Serendipity SOUL | Tuesday Open Thread | U2 Week!


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

49 Responses to Serendipity SOUL | Tuesday Open Thread | U2 Week!

  1. rikyrah says:

    The GOP’s Obsession with Obama’s Black Staffers
    [OPINION] Zerlina Maxwell says that recent attacks on Valerie Jarrett are just the latest example of the Republican Party playing dirty with high-level Black liberals

    When the same thing happens twice, it’s possibly a coincidence. When the same thing happens three times, it’s time to talk trends. The Republican party and, by extension, their right wing allies, have a history of targeted attacks on Black Obama administration officials. First it was Van Jones, then Shirley Sherrod, both now former members of the administration. As they’ve recently set their sights on Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, it’s hard not to wonder if what these three administration officials have in common is the reason they’ve been targeted.

    Last week, the GOP put out an opposition research document on Jarrett and sent it out to the press. The GOP quotes an administration official calling Jarrett, “the single most influential person in the Obama White House.” What she has done during her tenure at the White House to demand such a file is not clear beyond simply doing her job. Jarrett’s role is essentially to be the person communicating the President’s wishes to a number of moving parts. For example, she was one of the biggest champions of the women’s health care provisions that were included in Obamacare, which prevent women from being charged twice as much for contraception and reproductive health services.

    The GOP has now pegged Jarrett as “Obama’s consigliere,” as if the Obama administration is like the mafia, quoting others saying that she is President Obama’s “spine.” While it may be true that she is an effective operator in the West Wing, it’s not clear why that is problematic on any level. Jarrett was asked by the president to join the administration because she is a savvy navigator, something that is a desired trait in an advisor to an administration mixed of Washington insiders and outsiders, the president among them.

  2. SouthernGirl2 says:

    Dashboard: The Tools You Need to Help Re-Elect President Obama

  3. Ametia says:


  4. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 11:45 AM ET, 09/25/2012
    Mitt Romney is now a long shot

    By Jamelle Bouie

    It’s hard to contest the view that Mitt Romney is losing. He’s trailing in all national polls, including ones friendly to Republicans, like Rasmussen. He’s trailing in all swing state polls, and the latest Post polls show him on the verge of losing in critical states like Ohio and perhaps even Florida. He’s at a cash disadvantage against President Obama, and conservative Super PACs lack the focus and direction necessary to make a real impact. And of course, Obama maintains an on-the-ground advantage. In the ten states most likely to determine the election, Obama has a 2-to–1 lead in field offices.

    Still, lots of campaigns go through hard times. The question is whether Romney can win. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Gerald Seib makes a case that echoes the pundit consensus: yes, Romney is behind, but six weeks — the time between now and November 6 — is an “eternity” in politics.

    Seib offers three reasons for why we should see this as a close race. First, that Republican voters are highly motivated for the election. He cites the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, which finds:

    But among those who voice the highest interest in the election — in other words, those who seem most intensely interested in voting — Mr. Romney leads by three percentage points.

  5. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 12:48 PM ET, 09/25/2012
    The trap that has ensnared Mitt Romney

    By Greg Sargent

    Mitt Romney might still win this election, but he’s now stuck in a trap that will be difficult to escape. Americans are rejecting his argument that they should view their choice mostly as a referendum on Obama’s economic performance, because they blame the sluggish recovery on the magnitude of the mess Obama inherited from George W. Bush, and believe things will get better in Obama’s second term. That is putting pressure on Romney to be more specific about why his alternative, such as it is, would spark a faster recovery than is occurring under Obama.

    But Romney can’t be too much more specific about that alternative, because it risks reminding voters of the degree to which his policies resemble those of the aforementioned George W. Bush, under whom the meltdown happened in the first place.

    I know you’re sick of hearing that the basic assumptions underlying Romney’s campaign strategy may be flawed. But we now have a Republican poll that helps confirm this. GOP pollster David Winston’s new survey finds Romney’s framing of the race may not be resonating:

    * The poll finds that only 18 percent of registered voters say the most important question determining their vote is whether they are better off than they were four years ago. Seventy seven percent say the most important question is whether things will get better in the future.

    * The poll finds a plurality, 48 percent, think the “economic policies of the past” are causing more problems, while only 45 percent say that of the “economic policies of the present.” In other words, Bush economics is still weighing on people’s minds.

  6. rikyrah says:

    Still chasing a bouncing ball
    By Steve Benen
    Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:15 AM EDT.

    On “60 Minutes” over the weekend, Steve Kroft asked President Obama about unrest in the Middle East and whether it’s led to a reevaluation of the Arab Spring. The president noted that he’s long believed the process would be “a rocky path,” and there are “going to be bumps in the road” created in part “demagogues,” but he’s nevertheless optimistic that “over the long term we are more likely to get a Middle East and North Africa that is more peaceful, more prosperous and more aligned with our interests.”

    And just like that, the Romney campaign found a new shiny object.

    Mitt Romney assailed President Obama for calling the unrest in the Middle East “bumps in the road,” saying Monday that the remarks show how different their views are on foreign policy and the president’s lack of leadership on the world stage.

    “Bumps in the road, we had an ambassador assassinated. We had a Muslim Brotherhood … member elected to the presidency of Egypt. Twenty thousand people have been killed in Syria. We have tumult in Pakistan and of course Iran is that much closer to having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon,” Romney told about 1,600 people at a rally on the tarmac here. “These are not bumps in the road, these are human lives, these are developments we do not want to see.”

    On Friday, we talked about campaign organizations and the ways in which they create themes and frames to reinforce larger arguments. Winning campaigns are usually pretty good at it. Team Romney is not.

  7. rikyrah says:

    Epistemic closure and poll denialism

    By Steve Benen

    Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:45 AM EDT.


    With six weeks to go in the 2012 presidential election, the polls look quite good for President Obama. All of the usual caveats still apply — there’s still time, Obama’s modest lead is not insurmountable, uncontrollable events are impossible to predict, etc. — but Mitt Romney and his supporters are understandably discouraged.

    Well, at least some of them are. A surprising number of Republicans have decided to go a different route, arguing that all of the evidence pointing to Obama’s advantage is wrong.

    The Romney campaign and other Republicans say polls showing President Obama with a significant lead over their candidate are inaccurate.

    They argue many mainstream polls skew in Obama’s favor because of sample sizes that base 2012 turnout projections on 2008, when Democrats — and Hispanics, blacks and young voters in particular — turned out in record numbers.

    “I don’t think [the polls] reflect the composition of what 2012 is going to look like,” Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said in an interview.

    Frustration that polls are skewed in favor of Obama has escalated among some on the right in recent weeks. One website,, recently began re-weighting the mainstream polls to closer track the demographic assumptions of conservative polling outlet Rasmussen Reports. The re-weighted polls all show Romney ahead in the race, with leads of between 3 and 11 percentage points.

  8. rikyrah says:

    A poor substitute for a housing plan
    By Steve Benen
    Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:03 PM EDT.

    Given how vague Mitt Romney and his campaign team are about most areas of public policy, it’s exciting when Team Romney actually publishes a relatively detailed policy position paper on an important issue. Sure, it’s the soft bigotry of low expectations — a presidential campaign releasing a white paper should be routine, not cause for celebration — but with Republicans in 2012, standards have fallen considerably.

    And with this in mind, I was delighted to see the Romney campaign release an actual white paper on housing policy. Up until now, about the only notable thing the candidate has said about housing is his desire to see foreclosures continue without government intervention.

    So, is Romney’s housing policy any good?

    Well, the first hint something was amiss was the timing of the white paper’s release — the Romney campaign waited until after 4 p.m. on Friday afternoon to publish the policy, the same afternoon as the release of Romney’s 2011 tax returns. In other words, Team Romney went out of its way to make sure no one saw or had any interest in the candidate’s housing plan.

  9. rikyrah says:

    Ralph Reed, back to his old tricks
    By Steve Benen
    Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:34 PM EDT.

    The New York Times reported the other day on Republican/evangelical activist Ralph Reed making the transition from disgraced lobbyist to “sought after” GOP insider. The former Christian Coalition leader waited for time to elapse, assuming people would forget his scandals, and it worked like a charm.

    Reed intends to use his restored status to “unleash a sophisticated, microtargeted get-out-the-evangelical-vote operation,” backed up by at least $10 million in contributions from Republican donors, much of which will be invested in direct mail to mobilize 17 million like-minded evangelicals.

    And what kind of messages should these voters expect to receive from Reed and his organization? Andy Kroll obtained a recent Reed mailing.

    A mailer blasted out by the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a nonprofit group spending millions of dollars to mobilize evangelical voters this November to help Mitt Romney’s campaign, compares President Barack Obama’s policies to the threat posed by Nazi Germany and Japan during World War II. It also says that Obama has “Communist beliefs.” A copy of this so-called “Voter Registration Confirmation Survey” was obtained by Mother Jones after it was sent to the home of a registered Republican voter.

  10. rikyrah says:

    How Flush Is The Romney Campaign?

    It may depend on how close the race is:

    Romney only controls the money raised by his campaign. The money raised by the RNC is controlled by the RNC. The money raised by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads super PAC is controlled by Rove and his partners. And while these groups want Romney to be president, they are not solely devoted to the task of electing Romney as president. If they are devoted to anything, it’s to blocking Obama.

    Which leads to Romney’s nightmare scenario: If things don’t turn around for Romney soon, those super PACs may give up on the task of electing Romney as president and turn to the task of encircling Obama’s second term with a Republican House and a Republican Senate.

  11. Ametia says:

    Truth Team’s dashboard page officially launched last night. Click here to join the team and help us spread the truth about the President’s record and fight the smears:

  12. Ametia says:

    From kindergarten to college: The clear choice between Romney and President Obama on education

    his post was updated on August 21, 2012.

    A good education is an important part of building a strong and globally competitive economy. That’s why President Obama has made investing in American students a priority. He’s helped nearly every state adopt higher academic standards without any new mandates, is offering relief from unworkable, top-down No Child Left Behind mandates in exchange for local solutions to improve schools, is challenging colleges to provide a quality education at an affordable price, and is proposing to take away aid from colleges that fail to keep costs down.

  13. Ametia says:


  14. Ametia says:

    Supporters Struggle To Defend Romney’s Tax Plan Math

    he more details Mitt Romney provides about his tax plan, the closer he gets to validating the conclusion of a nonpartisan study that found his proposal is “not mathematically possible.”

    “I want to keep the current progressivity in the code,” Romney told CBS’ “60 Minutes” Sunday. “There should be no tax reduction for high income people. What I would like to do is to get a tax reduction for middle-income families by eliminating the tax for middle-income families on interest, dividends, and capital gains.”

    In other words, the Republican nominee promises that, after his across-the-board rate cuts and elimination of unspecified loopholes benefitting high income earners, the tax burden will be reduced for the middle class and remain constant for the wealthy. And yet he promises the plan won’t add to the deficit.

    “I don’t want a reduction in revenue coming into the government,” he said.

  15. rikyrah says:

    Obama is Strong with White Working Class
    by BooMan
    Mon Sep 24th, 2012 at 03:50:06 PM EST

    Here’s another reason that the national polls don’t matter, even if the polls are taken of just white people.

    A new survey of 2,501 adults, “Beyond Guns and God: Understanding the Complexities of the White Working Class in America,” published on Sept. 20 by the Public Religion Research Institute, reveals clearly that the white working class (broadly defined) cannot, at present, be described as a secure Republican constituency.
    The P.R.R.I. study focuses on a group it defines as non-Hispanic whites without a four-year college degrees who are paid by the hour or by the job. That’s roughly one-third (36%) of all Americans. The study shows that Romney’s nationwide 48-35 advantage among these voters masks crucial regional differences.

    The reason Romney has a strong, 13-point edge among all white working class voters, according to the P.R.R.I. findings, is that in the South his margin is huge. In the rest of the country, the white working class is much more closely divided.

    Among southern working class whites, Romney leads by 40 points, 62-22, an extraordinary gap.

    Romney leads with this group by 5 in the West and 4 in the Northeast, but trails by 8 in the Midwest. Auto bailout, anyone?

    As for why the white working class of Pennsylvania has no time for Mitt Romney, this guy has an answer after my own heart (emphasis mine):

    Steve Murphy, a media consultant working on congressional campaigns in Pennsylvania, characterized Romney’s problem somewhat differently: “I don’t think so much the argument is that he is anti-worker. It’s just that they just don’t like him. He seems like he is completely disconnected from people who have to work for a living.”
    Why would he be disconnected from people who work for a living? He’s been living off interest and dividends for over a decade. If you exclude the South, Obama is running about even with white working class folks. And I don’t think the Southerners like Romney, either. It’s just that they seem to have decided that there is a white party and a black party. It used to be that the Democratic Party was the white party. Now it’s the Republican Party. I wonder if that will ever change. It’s certainly changing in Virginia and North Carolina, but Gore, Kerry, and Obama couldn’t crack 20% with white voters in the Deep South. I think they’re used to one-party dominance and they like it that way. It’s not too good for accountability though. Once you elect a dolt like Jeff Sessions or David Vitter, you can never get rid of them.

  16. SouthernGirl2 says:

    LiberalPhenom ‏@LiberalPhenom

    New CNBC poll. Pres Obama ahead of Romney on economy by 9 pts. Voters think he’s best to fix econ.

  17. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 02:45 PM ET, 09/24/2012 TheWashingtonPost
    Ohio: The most important Senate race in the country?
    By Greg Sargent

    A consortium of Ohio newspapers released a new poll this morning finding Senator Sherrod Brown leading challenger Josh Mandel by seven points, 52-45 among likely voters. This comes after outside Republican-aligned groups have spent at least 18 million targeting Brown, according to Bloomberg’s calculations.

    But Brown’s lead in the polls should not obscure the fact that in one key way, the contest remains the most important Senate race in the country.

    That’s because the Ohio race is providing a clearer referendum than perhaps any other Senate race on the question of whether outside money can depose an incumbent and capture a Senate seat, largely irrespective of the candidates themselves. That isn’t just because this state is the target of more outside cash than any other. It’s also because there’s no other race combining this level of spending with such a clear disparity in the quality of the contenders. Brown has been a popular figure in Ohio (though Dems say his numbers have eroded a bit under the ad onslaught), while Mandel has committed a string of missteps. If all that money can engineer a win for Mandel despite that disparity, it will send a strong signal that outside cash can sway what have become otherwise unwinnable races.

    In a recent interview with me, Brown, an old fashioned lunch bucket populist who is pushing several measures opposed by business groups, conceded that the outside cash means he could still lose. Asked if he were still at risk, Brown said: “Sure.” He added: “Anybody is at risk of losing if there’s enough money against him.”

  18. rikyrah says:

    President Obama: The Democrats’ Ronald Reagan

    With his first term behind him, Obama is poised to be as significant a president as Reagan—tackling the deficit, spearheading immigration reform, and jolting the GOP back to sanity.

    Sep 24, 2012 1:00 AM EDT

    As the fall has turned crisper, a second term for Barack Obama has gotten likelier. This may, of course, change: the debates, the Middle East, the unemployment numbers could still blow up the race. At this point in 2004, one recalls, George W. Bush was about to see a near eight-point lead shrivel to a one-state nail-biter by Election Day. But one thing that has so far, in my view, been underestimated is the potential impact of a solid Obama win, and perhaps a Democratic retention of the Senate and some progress in the House. This is now a perfectly plausible outcome. It would also be a transformational moment in modern American politics

    If Obama wins, to put it bluntly, he will become the Democrats’ Reagan. The narrative writes itself. He will emerge as an iconic figure who struggled through a recession and a terrorized world, reshaping the economy within it, passing universal health care, strafing the ranks of al -Qaeda, presiding over a civil-rights revolution, and then enjoying the fruits of the recovery. To be sure, the Obama recovery isn’t likely to have the same oomph as the one associated with Reagan—who benefited from a once-in-a-century cut of top income tax rates (from 70 percent to, at first, 50 percent, and then to 28 percent) as well as a huge jump in defense spending at a time when the national debt was much, much less of a burden. But Obama’s potential for Reagan status (maybe minus the airport-naming) is real. Yes, Bill Clinton won two terms and is a brilliant pol bar none, as he showed in Charlotte in the best speech of both conventions. But the crisis Obama faced on his first day—like the one Reagan faced—was far deeper than anything Clinton confronted, and the future upside therefore is much greater. And unlike Clinton’s constant triangulating improvisation, Obama has been playing a long, strategic game from the very start—a long game that will only truly pay off if he gets eight full years to see it through. That game is not only changing America. It may also bring his opposition, the GOP, back to the center, just as Reagan indelibly moved the Democrats away from the far left.

  19. rikyrah says:

    Romney’s New Health Plan: Go to the ER

    Jonathan Cohn

    September 24, 2012

    Fifty million Americans have no health insurance. Does government have an obligation to help them? The answer is no, Mitt Romney suggested during a “60 Minutes” interview that aired on Sunday, in part because people can already get care through emergency rooms:

    We do provide care for people who don’t have insurance, people—we—if someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care.

    That statement isn’t untrue. But it leaves out an awful lot. ERs are great if you need urgent help with a major medical problem: You’ve had a heart attack, you’ve been in an accident, whatever. And, yes, hospitals will generally treat you regardless of insurance status, if only because the law requires it. As a condition of accepting Medicare money, hospitals must provide stabilizing or life-saving treatment. But they will not provide basic, ongoing care. They will charge a lot of money for their services. In many cases they will do their best to collect on outstanding bills, even if that means using techniques that even the retail industry eschews as overly harsh. And sometimes, as Sarah Kliff notes today, hospitals find ways to avoid providing care in the first place.

  20. rikyrah says:

    Can this election settle anything?

    By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: September 23The Washington Post
    The most important issue in the 2012 campaign barely gets discussed: How will we govern ourselves after the election is over?

    Elections are supposed to decide things. The voters render a verdict on what direction they want the country to take and set the framework within which both parties work.

    President Obama’s time in office, however, has given rise to a new approach. Republicans decided to do all they could to make the president unsuccessful. Their not-so-subliminal message has been: We will make the country ungovernable unless you hand us every bit of legislative, executive and judicial power so we can do what we want.

  21. rikyrah says:

    Obama grabs leads in Ohio and Florida: New Washington Post polls show Obama leading Romney in Ohio by 52-44 among likely voters; in Florida the spread is 51-47. Romney’s path to victory is exceedingly narrow if he only loses one of those states, let alone both

  22. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 08:54 AM ET, 09/25/2012
    The Morning Plum: No, pollsters are not conspiring to destroy Romney
    By Greg Sargent

    It’s depressingly predictable: Every time a poll comes out showing Mitt Romney trailing nationally or in key states, Romney supporters scream or tweet: “Oversample Ds!” They claim that the pools of respondents — either accidentally or even deliberately — contain too many Democrats, meaning they don’t resemble the electorate that will turn out on Election Day, skewing the results against Romney.

    But Steven Shepard calls up the pollsters themselves and gets them to explain what’s really going on here. Most pollsters don’t weight for party ID, for good reasons:

    Pollsters counter that the results they are finding reflect slight changes in public sentiment — and, moreover, adjusting their polls to match arbitrary party-identification targets would be unscientific.
    Unlike race, gender or age, all demographic traits for which pollsters weight their samples, party identification is considered an attitude that pollsters say they should be measuring. When party identification numbers change, it’s an indication of deeper political change that a poll can spot.
    “If a pollster weights by party ID, they are substituting their own judgment as to what the electorate is going to look like. It’s not scientific,” said Doug Schwartz, the director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, which doesn’t weight its surveys by party identification.

  23. rikyrah says:

    South Carolina: Laziness Not An Excuse Under Voter ID Law
    Ryan J. Reilly-September 24, 2012, 4:09 PM

    WASHINGTON — A lawyer for South Carolia said on Monday there are plenty of reasons voters would be able to sidestep the state’s voter ID law if a panel of federal judges allows it to take effect this year, but laziness is not among them.

    While defending the state’s voting law during closing arguments in federal court here, attorney H. Christopher Bartolomucci said voters could offer any number of reasons for showing up to the polls without a government-issued photo ID. However, he added, those who simply say they “didn’t feel like” it will be turned away.

    South Carolina is among the states that must have changes to their voting laws cleared by either the Justice Department or a panel of judges in D.C. under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The state wants its voter ID law to go into effect for the November election.

    Lawyers for the state have argued officials there will broadly interpret the so-called “reasonable impediment” provision of the law, which allow voters to cast a ballot if they attest something outside of their control prevented them from obtaining photo identification. The provision is the “only reason this would work for 2012,” Bartolomucci said.

    But he also added there was a limit to the kinds of reasons voters could give about why they lacked a photo ID.

    “That’s a personal choice. That’s not a reasonable impediment. That’s not an obstacle,” Bartolomucci said of the “I didn’t feel like it” excuse, adding that “Mars is made of green cheese” wouldn’t count either.

  24. Ametia says:

    A voting issue that isn’t
    By Eugene Robinson, Published: September 24
    The Washington Post

    When Michelle Obama called voting rights “the movement of our era” in a speech Saturday night, she didn’t specifically mention the Republican-led crusade for restrictive voter identification laws. She didn’t have to.

    Her audience at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual gala dinner fully understood the context. It’s hard to believe that, in this day and age, the right to vote is once again under assault from those who would prefer to keep minorities, the poor and the elderly away from the polls. But here we are.

  25. rikyrah says:

    Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 01:26 PM PDT.

    Interviews show burden of Pennsylvania voter-ID law falls on minorities, poor, elderly and disabled

    by Meteor Blades .

    The advocacy group ColorofChange, in partnership with SEIU, has released the results of a new study showing that Pennsylvania residents are having a difficult time trying to fulfill the state’s requirement that they have a photo ID of a specific type in order to vote this year. The law is currently under a state supreme court-ordered review precisely because the justices believe complying with the requirement may be too onerous a burden given the imminence of the election.
    Under the law, only Pennsylvania driver’s licenses, passports, military IDs, student and nursing home IDs with expiration dates, and non-driver’s IDs issued by the state department of transportation (PennDOT) can be used by voters to identify themselves at polling stations. Estimates of how many citizens without these IDs range from 100,000 to 1.6 million.

    The two organizations interviewed 75 voters who were seeking the proper identification at 45 of 71 PennDOT. They also interviewed 45 PennDOT officials. Conclusion? The burden is not “minimal,” as claimed by Pennsylvania Chief Deputy Attorney John Knorr.

    The executive director of ColorofChange, Rashad Robinson, said in a statement:

    Pennsylvania’s voting restrictions threaten to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters statewide, contrary to what Pennsylvania officials have said—that selective voter ID isn’t a burden. In fact, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai audaciously praised Pennsylvania’s selective voter ID law in March when he said it would enable Mitt Romney to win Pennsylvania.
    The problems uncovered:

    • Elderly and disabled voters having to return to the PennDOT multiple times after long waits—four hours or more—and then being told to come back
    • Sick, elderly and disabled voters foregoing food or medications because of lack of timely or available restroom facilities

    • Elderly, disabled an poor voters being misdirected to different locations or lines for “voter ID” by PennDOT officials

    • Lower-income voters being asked to pay a fee for voter ID when the law stipulates that the ID should be provided at no charge

    • PennDOT officials admitting that, while they had training, the law is confusing as everything keeps changing

    • PennDOT offices were observed not regularly offering voter registration services to license applicants, as required under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993

  26. Ametia says:

    New Post poll: Strong Obama lead in Ohio, slight edge in Florida

    President Obama has grabbed a significant lead over Mitt Romney in Ohio and holds a slender edge in Florida, according to two new polls by the Washington Post that indicate there are fresh hurdles in the way of the Republican nominee’s best route to victory in the Electoral College.

    Read more at:

  27. rikyrah says:

    The Last Four Years in One Quote

    By mistermix September 25th, 2012

    In an otherwise innocuous story about the new calorie labeling at MacDonalds, Dick Nigon of Sterling, VA is every Republican:

    I did find one customer who had noticed the calorie labels: Dick Nigon of Sterling, Va. He and his wife, Lea, had stopped by McDonald’s after seeing an exhibit at the Renwick Gallery. Dick had ordered for the couple, noticed the calorie labels and liked them.

    “I like that you have the information before you order,” he told me, when I asked about the labels. “It’s better than some kind of government health mandate in Obamacare.”

    I told him that the calorie labels were, in fact, a government health mandate in Obamacare.

    “Well that changes things a bit,” he responded. “I thought this was more of a voluntary sort of thing. Now I’m not quite sure how I feel about it.”

    What’s dumber: the notion that MacDonald’s would voluntarily tell customers the calorie count of their greasy-ass food, or the way that the mere mention of “Obama” changes his mind?

  28. rikyrah says:

    The dark money has spent EIGHTEEN MILLION against Sherrod Brown in Ohio- more than any other Dem Senator.

  29. rikyrah says:

    Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 05:34 AM PDT.

    AFL-CIO’s Trumka to Union Members: “Crazy” Not To Vote for Elizabeth Warren Because She’s a Woman

    Richard Trumka will be in Massachusetts this morning delivering a message to many union members who support Scott Borwn. As he did for Barack Obama 4 years ago when he confronted racism head-on, Mr, Trumka lays it on the line about sexism and Elizabeth Warren:

    We have a problem because some voters—and let me be perfectly honest… I’m talking about voters who look just like me—have not stood up beside Elizabeth Warren to support her.
    Listen to me closely. I’ve said before that there are dozens of good reasons to vote for Barack Obama and one bad reason not to—and that’s because he’s black. Now hear me about Elizabeth Warren. There may be dozens of reasons for us to vote for her, but it’s crazy not to vote for her because she’s a woman, or because she’s a college professor or for any other superficial reason.

    The other bad reason to vote against her is because Scott Brown seems like the guy some of you supported years ago who served in the State Senate. Let me be perfectly frank with you– the Scott Brown you know is not the Scott Brown who’s serving in Washington today. The new Scott Brown votes every time with the 1 percent and the Tea Party. …

    Do we want a buddy who will pat us on the back? Who wears a Bruins jersey with the boys? Or a leader who will fight for our right to form unions and bargain for a better life?

    Do we want just another Wall Street lawmaker, bought and sold? Or do we want someone who’s so much more than a champion of Wall Street reform? We’re talking about the person who visualized and campaigned for a new federal agency to protect you and me, to protect Main Street from Wall Street and prevent a repeat of the financial meltdown that threw millions and millions of workers out of the job market in 2008.

    Elizabeth Warren is THE champion of working people, and we have the power to put her in Washington

  30. Ametia says:

    Good Morning, Everyone! :-)

Leave a Reply