broadcaster with a statue at the state capitol, giving him a place in the Hall of Famous Missourians. Limbaugh’s bust will sit alongside the likes of Mark Twain, Harry Truman, and Walt Disney.

  53. rikyrah says:

    The Secret Plan to Screw Us All
    By Charles P. Pierce at 1:49PM
    For the love of Mary, stop them now, please?

    The idea — and here it comes again — that there are Democratic legislators still willing to work with anyone from the House Republican side on any issue of great national import is proof positive that P.T. Barnum’s calculations were sadly awry on the relationship of suckers born per minute. The idea that we are still seriously talking about deficit reduction as the first issue among the many makes me wonder if anyone will take seriously this blog’s basic economic philosophy: Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money. And the idea that people are talking about cutting entitlements now, given the catastrophe that austerity regimes are visiting upon people all over Europe, and given what’s happening out in the states, makes me wonder if our governing elites are in conspiracy to drive Paul Krugman completely insane.

    More immediately, what in hell is goddamn Heath Shuler even doing in the room, let alone driving the Democratic side of the “secret” negotiations? The man is a career incompetent. In two careers. He’s the Bluest — and the Doggiest — of Blue Dogs. And, on top of everything else, he’s a lame duck. What possibly qualifies him as a Democratic leader on anything except the proper way to pack up your office and move along to the no-show lobbying job that awaits you on K. Street?

    Oh, I see, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer wants Shuler in there, leading the Democratic negotiating team.

    So, if you’re keeping score at home, the Republicans in this catastrophe-in-waiting are being led by Mike Simpson of Idaho, a guy who’s made a career out of concocting monster-stories about the tyrannical EPA while the putative Democratic leader is a guy who, in the two very public jobs he’s held since leaving the University of Tennessee as The Quarterback Peyton Manning Helped Us Forget, has had a disconcerting tendency to throw the ball to the other team. Because that’s the way the second-leading Democrat in the House wants it to be.

    Read more:

  54. BREAKING: Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski now says she regrets her anti-contraception vote #hcr #waronwomen

  55. rikyrah says:

    In Bob McDonnell’s Virginia
    By Laura Conaway – Tue Mar 6, 2012 8:58 AM EST.

    t’s not entirely clear who’s running the majority Republican Party in Virginia, the Richmond Style Weekly writes this week. Basic tasks like passing a budget are now in some jeopardy, state Senator John Watkins tells the paper. “Some of us warned about this very thing: social issues overcoming the practical aspects of governing,” he says.

    Whoever’s running Virginia, they’re delivering it to new, uncomfortable places. On Saturday, Style Weekly photographer Scott Elmquist took the picture above, of a four-year-old girl on the Capitol steps where police in riot gear stand guard. Officers arrested 31 activists for reproductive rights that day after they sat on the steps without a permit. Scott says the girl spent the time happily running back and forth to her mother’s arms. A spokesperson for Governor Bob McDonnell, who initially supported the forced vaginal ultrasound bill that sparked the protest, says McDonnell was at a basketball game and doesn’t direct security policy, so don’t blame him for what happened.

    As for the iconic image of the little girl and the riot police: Though the mom had been on the steps earlier, she was not arrested nor did she come close to being arrested. The photo is jarring, the mom says, but the scene wasn’t frightening:

    “It wasn’t a scary situation at all, for anyone, even the people being arrested. There was never any hint of violence. It was a jubilant crowd of people who wanted to make our voices heard.”

    And now, in these photos, they’ve made themselves seen in a way that’s hard to forget.

  56. rikyrah says:

    The Real Problem with Ohio
    By Charles P. Pierce at 12:44PM

    I’ve spent a great deal of time trying to understand Republicans these days. Truly, I have. But what John Kasich did yesterday in Ohio with regards to federal disaster aid defies so much common sense that I’ve decided to give up figuring them out for a while. Remember now, for a long time, Kasich was the very beau ideal of the hip new conservative brand. He listened to the Dead. He could speak to the young. He was often the Republican half of the phony Clinton-era bipartisanship for which people seem now to be so nostalgic. At the same time, he was the Paul Ryan of his day, the GOP’s designated photogenic granny-starver, albeit a lot less zombie-eyed than the current model. In 2000, he even briefly concocted an entire presidential campaign out of all of this.

    Then he went on to have his own show on the Fox News Channel, and all I can conclude is that, once he got elected governor of Ohio in 2010, whatever microchip the scientists at Ailes Research Laboratories implanted in him began to malfunction, because it soon became plain that Kasich was planning to govern Ohio by pissing off as many Ohioans as he could — an innovative, if unpromising, political strategy. He rammed through a union-busting bill that was eviscerated by referendum almost immediately. By all accounts, his influence, and that of his plummeting approval ratings, on tomorrow’s critical Ohio Republican primary has been negligable at best. And now, in the face of an incredibly destructive tornado outbreak, Kasich has decided to turn down federal disaster relief, while the Republican governor of Indiana, Mitch (10th Amendment) Daniels, is welcoming the feds in with everything except cigarettes and whiskey.

    (Clermont) county’s Democratic Party chairman, Dave Lane, said there is no reason to wait to ask for help. He said Kasich, a Republican who has been critical of the federal government in the past, may be trying to score political points at the expense of residents.

    My question is, what possible political points can Kasich score at this point in his career by turning down federal disaster relief money? Is there really a danger that his approval ratings in the state will drop if he accepts the money? Is he actually fretting that, given what he’s previously said about the relationship between the federal government and the states, there is a danger to him politically if he takes money to help his constituents who are currently wandering, blank-staring, through the ruins of their lives? And, anyway, surely John Kasich can’t still believe he has a national political career to worry about. Hell, if you listen to what the smart people are saying, Mitch Daniels actually does have a national political career to worry about, and he doesn’t seem too concerned about taking the money. This stopped making sense to me long ago.

    Read more:

  57. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 05:05 PM ET, 03/05/2012
    The coming GOP spin on social issues
    By Jonathan Bernstein

    Sometime soon — perhaps as early as tomorrow night, possibly in a couple of weeks, but at any rate by the end of spring — Mitt Romney is almost certainly going to be properly recognized as the Republican nominee for president. And be ready: you’re going to hear some hard spinning about how Romney’s nomination proves that Republicans are really moderate on social issues. It doesn’t.

    For a preview, see Republican operative Ed Rogers over at “The Insiders” today arguing that if Romney is the winner on Super Tuesday it will show that Republicans don’t care about social issues:

    Tomorrow’s Super Tuesday primaries will offer a good reality check of where the Republican Party really stands on social issues vs. economic issues in 2012 … Whether or not the GOP gets it and how badly we want to win in 2012 will be clearer on Wednesday morning after the votes are counted.

    The problem with this theory is that all that’s really at stake is how, and how frequently, Republican candidates talked about abortion, birth control, and other such issues. In their actual positions on these issues, none of the candidates who ran this year (other than libertarian Gary Johnson and, in some cases, libertarian Ron Paul) differed at all. As far as I can tell, Mitt Romney has the exact same position on gay and lesbian rights, on church/state issues, on abortion, and, yes, on contraception as Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich, or even Michele Bachmann.

    What’s really been at issue in the nomination contest isn’t which positions that the party would take, but whether Republicans could trust Romney to support the party platform once elected president.

    The entire nomination process has been about shrinking the gap between movement conservative positions and what Mitt Romney says he’ll do in office. Don’t believe any spin to the contrary.

  58. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 08:51 AM ET, 03/06/2012

    The Morning Plum: Axelrod tattoos Romney with Rush `slut’ comment
    By Greg Sargent

    It’s hard to overstate what a huge gift Rush Limbaugh handed Democrats when he labeled Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,” and Dems will do all they can to ensure that Limbaugh continues to loom large over the presidential race. Case in point: David Axelrod, in a new CNN interview, has considerably raised the stakes in this fight, slamming Mitt Romney for his “timid” and “cowardly” response to Limbaugh’s diatribes. Video here :

    “I was kind of shocked when Governor Romney, all he had to say was, `Well that isn’t language I would have used.’ What about the spirit of what was said? I thought that was a cowardly answer and it was a test of leadership, and one that he failed…

    “There are very few entertainers who swing the weight that Rush Limbaugh does in the Republican Party. I think one of the reasons why Governor Romney and others were so timid in speaking out is because Rush is the defacto leader of the Republican Party. So to take him on would be to risk your own standing within the party.”

    Dems clearly see an opportunity to exacerbate the gender gap that is already widening, perhaps due to the substance of the dispute over birth control. Yesterday’s NBC/WSJ poll found that Obama is now leading Romney by 55-37 among women. A recent poll by Dem Stan Greenberg found that unmarried women — a key Dem constituency that Obama must win back in 2008 numbers — now back Obama by 65-30.

    Even Alex Castellanos a former Romney adviser, says that Romney “didn’t help himself” with his tepid response to Rush: “He had an opportunity to demonstrate strength. He left the bat on his shoulders.”

    The interesting dynamic here is that it’s become harder and harder for Republicans to fully repudiate Rush, simply because Dems and liberals are pressuring them to do so. No matter how reprehensible Rush’s comments, Republicans who decisively distance themselves from Rush will in effect be surrendering to the liberal media, which in the right wing mythology is doing Obama’s bidding by devoting so much attention to the controversy.

    That’s why Rush continues to blame liberals for his own outbursts, in order to keep his supporters in his camp. Of course, Rush’s continuing bluster is only causing both sides to dig in harder, making this still worse for the GOP.

    * Mitt Romney’s white working class problem, ctd: Ron Brownstein digs into this week’s NBC/WSJ polling and finds this:

    In the NBC/WSJ surveys through the second half of 2011, Romney led Obama among those working-class white voters by a commanding 52 percent to 38 percent…But in latest survey, Romney’s advantage with those voters had shriveled to just five percentage points — 48 percent to 43 percent

    To win the presidency, the GOP candidate has to beat Obama by a far larger margin among this key swing constituency — yet another sign, as observers in both parties have noted, of how badly the primary has damaged Romney.

  59. Good Morning, Jueseppi & 3Chics!

  60. rikyrah says:

    March 05, 2012
    The GOP’s spiritual emptiness

    From a rather unsatisfying, which is to say, purely strategic point of view, what many of us in the provincial, unBelted backwaters have been writing for years has finally made its way to the eye-opening Conventional Wisdom of WaPo’s “The Fix:”

    [S]ome within the [Republican Party] have begun to believe that the only way for the GOP to truly heal is to first bottom out.

    By “bottom out,” Chris Cillizza of course means electorally. The party stands in desperate need of a transcendent repudiation by voters; only then will its authentic Eureka moment come. How this grotesquely belated development could still be essential — considering that the party’s presidential candidates are a national laughingstock and its congressional wing is scarcely more popular than herpes — is, I suppose, mostly a testament to Newtonian physics, i.e., bodies in motion tend to stay in motion.

    But, as I noted in the opening of this post, this is, principally, a strategic consideration, whereas what the Republican Party needs most is a fundamentally spiritual reconsideration. And that is to say, Republicans, by and large, have been on the wrong side of history since the New Deal — American political history’s tipping point at which the GOP began to lose its inner soul. I quote at some length from the late but still-reigning king of American historians, Richard Hofstadter:

    Classically … it has been the strength of conservatives that their appeal to institutional continuities, hard facts, and the limits of possibility is better founded; while it has usually been the strength of reformers that they arouse moral sentiments, denounce injustices, and rally the indignation of the community against intolerable abuses. Such had been the alignment of arguments during the Progressive era. During the New Deal, however, it was the reformers whose appeal to the urgent practical realities was most impressive…. It was the conservatives, on the other hand, who represented the greater moral indignation and rallied behind themselves the inspirational literature of American life; and this not merely because the conservatives were now the party of the opposition, but because things were being done of such drastic novelty that they seemed to breach all the inherited rules, not merely of practicality but of morality itself.

    In sum, and very loosely, since the New Deal Democrats have embodied the experimental, can-do, pragmatic spirit of the American people, while Republicans — at one time, conservatives — have wandered about in the ideological wilderness but mostly away from their “institutional continuities, hard facts, and the limits of possibility”; they’ve become merely scolds — cranky, nagging scolds who possess little but a profound spiritual emptiness and reams of increasingly attenuated platitudes.

    Were they ever to rediscover their genuinely conservative, Burkean roots — again, see Hofstadter — Republicans would quickly re-form into a strategically, but more importantly spiritually, formidable party.

  61. Ametia says:

    On Israel & Iran.
    Posted on March 5, 2012
    by Emily L. Hauser |

    I have roughly zero time to post today, but I suspect some folks might be coming by to see what I think about President Obama’s AIPAC speech, or about his talks with Prime Minister Netanyahu, or about the whole Israeli effort to lead the world into a cataclysmic war with Iran. The thing is I don’t have time to write about any of that, or anything else! (Though I may have just tipped my hand with the use of the word “cataclysmic”).

    So instead, I bring you the opinion of the editorial board of Israel’s newspaper of record, HaAretz:

    Read on at ABL

  62. rikyrah says:

    Female Veterans Demand Rush Limbaugh’s Show Be Pulled From American Forces Network
    By Faiz Shakir on Mar 5, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    VoteVets, a coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, released a letter today from a group of female veterans calling on the American Forces Network to drop Rush Limbaugh from its programming.

    Miranda Norman (who is a Senior Advisor), Kayla Williams, and Robin Eckstein, all Iraq War Veterans, and Katherine Scheirman, former chief of medical operations in the U.S. Air Forces, released the following statement:

    Rush Limbaugh has a freedom of speech and can say what he wants, but in light of his horribly misogynistic comments, American Forces Radio should no longer give him a platform. Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other – women and men. There simply can be no place on military airwaves for sentiments that would undermine that respect. When many of our female troops use birth control, for Limbaugh to say they are “sluts” and “prostitutes” is beyond the pale. It isn’t just disrespectful to our women serving our country, but it’s language that goes against everything that makes our military work. Again, we swore to uphold our Constitution, including the freedom of speech, and would not take that away from anyone – even Limbaugh. But that does not mean AFN should broadcast him. In fact, it shouldn’t.

  63. Ametia says:

    Protesters to Santorum GO TO HELL!

  64. Ametia says:

    Federal data show racial gaps in school arrests
    By Donna St. George, Published: March 5

    African American students in large school systems are arrested far more often on campus than their white peers, new federal data show.

    The data, from an Education Department civil rights survey to be released Tuesday, provide the government’s most extensive examination yet of how public schools across the country bring police into the handling of student offenses.

  65. Ametia says:

    Good Morning, Jueseppi. Good to see you.

Leave a Reply