Broadway Carl

GOP Walking the Contraception Plank

2012-02-12T14:33:00.004-05:00

Is this how it's going to end for the Republican Party?

TPM: Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that permits any employer to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday.

Currently, 28 states mandate that employers' health insurance cover contraception for its employees, eight of which require it regardless of whether they are religiously affiliated or not. Many Catholic universities and hospitals already provide the coverage. The Obama administration's religious exemption is far broader than current law and actually a loosening of restrictions. But for some reason, GOP leaders think they have a dog in this fight and are betting that this will be wedge issue to sway Catholic votes away from the President in the upcoming 2012 election. This despite the fact that 58% of Catholics believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception, and that 62% of women overall, a huge voting block to be sure, agree as well.

So not only are they tying one end of the Blunt Amendment rope around the Catholic opposition rock, but they're tying the other end around their necks with a flawed "religious freedom" argument and attempting to roll back existing law for employers whose businesses have nothing to do with religion, and tossing it off the wingnut bridge.

“The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion, it’s right there in the First Amendment. You can’t miss it — right there in the very first amendment to our Constitution,” [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell said. “What the overall view on the issue of contraception is has nothing to do with an issue about religious freedom.”
McConnell went on to embellish the argument, claiming Obama is being “rigid in his view that he gets to decide what somebody else’s religion is.” He said that “this issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down.”

How can a career politician of McConnell's stature get the First Amendment so wrong? It's because he is ginning up another empty attack on President Obama. He just can't help himself. Let's review:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No law "respecting the establishment of religion..." - meaning that the government will not make any one religion the official religion of the country. "...or prohibiting free exercise thereof." - meaning that you are free to practice any religion you choose without fear of reproach from the government.

So, no, Senator McConnell, it's not "right there" in the First Amendment. Just because you are free to practice religion as you choose and follow its supposed moral values, does not mean you can arbitrarily ignore the laws of the land thereby causing an infringement on another person's rights. It's a far, far stretch to say that requiring an employer to cover contraception in its health care benefits for their employees, even if that employer is the Catholic Church now playing a role in the secular world, is a violation of conscience. It is up to the individual in question to face their moral conscience when it comes to the usage of contraception made available at no cost via their health insurance plans. Catholics who work outside the realm of the Church as their employer have that health care right. They also have the right not to use it - because of their religious beliefs.

In fact, I believe that in this particular case, it is the Catholic Church that is in violation of the very thing it protests. If the employee in question is not of the Catholic faith, why should he or she be discriminated against and not have the same health care benefits they would have if they didn't work for a religious organization? Is that not an infringement of their rights? If the government favored the religious institution's view, would that not be a violation of the First Amendment, namely "respecting the establishment" of their religion in lieu of federal law? If this were the case, could a Catholic secretary working for an Orthodox Jewish lawyer bring a ham and cheese sandwich to the office for her lunch in clear violation of her employer's Jewish beliefs?

I happen to be indifferent on the exemption to churches that President Obama offered. But when the church clearly steps in to the province of secular business, whether it be a hospital or a school in which people of all faiths are accepted, then they should and must follow the rules and regulations of the secular world. You can't claim religious exemption when it suits you. In this contraception coverage "nontroversy," the majority of Catholics are right, it's the Catholic Church and the "anything anti-Obama" GOP that are wrong.

ADDING... Rachel Maddow had a great piece on this issue last Thursday night. Along with exposing the Republican candidates fighting it out for the Presidential nomination, she also took a swipe and the 60-something, white male Beltway pundits who seem to think that it's the President who is looking bad on this issue even though he's with the majority of Americans. I think she may have been referring to Chris Matthews.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama's Latest "Cave"

2012-02-11T21:26:00.002-05:00

And no, it wasn't a cave.

Whitney Houston Dies at 48

2012-02-11T20:37:00.000-05:00

ABC News: Whitney Houston, who ruled as pop music's queen until her majestic voice and regal image were ravaged by drug use, erratic behavior and a tumultuous marriage to singer Bobby Brown, has died. She was 48.
Houston's publicist, Kristen Foster, said Saturday that the singer had died, but the cause and the location of her death were unknown.

It's a sad thing what addiction can do. Cause of death is not determined yet, but years of drug and alcohol abuse can't be ignored. Tragic.

Misunderstanding and Underestimating President Obama

2012-02-11T16:11:00.003-05:00

POSTED BY DESERT CRONE NM

Many on the left have set their hair on fire over President Obama's solution to the conflict between religious institutions, primarily the Catholic church, providing health care coverage which includes birth control to women and the teachings of the church. One would have to be in the wildest parts of Siberia to have missed this controversy, so I will not recount the drama that has unfolded.

However, once again the ubiquitous word "cave" has appeared in association with this decision. There was a time when this would infuriate me, but now I laugh at the predictability of the critical left. Of course, if you dare disagree with them, then they launch into name calling that would make any junior high student proud. I think one reason for their childish, often surly, reaction is their unstated, unreasonable expectations of President Obama. It's as if some on the left have never listened to his speeches, press conferences, or town halls because if they had, surely they would have some understanding of the man.

For example, Barack Obama is a man who truly understands the art of politics better than any of his critics on the right or left and certainly any of the ideologues. Plenty of evidence exists to support this as he brings home one victory after another for the American people in spite of seemingly insurmountable odds. Certainly many do understand him, calling him the chess master while his opponents are merely sitting in the park playing checkers. But time after time those of us who have defended the President are called idiots, morons, Obamabots, etc. in spite of the fact our defense of President Obama has been well-founded and well-placed. But the critical left still doesn't get him.

As an example of the obtuseness of President Obama's critics on the left, let me take you back to the time when the second budget agreement was finalized. Remember Boehner bragging about how he got what he wanted? Remember Cenk Uygur and others of his ilk screaming that the President got rolled? A couple of days later, Boehner was whining that the Republicans had been rolled, but "’we won't be rolled again.’" Yet they were . . . again and again.

The very same scenario played out during the debt ceiling negotiations and agreement. As we watched this unfold, what became clear to most of us but not to the angry left and the Republicans was that the President had boxed the opposition into a corner with no escape. In their eagerness to out-fox the President and race to the microphones, the Republicans again overlooked the long-term results. Thus, after the Super Committee failed and the Department of Defense cuts were activated, the Republicans were not crowing but eating crow . . . again. And again the the critics on the left either didn’t notice or were too prideful to admit they had misjudged Barack Obama.

And now again in the debate over women's health, the Republicans have been rolled and although we have ample evidence that the President knows more about negotiating and political maneuvering than anyone in D.C., the angry left is still as dense as ever. And for the umpteenth time they and the Republicans look like fools. As a wise man once said, “‘there’s a saying that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.’" Okay, forget the wise part.

When the uproar broke this week over mandating religious institutions offer women's preventative care coverage, we saw a replay of every other drama over important issues about which we liberals care deeply. The debate over this issue was couched as either a violation of religious freedom or women's right to unfettered access to birth control. Most of the proponents of the religious freedom argument were white Catholic male pundits, such as Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell, who frankly couldn't see past their white privilege to see the true issue here. But I digress.

The Republicans came out with their usual hysterical rhetoric, providing further evidence to the American people just how extreme they are. However, in an unusual display of unity, Democrats held firm and stayed on message. What's that message? Women have a right to preventative care coverage by any employer, regardless of secular or religious foundation. So yesterday, when President Obama announced a way to provide the coverage that the Catholic and religious institutions could accept, he was accused of caving or bending because by some on the left who lost sight of the goal.

Those critics on the left who just don't get Barack Obama do so because they lack vision, subtlety, and nuance. Most importantly, the critical left always loses sight of the goal. The goal was not bringing down the Catholic church but to provide the best possible preventative care for women without the co-pays many women cannot afford.

May I offer this extended metaphor. Again those critics on the left are painting by numbers, showing their lack of creativity, imagination, impatience, and foresight, while President Obama is the great master, bringing all of his creativity, imagination, and patience to the canvas. He has a vision for his painting, but he realizes that he is working with a wet canvas requiring layers of paint. To rush through his creation would only leave a muddy mess, not a grand work for generations to appreciate and enjoy.

So I guess the President did cave to those who wanted to launch a war against religion, but for the women of America, who never lost sight of the real goal, it is a grand victory.

Huzzah President Obama!

Must Reads

2012-02-11T14:43:00.002-05:00

Frank Schaeffer: President Obama Will Be Vindicated

E.J. Dionne: Clint, Rick and the limits of pessimism

Sahil Kapur: GOP Ripe For Splits In Assault On Birth Control Rule

NY Times Editorial: A Terrible Transportation Bill

Greg Hanscom: Non-starter: Republican transportation bill is dead on arrival

HuffPo: Cal Thomas Apologizes To Rachel Maddow For Contraception Comment

Rachel Maddow: War on Birth Control

Roger Bybee: Obama/Catholic Contraception Controversy Boils Down to Workers’ Rights

Mark Morford: How to be Outraged in America

Steve Benen: Chronicling Mitt's mendacity

President Obama's Weekly Address - February 11, 2012

2012-02-11T12:46:00.000-05:00

Extending the Payroll Tax Cut for the Middle Class

GOP Criticizes Eastwood Pro-Detroit Ad

2012-02-07T20:07:00.000-05:00

Why do Republicans hate America? How is it possible that right wing ideologues would criticize an ad which touts the comeback of the American auto industry and sees a path toward economic prosperity on the horizon?

"There is no spin in that ad. On this I am certain," [Clint] Eastwood said in a statement to Fox News. "I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. ... If Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it."

Exactly right, Clint. This is about an entire industry, and the people who work in it, scratching and clawing its way back from the dead.

Whether you are pro auto "bailout" or not (and I use the word 'bailout' loosely since it was actually a loan which has been mostly paid back despite the whining lies of Karl Rove), how do you criticize the fact, THE FACT, that the American auto industry was saved and is now back on top due to the loans to keep them afloat while they reorganized and restructured? Not to mention a minimum of one million jobs saved because of it.

For all the shouts and fist shaking of the GOP against President Obama and what they deem to be worse off than we were three years ago, despite proof to the contrary, it is amazing to me that anyone would claim to be pro-America, yet rail against a commercial touting the resurgence of the American auto industry and the resurrection of a major American city... all because they're rather scorch the earth than run against their preposterous narrative for the sake of winning back the White House. And these are the chest thumping America lovers?

Let's not forget that had it been left up to Mitt Romney, the US auto industry would no longer exist.

Equality Wins!

2012-02-07T13:49:00.006-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit says NOPE to Prop 8! The court finds it unconstitutional to strip rights away from people because they're gay, despite what the majority of stupid voters say.

What a good news day. Anyone know what Obama has Seal Team Six doing today?

She's Outta There!

2012-02-07T13:37:00.006-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

Karen Handel, the right-winger who was hired by Komen just before all hell broke loose, resigned today. Is it just me, or is her resignation letter a bit much? It's dramatic, written for us and not the recipient, and loaded with seeming contradictions, defensiveness and a denial that by making the decision to defund the "controversial" Planned Parenthood, Komen did something even more controversial.

Brother.

February 7, 2012
The Honorable Nancy Brinker
CEO, Susan G. Komen for the Cure VIA EMAIL
5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250
Dallas, Texas 75244
Dear Ambassador Brinker:
Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been the recognized leader for more 30 years in the fight against breast cancer here in the US – and increasingly around the world.
As you know, I have always kept Komen’s mission and the women we serve as my highest priority – as they have been for the entire organization, the Komen Affiliates, our many supporters and donors, and the entire community of breast cancer survivors. I have carried out my responsibilities faithfully and in line with the Board’s objectives and the direction provided by you and Liz.
We can all agree that this is a challenging and deeply unsettling situation for all involved in the fight against breast cancer. However, Komen’s decision to change its granting strategy and exit the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its grants was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization. At the November Board meeting, the Board received a detailed review of the new model and related criteria. As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization’s real or perceived challenges. No objections were made to moving forward.
I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve. However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization. Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy. I believe that Komen, like any other nonprofit organization, has the right and the responsibility to set criteria and highest standards for how and to whom it grants.
What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision – one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact – has unfortunately been turned into something about politics. This is entirely untrue. This development should sadden us all greatly.
Just as Komen’s best interests and the fight against breast cancer have always been foremost in every aspect of my work, so too are these my priorities in coming to the decision to resign effective immediately. While I appreciate your raising a possible severance package, I respectfully decline. It is my most sincere hope that Komen is allowed to now refocus its attention and energies on its mission.
Sincerely,

Clint Made My Day

2012-02-06T13:02:00.003-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

In all the discussions of the Clint Eastwood Chrysler "Halftime in America" ad, all the pundits keeps leaving out the fact that Clint is a big-time Republican. The fact that he did that ad, supporting Obama's policy on the auto bailout, and mimicking Obama's messaging from the State of the Union on "teamwork", says a lot. It says that some Republicans are ready to bring their party back from the fringes and work with the President for a better future. More of that sanity, please.

Must Reads

2012-02-04T15:04:00.001-05:00

Elaine Liner: At Plano Children's Theatre, They've Shampooed All the Black Kids out of Hairspray

Pema Levy: What’s Really Behind Komen’s Cuts To Planned Parenthood?

Ross Douthat: Gingrich 2012? Going, Going, Gone

Gin and Tacos: Race for the Cure of Being Irrelevant

Adam Serwer: What Does Komen's Reversal on Planned Parenthood Really Mean?

Bob Cesca: "The Lesser of Two Evils" and Why Progressives Lose

Ruth Marcus: Why the poor should concern Romney

Greg Sargent: Faced with good news about economy, Romney dissolves into incoherence

Nick R. Martin: Brewer Has History Of Getting Facts Wrong

President Obama's Weekly Address - February 4, 2012

2012-02-04T12:42:00.001-05:00

It's Time for Congress to Act to Help Responsible Homeowners

Planned Parenthood Not Out of the Komen Woods Yet

2012-02-03T21:44:00.000-05:00

As most people, I was a little shocked and pretty stoked when I heard that the Susan G. Komen Foundation had reversed its decision to not grant Planned Parenthood future funds due to the political hackery of it's Senior VP, Karen Handel, despite its denial that the decision was politically based. Handel was on the losing side of a election for the Governorship of Georgia and ran on defunding Planned Parenthood. You'd have to be an idiot not to see that this was strictly a political move. If there's any doubt, why did Komen stop funding to institutions which also happened to be research centers for embryonic stem cells and not only looking for a cure for breast cancer?

But while I was initially pleased that they backtracked after the avalanche of shit that they brought upon themselves, I wasn't exactly thrilled about their statement. This particularly comes to mind:

...We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants...

Continue "existing grants"? That was never in question. In fact, when they released their initial defunding statement, they make the claim that the existing grants would be honored, just not new grants. And as far as applying for future grants, why would that be in question if the organization will basically continue what it's currently doing? Why would they be denied future grants?

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe it's the pulled funding to other facilities and research centers that also are at odds with the pro-life agenda that has me concerned about the sincerity of this statement. The only thing that would make a difference for me personally, would be if the foundation canned Karen Handel as a gesture of good faith that they really are just looking for a cure since their entire organization now seems to be in question.

Until then, continue donating to Planned Parenthood, or the American Cancer Society, or Johns Hopkins, or Sloan-Kettering. Let's be careful about jumping on the pink bandwagon again so soon.

Komen's Statement

2012-02-03T14:44:00.001-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

Statement from Susan G. Komen Board of Directors and Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker

DALLAS - February 3, 2012 - We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.
Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.
Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.
It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.
Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.
We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

Women Win!

2012-02-03T14:01:00.007-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

For the last three days, only one political story has dominated my brain: the horrendous shock that the right-wing had seeped into a national charity that most Americans still believed was acting on behalf of women's health.

For years, there has been some distrust of Komen and their spending, questionable relationships leading to silence or approval of things scientists question and the balance of brand vs. integrity. But that was a fairly small rumbling under the surface of the global charity's image. Perhaps it was too overwhelming for most people to ask if a giant in women's health advocacy may not be doing as much good as we needed to believe.

I, for one, have never been a Komen supporter. Something about their strategery has always bothered me. Perhaps it's because I hate pink. But I think I tend to shy away from monolithic organizations whose basic work isn't something I can see. I don't see the researchers in action. I don't see Komen breast clinics anywhere. But I see pink blenders and coffee tumblers and, now, possibly guns.

What I see and support are Planned Parenthood clinics. I actually see where my donations go.

But, overall, Americans believed Komen was an organization that acted on good faith, with integrity and with the sole purpose of reaching as many women as possible. Until three days ago, when we learned they didn't want to reach women who go to those very Planned Parenthood clinics I see around me.

Sure, they had a few reasons: they changed their policies to prevent funding to organizations that are being "investigated", or they changed their strategy to be more laser-like with their funding choices, or they just want to help women and by saying no to Planned Parenthood, they can give more to someone else.

But when you look at their 990s, it's clear that they have plenty of money to continue supporting Planned Parenthood AND increase grants to other organizations and even add new ones. Komen has been so effective that they have more money than the can spend. According to GuideStar (you can get a free account to see financials on any charity) their last year breaks down like this:

Revenue and Expenses
Fiscal Year Starting: Apr 1, 2010
Fiscal Year Ending: Mar 31, 2011
Revenue
Contributions $285,794,584
Program Services $34,417,471
Membership Dues $0
Special Events $27,473,679
8522668 $1,623,681
Total Revenue $357,832,083

Expenses
Program Services $282,981,996
Administrative Costs $26,276,602
Fundraising Costs $33,720,165
Payments To Affiliates $0
Total Expenses $342,978,763

Assets & Liabilities
Total Assets $492,190,210
Total Liabilities $295,307,087
Net Assets or Fund Balance at the end of year $196,883,123

Revenue
Contributions	$285,794,584
Program Services	$34,417,471
Membership Dues	$0
Special Events	$27,473,679
8522668	$1,623,681
Total Revenue	$357,832,083

Expenses
Program Services	$282,981,996
Administrative Costs	$26,276,602
Fundraising Costs	$33,720,165
Payments To Affiliates	$0
Total Expenses	$342,978,763

Assets & Liabilities
Total Assets	$492,190,210
Total Liabilities	$295,307,087
Net Assets or Fund Balance at the end of year	$196,883,123

They still have $196,83,123 left over. So why the need to make changes to better strategerize? They said that Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms so they wanted to give money to clinics with mammogram equipment. Well, I'd like to see data on the number of small towns with Planned Parenthood that have another clinic in town with actual mammogram equipment. My guess is close to NONE. So, they were going to move money away from Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood only gives mammogram "referrals"? I live in a pretty good-sized suburb of a pretty big city. And yet, not one of the doctors I've received my well-woman exams from actually had mammogram equipment. They all refer their patients to the local hospitals for mammograms. So I found that Komen excuse ridiculous.

But they also said they changed their policies to not award funds to organizations under any type of investigation. That makes sense. I've worked the grant process before so that seems reasonable. But, um, anytime I've seen anything like that, the organization had to have actually been found guilty of wrong-doing. And this was where I think Komen fell apart. I truly believe they coordinated their policy change with the Congressional "investigation" and it seemed like a slam-dunk excuse: have a reasonable out while ALSO drawing attention to the ongoing investigation that isn't technically on-going since nothing is actually going on.

There's no way Komen didn't anticipate backlash. They HAD to know there would be protest on the left, and maybe even in the middle. But they had so many on the right who were waiting for this day, that they probably expected a boost of donations and support from the right. I think the right has been acting on pure ego for the last three years. They take aggressive actions as if they are the standard-bearers of values. It hasn't occurred to them until now that maybe their egos got too big. I don't think Komen expected their doctors and researches to cry foul. I don't think it ever occurred to them that they were blinded by their own ideology and were walking into a disaster.

A few things had to have happened to make this week transpire the way it did.

First: as soon as Planned Parenthood was told of this decision, before the holidays according to Cecile Richards, they went into messaging and planning mode. Planned Parenthood was working with Komen to change their minds WHILE they were preparing to tell America that they were sad and surprised. Cecile was calm, composed and classy in every interview. Planned Parenthood's messaging was ONLY about the women who would lose access to care and NEVER about demonizing Komen.

The second thing that had to happen was Komen didn't prepare. They were so unorganized, defensive, inconsistent and sporadic, that I can't see any possible coordination on messaging or planning. They seemed so caught off guard that there is no way they expected what they got. And to not expect this was naive and out-of-touch. The last two years in America has been about organizing, protesting, defending. Why the hell would they not expect this? Because they are convinced that the American people are with them. They expected liberal backlash. But I don't think they prepared for an American onslaught. And the right-wing media is spinning this as a liberal-only issue. But I have heard many Republican, anti-choice women say they were appalled by Komen's actions. They were ill-prepared and it showed.

The last thing that had to happen to make this week happen the way it did: every damn step the GOP has taken since President Obama was sworn in. They have obstructed the President, our doctors, our uteri, our rights, our tax dollars. They have stopped American progress every step of the way on every issue. Americans are so used to it by now. We're stunned and not stunned at the same time, each time they do something new. But Americans didn't see the right-wing covert operation taking place in Komen. So when word got out that Komen was betraying women by denying funds to Planned Parenthood, Americans were SHOCKED and PISSED OFF. Komen took something fairly sacred and crapped all over it. And because we've had enough, and because the right-wing has already make a mockery of government, we hit the roof, blew it off and kicked its ass all over the place.

So, where do we stand now, as far as Komen goes? Well there are a few points to make here. First, no organization is always guaranteed money every year. So they were never "safe". And if today, Komen hadn't reversed their decision to change their policy and commitments, then we'd need to find a way to get Planned Parenthood half a million dollars every year to make up for each year's loss. Yes, we raised a few years' worth for them this week. But we're pissed. What was going to piss us off next February or the next? What would have spurred us to donate then? Well, here's the deal, if Komen denies Planned Parenthood a grant next year, for ANY reason, we will be spurred. So, now Planned Parenthood is getting our money and Komen money. And next year, they will either get Komen money or our money. But Komen's backtracking ensures we will be waiting and watching and preparing to act.

People will be watching Komen more closely. Women are already digging deeper into Komen's financials, their grant lists, their stance on things like embryonic stem cell research and BPA. Women who haven't left Komen for good, will be paying closer attention. And because Planned Parenthood has been consistent and open, more women may start donating more regularly. Also, more breast cancer organizations will start getting deserved attention.

And, finally, we sent a message to the right-wing that they can't have everything. They are done trying to destroy us from the inside out. Komen's decision today is a message to all America that they realize we will NOT allow right-wing stealth attacks anymore. We're on a mission and we are organized. And we are fucking pissed off.

Our next steps should include pressure on Komen to fire Karen Handel who has, no doubt, brought her right-wing ego and tricks to the decision making and could change Komen's pledge to protect ObamaCARES to reflect her strong opposition to it. And we should demand an ethics violation inquiry into Congressman Cliff Stearns and his staff and a possible coordination between them and any organization acting on behalf of Komen to create the false pretense of an investigation and/or for wasting tax dollars on a witch hunt.

Today, Congressman Stearns said

“In response to the original decision by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to stop funding grants to Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood raised the equivalent funds within 24 hours. Although I wasn’t involved in either decision, it is clear that Planned Parenthood does not need the Komen funding. I believe that Planned Parenthood could be, and should be, totally self sufficient, as with so many other non-profit organizations, and spare America’s hard-pressed taxpayers the $487 million Planned Parenthood received in public funding. As Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I will continue the investigation into Planned Parenthood’s use of taxpayer funds. This oversight is necessary because of its record of fraud discovered through state Medicaid audits and its other abuses and illegal activities, such as ignoring state reporting requirements on sexual abuse.”

I bolded the most disgusting part. Of course Planned Parenthood raised all kinds of cash this week. They were under assault. To use this historic attack on Planned Parenthood to draw a funding conclusion is willfully deceptive and egregious. So, let's not let this man go about his days without some serious fury.

We should keep the momentum of this week and make clear that "We're fired up! We're ready to go!"

The Biggest Loser

2012-02-02T20:42:00.000-05:00

Yeah, I know "The Biggest Loser" is a reality show weight lost contest and that Donald Trump's faux reality show is called "The Apprentice" or "Celebrity Apprentice," but it really should be changed, because truly, the only loser bigger than Trump could be Mitt Romney for actually accepting his endorsement today in Sin City.

LAS VEGAS - Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney here Thursday afternoon in a joint appearance that lasted less than seven minutes and included no questions.
The two men stood behind a lectern emblazoned with a gold “Trump” plaque (a large Romney sign hung off to the side, largely out of the TV shots), and the endorsement came amid several impromptu news conferences that Mr. Trump organized for himself.

It seems as though The Donald can't go less than three weeks without looking for headlines like his like depended on it; like the blood in his veins would dry up if he gave up his media whorishness.

It all started yesterday when Trump made a statement on his favorite medium, Twitter:

I will be making a major announcement today at 12:30 pm PST at Trump International Hotel & Tower, Las Vegas, Nevada. The announcement will pertain to the Presidential race. All media welcome.

All media welcome?! Say it ain't so!

At no point in my though process did the idea of Trump announcing an independent run come to mind. My initial thought was that he was going to endorse Romney but was too chickenshit take the lead and do it earlier because his ego wouldn't be able to handle betting on the wrong horse. He waited until after the Florida primary, saw that Newt Gingrich was dead in the water and then thought he'd make a grand announcement and take credit for being a king maker once the odds-on favorite eventually won the nomination.

Then there was rumor that Trump was to endorse Newt Gingrich, and it got me to thinking that perhaps his ego was so bruised after Newt was the only candidate to accept an invitation to the ill-fated Trump debate, that he'd back the one person who was loyal to him. But is loyalty in Trump's repertoire? That rumor quickly faded and so I was left with the chickenshit theory, which happened to be the correct one.

How ironic that the man who made "You're fired" his catchphrase endorsed the man who said he likes "being able to fire people"? The one saving grace in the whole fiasco was that on Groundhog Day, Trump decided to make the Romney endorsement himself instead of letting the groundhog that lives on his head do it.

Mitt's Let Them Eat Cake Moment

2012-02-01T19:33:00.002-05:00

Although there are no official records of Marie Antoinette ever having said the phrase, "Let them eat cake" has been attributed to her as an example of her ignorance to the condition of the poor during a French famine. And here is likely Republican nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 Election, Mitt Romney, and his "let them eat cake" moment.

“I’m in this race because I care about Americans,” [Mitt] Romney told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien this morning after his resounding victory in Florida on Tuesday. “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.”

Is that safety net the one he would gut if Romney ever took office? Repeal Obamacare? Gut critical programs for the poor in an attempt to balance the budget? Yet another example of Romney being completely out of touch with everyone who isn't a one percenter. Actually, one tenth of a one percenter.

He says he cares about Americans... just not poor Americans.

OMFG!!

2012-01-31T21:52:00.005-05:00

Posted by JHW22

I am LIVID! About as LIVID as I get and if you knew me in person, you'd know that's pretty fucking LIVID!

Susan G. Komen decided to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood. Why? Because they hired some right-wing FREAK who has had it out for Planned Parenthood and she decided that because PP is being "investigated" (by fellow Republicans who have it out for Planned Parenthood) they can't get any grant money.

Some gal, in a Facebook comment thread, is saying it's a good thing because abortion increases chances of breast cancer and that PP should only raise private money and Komen should only spend money on research. Forget the fact that the Komen money PP gets IS private money and forget the fact that Komen has given money to PP in the past FOR detection of breast cancer, and forget the fact that, according to Komen's own site:

Research clearly shows abortion (also called induced abortion) does not increase the risk of breast cancer.

Here's the crux of our problem, America. We let FUCKING IDIOTS drown in misinformation to the point that an organization with a reach like Komen's WILLFULLY hires an ideological hack and then they make a decision that essentially relegates the Komen executive board to "Death Panel" status.

The more the right-wing chips -- hell, JACKHAMMERS -- away at PP, the more women will DIE. It's not hyperbolic to say so. Women need access to screenings of all kinds. And yes, some women need access to abortions. But the micro-cosmic backlash on abortion has become a macro-cosmic attack on ALL women. Women who aren't pregnant or seeking abortions will die because right-wing zealots are keeping life-saving services from them because they think that, somehow, this action prevents abortions.

I don't know where Susan G. Komen stood on abortion. But I'd really like to know what she would think about her name becoming the ugliest name associated with women's health care right now.

Don't just be pissed. DONATE to Planned Parenthood, FIGHT all the right-wing candidates in your state, VOTE on election day!

Do NOT let anything keep you from voting, folks! And VOTE wisely. A woman's life may depend on it.

Herman Endorses Newt

2012-01-28T22:41:00.000-05:00

Wait... I thought Herman Cain endorsed "the people" just last week.

“There are many reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is that I know that Speaker Gingrich is a patriot,” Cain said. “Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas and I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president and going through this sausage grinder. I know what this sausage grinder is all about. I know that he is going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the United States of America.”

Bold ideas like a moon base/future state? Also, sausage grinder!

You just can't make this shit up.

PolitiFact Is Fired...

2012-01-28T16:39:00.000-05:00

...by Rachel Maddow. After the head-snapping double take in response to PolitiFact's flawed guidelines in rating a specific quote from President Obama's State of the Union address last Tuesday, and the backtracking that followed, can you believe they did it again?! I'll let Rachel explain.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Must Reads

2012-01-28T16:08:00.039-05:00

Chauncey DeVega: The 10 Most Racist Moments of the GOP Primary (So Far)

Andrew Rosenthal: Chris Christie, Revisionist Historian

NY Times: Rabbi’s Followers Cast Doubts on Congressman’s Fund-Raising

James B. Stewart: Paying Far More Than 13.9%: A Taxpayer’s Lament

John Pitney Jr.: Why Gingrich would lose in a debate with Obama

Christopher Brauchli: The Condom's Cousins

Matt Taibbi: Is Obama's 'Economic Populism' for Real?

Jim Wright: The Special Kind of Crazy

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 28, 2012

2012-01-28T12:09:00.000-05:00

President’s Blueprint Includes Renewal of American Values

Hard Work?

2012-01-27T20:30:00.004-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

When the Republicans take aim in their class war against Democrats, the middle class and the working class, one of their favorite weapons is the all-too-familiar:

Tax increases punish hard work.

We're to believe that the more a person makes, the harder they must have worked to earn it. Never mind the fact that laying roof tiles in 105 degree Texas heat doesn't earn a guy a million bucks. Apparently it's not as hard as going to board meetings and country club meet and greets. So a guy who owns his own roofing company and does a lot of the work himself pays a good chunk of his income in taxes. Shame on us for taxing that guy so high.

But more shame on us for wanting to tax Mitt Romney so high. Because, gosh darn it, he has so much money, he MUST have worked so gosh darn hard for it.

Take 2010, for example. Mitt worked hard. Why should he pay higher taxes as some kind of punishment for his hard work?

What? What's that you say? Mitt didn't actually work for that income? You mean his income came from a company he USED to do work for and some investments?

Well, my dad decided to retire early when he was laid off and now he works every day investing. He reads, researches, plans, has the coolest spreadsheets in the WORLD. So I'd say he works hard.

What? What's that you say? Mitt didn't actually control his investments? He pays a trustee to make all the investment decisions for him?

WHAT?! So, we're not supposed to punish hard work with higher taxes? Well, then hell! Mitt has been paying someone else to do the work of making him money off of him not working. So, seems to me the "punishing hard work" excuse don't float here.

My Family

2012-01-25T22:25:00.008-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

I'd like to take a moment to share something about my sister-in-law and brother-in-law. They are a working class couple in a rental house, used cars and with a life filled with conquered demons and baggage they faced head-on. They work hard, play hard and enjoy their lives today. They are in their forties and love heavy metal and tattoos. They don't take life too seriously but feel passion for animals, their great friends and family and each other. If you passed them on the street, you might not think they were someone you could learn politics from. But you'd be wrong.

Now, I have my issues with the Occupy movement. There are some things that piss me off. But the one thing I will always be grateful to the movement for, is that it made my SIL and BIL take notice. These are two insightful, curious people. They ask great questions and make considerate connections. They started following Occupy and even attended a protest or two. And then the Facebook posts started coming regularly: links to articles, questions about what they'd heard somewhere, LGBT support links, criticisms of Bachmann.

And it kept coming.

My sister-in-law was a rising lioness. She wasn't shy about her thoughts and she challenged people to pay attention. We have chatted about issues and she trusts that I will have an honest discussion with her. I trust that she's paying attention.

And the other day, she posted this on Facebook

I voted! (for my dist rep) PLEASE HERE ME OUT! I hate politics, but after occupy, questions surfaced, so the last year I have become more informed because I believe solidarity makes changes happen, I ask my trusted informers when I get confused, they help me understand (you all know who you are and I thank you!) VOTING MATTERS! as my SIL helped me understand (and I ended up changing my party)... in reality, there are 2 parties, and usually 2 candidates, no matter how many are in the line up, you know one of the 2 will win, therefore doing a "write in" or voting for a small party candidate is not productive because it doesn't really count against the "worse of the two evils". You may not be on board 100% with either of the 2 at election time, but out of those two you know which one you DO NOT want. THIS YEAR IS VERY IMPORTANT! IT WILL MAKE OR BREAK THE SHIT HOLE WE ARE IN NOW! Get registered if you are not, be a grown up and be an American... YOUR VOTE DOES COUNT!

My favorite part was when she brilliantly discussed the consequences of write-ins and third parties. That is insightful. And this is from a woman who just started paying attention. Can you imagine what a powerful citizen she will be in November?

And last night, they watched the State of the Union and my BIL posted this on my Facebook page

Loved the speech of the Union tonight - Obama sounded like one of us Protesters - Tax the Rich and Save the Poor :) 30 percent tax for everything over a Million dollars a Year :) Someone is Listening :)

See that? A guy who wouldn't normally be paying attention, watched the State of the Union. He's listening and he knows Obama is listening.

I love my SIL and BIL. And I am proud of them. And I am so glad they are on our side.

We have an untapped resource out there. There are people who will vote FOR their best interests, and ours, if they are given a reason to pay attention. And once they start paying attention, we will see a fierce advocacy take hold. Many of their friends spoke up on my SIL's post the other night. They feel empowered, they know the value of a vote. We need to make sure we reach out to the people in our lives that haven't been paying attention and see if they're ready to start.

Politics is intimidating. There's history and all kinds of twists and turns and chaos and confrontation. Why would anyone want to start paying attention to this crap? People shy away. But Barack Obama is the right President for these people. He is thinking of them in his policies. He just needs them to know it and to stand with him. Let's help them feel less intimidated and welcome them to the dark side.

Politifact Can't Be Trusted

2012-01-25T20:26:00.001-05:00

This is so disappointing. I was a regular reader of Politifact and linked to them on many occasions as a reference in previous posts. But no longer. Something happened between their inception and the present day that has caused them to skew their fact checking - you can call it opinion management - to avoid the dreaded "liberal bias" label.

Here is a fact, perfectly stated by President Obama in his State of the Union Address last night:

In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.

Those are the numbers. Plain and simple. But for some unfathomable reason, Politifact originally labeled this statement as "Half-True" then upgraded it to "Mostly-True." And for what reason? After all, it's a simple statement. It's either true or it's false. How can it possibly be half-true? I'll let Paul Krugman explain:

...Unfortunately, Politifact has lost sight of what it was supposed to be doing. Instead of simply saying whether a claim is true, it’s trying to act as some kind of referee of what it imagines to be fair play: even if a politician says something completely true, it gets ruled only partly true if Politifact feels that the fact is being used to gain an unfair political advantage.
...fact-checking should be about checking facts — not about trying to impose some sort of Marquess of Queensbury rules on how you’re allowed to use facts. Aside from undermining the mission, this makes the whole thing subjective — notice that Politifact wasn’t even analyzing what Obama said, they were analyzing their impression about what he might have been trying to imply.
... in practice this turns into a partisan affair. The simple fact is that in today’s US political scene, Republicans make a lot more factual howlers than Democrats. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Yet Politifact wants to be seen as nonpartisan. If it just stuck to the facts, it could say look, we’re just reporting the facts. But having defined its role as something that goes beyond checking facts to saying whether the facts are being used in some “proper” way, it then finds itself under pressure to be “even-handed”, which ends up meaning making excuses for Republican falsehoods and finding ways to criticize Democratic true statements.

Combine this ridiculousness with their 2011 Lie of the Year, and Politifact is Politi-shit. They are supposed to be objective arbiters of statements and they are either true or false. But they've decided to be subjective and my only conclusion is because they're afraid of being labeled a left leaning organization because Republicans are less truthful.

Just in the latest debate Newt Gingrich was asked the following:

Moderator: You've talked about the millions of jobs created by the Reagan tax cuts. If tax cuts create jobs, why didn't the Bush tax cuts work?

Here is the beginning of Newt's answer. Hold on to your seats:

Well, the Bush tax cuts, I think in a period of great difficulty, with the attack of 9/11, actually stopped us from going into a much deeper slump. I think we would have been in much, much worse shape, and I think most economists agree, that in 2002 and '03 and '04 we'd have been in much worse shape without the Bush tax cuts.

What. The. Fuck.

Newt Gingrich actually said the Bush tax cuts, that added a $1.8 trillion to our national debt, stopped us from going into a deeper slump?! I'd like to have a list of "most economists" to which Newt referred. What planet does this motherfucker live on? I'll tell you where - he lives on the planet where people get million dollar credit accounts from jewelry stores and make millions by being the consummate Washington insider.

And how did Politifact rate that whopper of a statement? It wasn't worth mentioning. But a completely truthful statement was rated at best "mostly true" for fear of appearing left leaning.

I rate Politifact's objectivity, Pants on Fire.

President Obama's State of the Union Address - January 24, 2012

2012-01-25T15:50:00.002-05:00

State of the Union Tonight

2012-01-24T20:09:00.000-05:00

This one is going to be interesting.

Please forgive my lack of posting - burning the candle at both ends eats away blogging time. I'll take notes as best I can and comment on the SOTU in a future post. I'm expecting President Obama to open up a can of whoop-ass... at least I'm hoping he will. Sit back with a beer and enjoy it.

Early Entry for Headline of the Year

2012-01-21T21:41:00.000-05:00

Worst. Psychiatrist. Ever.

2012-01-21T15:22:00.001-05:00

I'm guessing if you lined up 100 psychiatrists and asked them the same question, only Fox News' head shrink Keith Ablow would come up with such a ridiculous answer, the other 99 would demand to see his credentials and recommend revoking his license.

How else can you explain Ablow's amazing analysis when he comes to the conclusion that Gingrich might make a better president because of his infidelity? And if three women fell in love with him, then why not the entire country? You know, because Newt's such a Svengali.

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.
2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.
3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.
Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.

Really, "Doctor" Ablow? I have no such worries.

But witness the analytic mind at work. It may be working at an insane asylum, but working nonetheless, complete with bullet points, assumptions that Marianne Gingrich wanted to punish Newt, and his "logical" conclusion.

Before you think this is a satirical piece, just remember that Ablow is part of Fox News Channel's "Medical A-Team." That's got to be worth something, right? My guess is that he's the Howling Mad Murdoch of the group. He continues:

4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.
Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.

Yes, because we all know that Gingrich is so truthful in his political life, he was reprimanded and fined for ethic violations during his tenure as Speaker of the House in the 90's. (And a Happy Anniversary to you on that one, Newt.) And it looks like the "great price he would pay financially" comes in the form of Tiffany's charge accounts.

But don't stop there, read the rest. I'm sure you'll have a good laugh, but keep a barf bag near you just in case.

I pity the fool that follows Ablow's psychiatric advice.

UPDATE: A previous version of this post mentioned Ablow insulting Marianne Gingrich's looks which was a misreading on my part. He is actually comparing Callista Gingrinch's attractiveness to... Newt's!

Must Reads

2012-01-21T13:15:00.000-05:00

Marcus Cederstrom: What if Tim Tebow were Muslim?

Digby: Straight Up Racism, No Dogwhistle Necessary

Ezra Klein: Who will get the ‘Recovery Presidency’?

Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics

Robert Reich: The Romney Tax Loophole

Ruth Marcus: Mitt Romney’s miserly concern for the poor

E.J Dionne: Republicans keep moving Obama to Europe

Our blast from the past comes courtesy of loyal reader Chris U. who wants to remind us all of Newt Gingrich's political past, sans revisionist history.

John E. Yang: House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 21, 2012

2012-01-21T12:41:00.000-05:00

America is Open for Business

In Follow-Up to the Newt Affair

2012-01-20T21:29:00.004-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

Ooops, I probably shouldn't have called it an affair. I might hurt Newt's feelings and make him go all nukuler on me.

But, anyway, here's this.

h/t Rick Parry on Facebook.

Why Am I Not Surprised?

2012-01-20T19:38:00.003-05:00

Gingrich flatly denied [Marianne Gingrich's] story and attacked ABC News at Thursday's GOP debate. He said, "Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican."
On Friday, ABC senior vice president Jeffrey W. Schneider said that Gingrich's account was "just not true." He said in a statement, "His daughters were interviewed for our 'Nightline' story last night and we sought interviews with Gingrich or surrogates very aggressively starting Tuesday morning. We would have been happy to interview anyone they put forward."

At this point, who are you going to believe? If what Gingrich said was true, he would have been accommodating in at least having someone fight back the open marriage allegation, but the better political road would be to claim it's a witch hunt and blame the media. How very Herman Cainsian of him.

Etta James Dies at 73

2012-01-20T12:08:00.000-05:00

NY Times: Etta James, whose powerful, versatile and emotionally direct voice could enliven the raunchiest blues as well as the subtlest love songs, most indelibly in her signature hit, “At Last,” died Friday morning in Riverside, Calif. She was 73.
Her manager, Lupe De Leon, told The Associated Press that the cause was complications of leukemia.

I Really Tried

2012-01-20T10:29:00.002-05:00

I took a deep breath, grabbed my remote and tuned in to CNN last night to watch the latest Republican debate. Normally, when I flip these things on in passing (the GOP debates, I mean) it's just to make sure something miraculous hasn't happened and they started debating in truths rather than whatever fantasy world they live in. But alas, that moment never comes.

Well, while still not living in reality, this night had the makings of being different. After all, Rick Perry had bowed out just that morning and now the GOP Nomination Clown Car was down to four. Newt Gingrich's second ex-wife, Marianne, accused him of wanting an open marriage after he began an affair with his now third wife, Callista. And after two weeks of recounting Iowa caucus votes, we found out that Rick Santorum actually beat Mitt Romney, but since Iowa takes its voting so seriously and eight precincts worth of votes went missing, the recount will never be complete, so we'll never really know, will we?

I knew I was in for a long night when the first question out of the gate was directed at Newt and the open marriage accusation. And an angry, defiant Gingrich went after moderator John King for having the gall to ask such a question at the debate, blamed the media for attacking him and "protecting Barack Obama" and the crowd lapped it up and went along for the ride.

And I think that's what disgusted me most about this South Carolina debate - the audience was chomping at that red meat like there was no tomorrow. They were cheering Gingrich's "fuck you" attitude while simultaneously forgoing their Christian conservative selves in support of a thrice married, twice divorced, serial adulterer. Let alone the hootin' and hollerin' when Newt once again chose to go after welfare recipients (you know, because there are no white people on government assistance) to appease the blood thirsty crowd who'd left their torches and hoods at the coat check.

Somewhere along the line I felt my blood pressure rise and decided my health was more important than a futile exercise. I noticed the time was 8:36pm EDT, probably the longest I've sat through a GOP debate this season... and actually the first time I consciously tried. But to tell you the truth, besides the Newt opener and Santorum claiming victory in Iowa, the rest is a blur. It's hard to concentrate when you have blood boiling in your eyes.

Santorum Won?!

2012-01-19T11:26:00.001-05:00

Well where the hell does this put the GOP presidential nomination race? It would seem that after a recount of the Iowa caucuses that gave Mitt Romney a slim eight vote victory shows that Rick Santorum actually won with a 34 vote edge. And it's still a clusterfuck.

Republican officials indicated Santorum finished ahead of Romney by 34 votes on Thursday. The Des Moines Register reports that votes from eight precincts will never be counted, however, and therefore the ultimate tally remains inconclusive.
...Officials found inaccurate counts in 131 precincts, including one that had an error by 50 votes, the Des Moines Register reported on Thursday.
Chad Olsen, the party’s executive director, told the Register that the results showed "a split decision." The final tallies, exempting the eight precincts that will not be tallied, were 29,839 for Santorum and 29,805 for Romney, according to the Register.

Boy, the Republican party is in such disarray that they can't even rig their own elections properly. And now what happens in South Carolina? With a couple of days left and Newt Gingrich's negative carpet bombing of Romney cutting his poll lead in half, anything can happen when you combine the fact that the GOP still can't stomach Newt.

One more thing: after this complete debacle in which the votes of eight precincts will never be counted, and errors exposed in practically every other precinct, can someone please explain to me why it is that we give a shit about Iowa?

Rick Perry Throws In the Towel

2012-01-19T11:12:00.000-05:00

Texas Governor, GOP gaffe machine and Jethro Bodine doppelgänger Rick Perry is announcing he is dropping out of the race for the Republican nomination. Nothing like quitting while you're behind.

Reports say he will endorse Newt Gingrich.

SOPA & PIPA are Personal for Me

2012-01-18T09:36:00.002-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

Technically, SOPA is on hold in the House. PIPA is moving forward in the Senate -- there is a vote whether to discuss it or not, next week. There is a whole other bill in the Senate that is similar.

As a business owner who sells my own creative/intellectual property online, I am torn in two by all of this. I want my designs protected in a reasonable way. At the same time, I sell via sites that I need to be open for business 24/7.

The intent of the bills expand protection from existing laws to encompass international theft of intellectual rights. It's really about getting current with the global reality.

As a business owner who is effected either way by these bills, and as a social media user, my hopes are these:

1) All of Congress adjusts the language to protect free speech and deal with the new realities of how people communicate and share, while ensuring that the people who design/create aren't treated as donors. People who create for a living don't do it for free. Their work is less tangible than a couch or a saw blade or a shirt and therefore do need special consideration. However, the protection of the creative can't come at the cost of the very tools we use to sell.

2) American citizens, journalists and websites must stay CURRENT with the language of all these bills at each stage. Something that annoys me is when we, as a whole, keep yelling about a bill AFTER the language is changed. We lose so much when we don't keep up with changes and keep fighting about language that doesn't exist anymore. The process of passing a bill is longer and more complex than people have the attention span for. If this issue matters, people need to make sure they know what they're talking about at each step. Yelling about version one when we're already on version three is stupid.

3) I hope people will avoid letting the bad parts of any bill blind them to the good parts that are workable. We don't always need to throw a whole bill out. Sometimes we just need to re-work it. Maybe we need to re-work it a lot, but sometimes, that's all that's needed.

A must read, seriously.

2012-01-17T20:43:00.004-05:00

POSTED BY JHW2212

If you are a regular reader of this blog, then you must read this article in the Guardian. Jonathan Freedland has nailed so many points like no one I've read.

Here's a tease:

The Republican shift is now towards an anti-government fervour that recalls the militia movement of the 1990s, convinced that every Washington move – even a plan to expand healthcare – is motivated by wickedness and constitutes a step towards tyranny. In that context, any action to thwart the government beast is justified. Such ideas were always around on the lunatic fringe, but they have entered and now dominate the Republican mainstream. Today's Republicans are less like a traditional political party and 'more like an apocalyptic cult'. There is a bitter irony here, that the party that insists it is conservative and patriotic now threatens the centuries-old political system that lies at the core of the US's national identity.

Perry Shows Off Alamo Boots

2012-01-17T10:57:00.002-05:00

Seriously? (1:38 mark.)

I know the man is a joke, but if you want to be taken seriously for the highest office in the land, maybe you would think about wearing a pair of regular dress shoes, you goddamn shitkicker.

Hey, Y'all, Let's Move!

2012-01-17T10:18:00.002-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

I get annoyed by Republicans and their "personal responsibility" meme because so often, they preach it while they completely avoid living it. So often, the meme is really just a spiteful response to reasonable ideas. And at times, it's used in response to issues that aren't applicable to a single person. For example, smoking in public. It's NOT a personal responsibility issue when MY lungs are filled with YOUR smoke. See? See how personal responsibility sounds great but isn't realistically implemented because YOU have an impact on ME. My personal responsibility to not smoke is moot because your personal responsibility is to say, "Fuck it. I have the right to liberty and freedom and any shit I want to do because I'm a damn American". But, no. The idea of personal responsibility stops at your skin. Like it or not, your choices effect others. So, if you make poor choices that effect me, I DO get a say.

The underlying problem, as I see it, is that the element of spite is there in almost every single issue where Republicans try to encompass themselves with some make-believe shield of "I wanna and you can't stop me". Not locking a gun away from your kids just to spite gun control advocates. Turning on every light/appliance/TV in your house on Earth Day or driving an old truck that can't pass inspection to spite the clean air advocates. Choosing to feed your kid total crap to spite Michelle Obama.

At some point, the revered "personal responsibility" is replaced by spite.

So, what does a 60-something year old woman's eating habits have to do with personal responsibility or spite or me? If she eats poorly, how does that effect me?

Well, when that 60-year-old woman's entire career is built on eating unhealthy foods and enabling you, me and every obese person in America to eat unhealthy, then her personal responsibility crosses a line into either denial, enabling, greed, pride or all of the above.

Paula Deen was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes. How long ago she was diagnosed, we don't know. But the scuttlebut is that she has known for quite a while and didn't disclose it. So, how does that effect others? Because she may have knowingly allowed people to keep eating in ways that cause serious harm to their bodies, that put a strain on the health care industry and that, in turn, effects the cost of health care for everyone. Not to mention the effects it has on a whole new generation of kids who have been taught that their personal responsibility is to eat more butter. These kids will have a much harder time re-learning how to eat.

I have NO CLUE what party Paula Deen votes for. I have NO CLUE if she is a "personal responsibility" Republican. But she is a perfect example of the abuse of the thinking that what you do only effects you. No, Ms. Deen. It effects millions of people when you promote a lifestyle that actually harms people. If you knew you had this food-related disease, why did you choose to pretend your role in society was irrelevant? Could you just not accept it? Could you just not figure out how to adapt your reality to the image you created? Could you not see the "personal responsibility" you had to your fans?

And through all of this Americans with spite and denial and pride, Michelle Obama has been educating kids and families about eating and exercising in realistic and healthy ways. She has been vilified for educating people. Her "personal responsibility" has been to set a good example of enjoying foods that aren't great for you -- in moderation. She has never said all Americans should eat only salads. But people despise her for suggesting we think and take personal responsibility for our health, and the health of our kids.

So, here we have two women. One who is beloved for her image of unhealthy. And one who is derided for her image of healthy. And yet, I imagine many of the same people who criticize Michelle Obama will come to the quick defense of Paula Deen.

So, you know what? Personal responsibility and spite don't mix. And in this case, it may actually kill someone.

Sully Gets It

2012-01-16T20:59:00.006-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

I know, I know. Andrew Sullivan comes with baggage. But for the last four years, he has made more sense than not, and far more sense than many people in all parties. Like him or not, Andrew Sullivan GETS President Obama. And it was nice hearing someone say what many of us have been saying for years. So, thanks, Sully. It was a pleasure having you express reality so clearly.

You can watch him on Hardball

or read his insight in Newsweek.

I would like to add, that when Chris Matthews asks why the Obama team doesn't shout his accomplishments, they do. The media just misses it, ignores it, or doesn't get the significance.

Thanks to The Obama Diary for getting this online so fast!

And There Goes the Sane One

2012-01-15T21:53:00.003-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

Jon Huntsman is withdrawing from the campaign in the morning.

OK, Republican friends, this guy was your most mature, sane, reasonable candidates. I have been telling you for years that your party was slipping from your grip. Do you realize that this man would have given Obama, and America, an honest, fair challenge to hear and think about?

If I were a Republican, I'd be really sad for my party. As an American, I am really sad what the Republican party is doing to America.

Cartoon of the Day

2012-01-15T18:50:00.000-05:00

(H/T Bob Cesca)

An Open Letter to Arthur Brisbane

2012-01-14T22:45:00.001-05:00

Here is my response to Arthur Brisbane, New York Times' Public Editor after his piece, "Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?" If you haven't read it yet, although I don't know how you may have missed it with all the hullabaloo about it, please follow the link.

Dear Mr. Brisbane:
"[Our readers] worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true."
This line most struck me in your piece as an interesting take on what you feel is "judgment" as opposed to journalism. I was always under the impression that a reporter's job was not only to report on the facts of what they witnessed or heard, but also to distinguish between what is truth and what isn't.
The Mitt Romney example you put forth regarding his repeated accusation of President Obama "apologizing for America" is a perfect example. But let's take it one step further and ask the following: What if Mitt Romney had said that President Obama goes around the world insisting that the sky is green? Is the reporter bound to play stenographer and simply repeat the quote, or is he obligated to research the truthfulness of that quote in an effort to paint a more accurate picture? Facts are facts, opinions are opinions and lies are lies. The phrase "imposing their judgement" implies the reporter is giving their opinion and facts are secondary and inconvenient.
Maybe there is a difference between journalism and investigative journalism, but there shouldn't be. I would imagine a reporter wants to be as accurate as possible, and if that means researching to prove the subject of their story truthful or not, then in my opinion, that's what the job must entail. Otherwise, anyone can be a reporter simply by recording and transcribing an event.
Thanks,
Broadway Carl

And to me, that's the long and short of it. An entire online industry was born to fact check what journalists don't. Poltifact, Media Matters, FactCheck and others are watch dogs to what politicians, pundits and talking heads pass as news, but even some of them are now afraid to be labeled as biased toward the liberal end of the scale and try to play it down the middle. This was clearly evidenced by Politifact's 2011 Lie of the Year, calling the Democrats' accusation that the Paul Ryan economic plan would end Medicare as we know it, a falsehood.

Anyone looking at Ryan's plan would come to that conclusion - simply keeping the "Medicare" name while making the program an inadequate voucher system does not mean Medicare equals Medicare. I could shit in a box and gift wrap it, complete with a "Medicare" label on it. Does that make it Medicare? But I digress.

I agree with Tweeter @Shoq that the conversation is an important one, but I also understand the blowback when such a question need be asked, and that a reporter fact checking someone he/she is covering would be categorized as "truth vigilantism." There are still a majority of the population who rely on the fourth estate for their daily news. They assume what they read in major newspapers is fact. Opinion should be left in the editorial pages, but front page news must deal with the facts and be accurate. And I believe that it is the responsibility of the reporter to research the subject and double check the accuracy of the subject's statements.

Must Reads

2012-01-14T15:17:00.001-05:00

Extreme Liberal: The Truth About ObamaCare!

Stephanie Cutter: Romney's Economic Record: Profit at Any Cost

John Cook: Fake Economist Ben Stein Sues Company for Discriminating Against Global Warming Deniers

Catharine Smith, HuffPo: White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA

Matt Taibbi: Everything You Need to Know About Wall Street, in One Brief Tale

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 14, 2012

2012-01-14T12:42:00.000-05:00

Helping American Businesses Succeed

Talk About a Circle of Death!

2012-01-11T20:06:00.000-05:00

This is strange... and a little sad.

Beijing (CNN) -- Microsoft is investigating a report that workers at a Chinese plant that makes its Xbox game systems threatened mass suicide in a pay dispute, according to a statement issued Wednesday by the company's Hong Kong office.

How bad does the workplace has to be for this kind of situation to develop? Another feather in the cap for unregulated free market capitalism. I'm not an anti-free market guy by any means, but I also don't appreciate a smaller piece of the pie for those who actually make the pie.

Dumbass Quote of the Day

2012-01-11T19:41:00.000-05:00

“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess. These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.”
—Rep. Diane Black (R-TN)

...As soon as we return to Washington from where, you goddamn moron? If the house is in session, shouldn't you be there?

Look, I'm not saying that they aren't technically pulling the "pro forma" stunt that Harry Reid did when George Bush was in office, but Democrats also didn't block every fucking confirmation vote the way the current 112th Congressional Republicans are obstructing every Obama nomination because they don't have the balls to put it up to a vote.

(H/T Chris U.)

Compare This To Standardized Tests

2012-01-07T21:32:00.000-05:00

What. The. Fuck?!

Third graders in in Gwinnett County, Ga., were given math homework Wednesday that asked questions about slavery and beatings...
...Another math problem read, "If Frederick got two beatings per day, how many beatings did he get in one week?"
Another question asked how many baskets of cotton Frederick filled.

Oh, those silly, Georgia teachers, with their slavery beating and cotton picking questions. I suppose Frederick received the beatings for not filling enough baskets of cotton.

Must Reads

2012-01-07T16:00:00.001-05:00

Zerlina Maxwell: Critics Say “Obama Could Rape A Nun” And Still Get Support

Muskegon Critic: Yeah, Cuz I'm The A$^hole.

Bob Cesca: Ron Paul Is No Friend to Progressives

Arthur Delaney: Dems Fire Back At GOP Proposals To Drug Test Jobless: 'You Pee In The Cup'

Jim Wright: Everybody’s So Different, I Haven’t Changed

Eugene Robinson: Romney’s not-a-mandate

Dana Milbank: Mitt Romney out of control

Jason Sparks: Cenk’d

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 7, 2012

2012-01-07T12:45:00.001-05:00

Continuing to Grow the Economy in the New Year

Confession Time For Santorum

2012-01-06T12:46:00.003-05:00

When I was growing up, I was told lying was a sin and since you have to confess your sins in the Catholic faith, I'm waiting for Rick Santorum to head for the nearest confessional.

A few days ago, GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum put his foot in his mouth by saying “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”
Santorum allegedly made the controversial comments when discussing welfare in an interview Wednesday night with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, but he maintained that people misheard the word "black" when he stumbled on a word.
“I looked at that, and I didn't say that. If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of - blah - came out. And people said I said ‘black.’ I didn't," Santorum said while smiling away.

He said, "blah?"

Sounds like Newt Gingrich a few months ago: "Any ad which quotes what I said Sunday is a falsehood."

Oh, Rick. You can't have it both ways. Either you meant "black" to demonize the have-nots and push the the welfare queen meme (as if there aren't poor white people in this country) or you meant "poor." Either way, you're frothing up the base in an "us again them" class warfare mentality. But for a "blah" candidate, maybe he did say "blah."

Recess Par-TAY!

2012-01-04T21:13:00.000-05:00

This is what happens when Republican opposition is only for reasons of trying to cripple the government under the Obama administration, be it the Consumer Protections Bureau, or the National Labor Relations Board to establish a quorum, or an ever growing number of vacancies in the federal judicial system (101 and counting). So enough is enough.

President Obama touched off a fierce election-year confrontation with Congressional Republicans on Wednesday, defying their deep opposition to appoint Richard Cordray as director of a new consumer protection agency and fill three labor board vacancies.

Whine all you want, Republicans, but refusing to even meet to vet or discuss nominations for positions to make the gears of government run is a bullshit move, and you can just fuck off.

“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said, adding, “I am not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people we were elected to serve.”

Oh, and there's also this:

"Despite the inevitable conservative complaints that President Obama is engaged in some kind of massive overreach by recess appointing Richard Cordray as the nation’s chief consumer financial protection watchdog, the truth is that Obama has used his recess appointment power very sparingly. After today’s appointment, President Obama will have made a total of 29 recess appointments. By comparison, George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments; Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments; George H.W. Bush made 77 recess appointments; and Ronald Reagan made 243. When you divide these numbers by the number of years each man spent in the White House, it reveals that Obama is far and away the least likely president to invoke this power."

So yeah, fuck off, hypocrites.

Trump Takes Credit For Santorum and Bachmann

2012-01-04T15:44:00.001-05:00

Say what now? Donald Trump hasn't been in the headlines for a week or so? Well, he'd better do something about that! We wouldn't want to forget about him, would we? So how about taking credit for Rick Santorum's frothy surge in the Iowa caucus last night?

Does Trump mean the debate that he backed out of because no one would be subjected to his idiocy? That debate? The one that didn't take place? I suppose that goes for Newt Gingrich as well, who was the first to accept Trump's invitation but came in fourth with 13% of the vote.

But not to leave well enough alone, he then explained why Michele Bachmann sank in the polls.

Ah, of course the reason Bachmann dropped in the polls wasn't her outlandish, gaffe prone rhetoric. Or that she would chest thump with Iran. It's because she denied The Donald and refused to kiss his debate ring. It has to be the only reason.

How many times in her life must Ivanka have uttered the phrase, "Daaaaaad... You're embarrassing me!!!"

Eight Votes

2012-01-04T15:10:00.000-05:00

Oh, to be a fly on the wall of Romney campaign headquarters... What must they be saying behind the scenes after watching the results of the Iowa caucuses and realizing that they ended up in a statistical dead heat with Rick Santorum? Not Newt Gingrich. Not Ron Paul. Not Even Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry. RICK SANTORUM!

After Mitt Romney spent the equivalent of about $113 per vote compared to Santorum's $1.65 in the state, Mitt won the caucus by eight votes. EIGHT. He is so despised by the Republican establishment and the average GOP voter at large, that he can't even win the Iowa caucus in commanding fashion. He's been the perennial second place choice over Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Perry... hell, even Donald Trump was a front runner topping Mitt in early polls. But Romney has always been the bridesmaid, never the bride... until last night. And it was a shotgun wedding.

To put things in perspective, basically after four years of Iowa campaigning, Mitt did no better than he did in 2008. Actually, he did do better. He gained a total of 66 votes since 2008 when he finished in, you guess it, second place.

Eric Cantor Reveals His Phoniness

2012-01-02T19:51:00.001-05:00

What a way to ring in the New Year!

If you watched 60 Minutes Sunday evening, you treated yourself to a "Get to know the real Eric Cantor" propaganda interview conducted by Lesley Stahl. In it, Cantor wanted to show you his personal side, complete with the family portrait, faded photos of the young couple soon to be Mr. & Mrs. Cantor in love, and a few tidbits of information courtesy of Cantor's son. He likes rap music, like JayZ and Lil' Wayne. (...Yeah, right.)

What turned out to be a complete sabotage and revealed Cantor to be a fraud was when Stahl asked Cantor about compromising, just as his "hero" Ronald Reagan had to do on occasion.

Who else was just as shocked as I was when hearing Cantor's press secretary yelling from off camera to dispute the fact, THE FACT, that Ronald Reagan actually raised taxes during his presidency? He exposed Cantor for the fraud we all know he is on national television. Did he think that 60 Minutes would edit that section out of the piece?! An interview at Cantor's home with his wife at his side, and his press secretary hanging on every word and making sure they don't violate Lord Norquist. Even Weeper Boehner came across better in his 60 Minute interview.

Happy New Year!

2012-01-01T00:00:00.002-05:00

Look! An INSANE Republican Candidate!

2011-12-31T16:21:00.000-05:00

No, not all of them... just lil' ol' Newt Gingrich for this:

"[Sarah Palin] is certainly one of the people you would look at [as a running mate.] I am a great admirer of hers, and she was a remarkable reform governor of Alaska. She's somebody who I think brings a great deal to the possibility of helping in government and that would be one of the possibilities. There are also some very important cabinet positions that she could fill very, very well. I can't imagine anybody that would do a better job of driving us to an energy solution than Gov. Palin, for example. Tell her that she would certainly be on the list of one of the people we would consider."

If ever there was a wingnut pander in the face of free falling poll numbers, this is the mother of all panders. Sarah Fucking Palin, Newt? Seriously?

The only other thought that comes to mind is that Gingrich is purposely sabotaging his campaign because he never really wanted to be President in the first place. This was all a ruse to increase his exposure for the latest book sale. It's all about money for Newt, and since his child labor law schtick didn't implode his candidacy, you know because the current GOP voting public has gone bats hit crazy, why not throw Palin into the mix?

(H/T Chez Pazienza)

Look! A Sane Republican Candidate!

2011-12-31T14:54:00.001-05:00

If he had any shot of gaining in the polls, speaking the truth blew it.

Jon Huntsman made one thing abundantly clear after a campaign stop in Portsmouth on Friday – he has no doubt that Barack Obama was born in America.
"The president was born in the United States – end of conversation," Huntsman said.

It's a shame he's polling at 11% in the state in which he's been putting all his eggs.

Must Reads

2011-12-31T14:41:00.001-05:00

E.J. Dionne: Obama: The conservative in 2012

Greg Sargent: Mitt Romney’s Casual, Effortless Falsehoods

Charles P. Pierce: "Appearing to Be a Racist" — a Strategy Still

Bob Cesca: What Does Ron Paul Stand For?

Andrew Roberts: You’re No Thatcher!

Emily S. Rueb: Violet the Red-Tailed Hawk Is Dead

JM Ashby: He Didn’t Write The Newsletters? And His Book?

President Obama's Weekly Address - December 31, 2011

2011-12-31T12:47:00.000-05:00

Working Together in the New Year

Quote of the Day

2011-12-30T15:26:00.001-05:00

Here's another Ted Sorensen quote to stick in your back pocket the next time someone uses the right wing "class warfare" jab, from "Why I Am A Democrat."

"Democrats have no wish to turn millionaires into paupers. Indeed, they do not object to the rich getting richer, particularly when their creative talents, energetic efforts, and sound investments enlarge the national pie for everyone to share... What Democrats dislike is the rich getting richer at the expense of everyone else, particularly those whose labor in helping to enlarge the pie but who receive a smaller piece in return."

Read this book!

Romney Son A Birther?

2011-12-30T15:10:00.000-05:00

They just won't let it go.

Appearing in New Hampshire as a surrogate for his father, Matt Romney suggested to a group of voters that Mitt Romney would not release his tax returns until Barack Obama released “his grades and his birth certificate."
[Responding to the question of whether Mitt Romney will release his tax returns, Matt Romney said,] "He has not said that he will not do it. He has also not said that he will. It’s a matter of time until that issue comes up because I think everyone has to get a chance to do that. So I don’t know the answer to that. I’m not sure he knows the answer to that. But he will do everything that he needs to do. He’s certainly not afraid of anything. Hiding anything. I heard someone suggest the other day that as soon as President Obama releases his grades and birth certificate and sort of a long list of things then maybe he’d do it."

Where do I begin?

1- President Obama has released his birth certificate.

2- If he's going to represent his father, Matt Romney should know what his father said regarding the release of his tax returns just last week.

“I will provide all the financial info, which is an extraordinary pile of documents which show investments and so forth.”
“But you won’t do the tax returns?” asked Chuck Todd, host of “The Daily Rundown.”
“I don’t intend to release the tax returns. I don’t,” Mr. Romney responded.

3- Nothing will sink a national campaign faster than giving any credence to Birtherism. Even your dad thinks it's silly, Matt.

And now, as I write this post that I haven't had time to publish yet, Matt Romney has already apologized for his comment, albeit via Twitter:

One of Mitt Romney's sons is expressing regret for a joke about President Obama's birth certificate.
"I repeated a dumb joke," Matt Romney tweeted today. "My bad."

I suppose the Romney campaign has no tolerance for idiotic talk... just your average flip-flopping.

Dumbass Quote of the Day

2011-12-30T14:25:00.000-05:00

“If you graduate from high school, you get married before you have children, and of course you work — that’s sort of a given, you have to work — you do those three things, there’s a 2 percent chance you’ll be in poverty."
~Rick Santorum, campaigning in Iowa.

Someone should let Rick Santorum know that poor people get married too. And oh, yeah, screw same sex marriages, those people deserve to be in poverty, right, Rick?

My Pet Peeves of 2011

2011-12-30T12:38:00.003-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

The media breaking that OBL was killed before Obama had a chance to tell us.

The GOP cutting government jobs then uses those job losses as proof that unemployment is Obama's fault.

People who have STILL not read the NDAA bill and STILL think Obama is going to personally lock them up in concentration camps indefinitely. The biggest part of the pet peeve: I'm not talking about Michele Bachmann and Victoria Jackson. I am talking about people who think Glenn Greenwald, Cenk Uygur, et al, have told them everything they need to know.

The 9-9-9 Plan.

I'd say Rick Perry, but as my governor, he's my pet peeve every year.

The fact that Glenn Beck lives near me now and I fear I may see him at my favorite chicken fried steak restaurant some day.

The Supreme Court Justices who think it's OK to hob-nob with players in extremely significant and controversial cases they will hear just in time for an extremely significant election.

Not being able to trust journalists/pundits I used to be able to count on for fair perspectives. Reporting on Obama is increasingly lacking in the full perspective by many people I USED to think presented better information. Makes me wonder if they tell the whole story on other issues. That doubt is why I stopped watching them for the most part.

The words: caved, grow a pair, grow a spine, get tough, etc.

Hyperbole, in general. Even when I use it.

Historical low public opinion of Congress makes a blanket statement of members who are actually very good and doing their jobs. It bothers me that people like Sherrod Brown, Debbie W-S and others, are graded in the same clump as Louie Gohmert and Eric Cantor.

Americans who blame Obama for the GOP's obstinacy. Because he said he'd try to change the tone, he was apparently the only one expected to work toward that.

Newt and Calista Gingrich using the Presidency as cover for their money-raising scheme.

Mitt Romney for being a dud. He could at least bring some fun to his campaign so disliking him would be more like disliking an opposing football team and less like disliking a plain, gray rock that tripped you.

Speaking of football, and this is really not a pet peeve because it's far more than that: football coaches who allow violence towards kids. Whether they personally committed the violence or didn't do anything to help prevent more.

I just realized, it's hard to distinguish pet peeves from really bad shit this year. So on that note, I think I'll end my pet peeves list and start preparing my "Hopes for 2012" list. Better energy.

Happy New Year, Y'all!

Brain Dump

2011-12-28T22:25:00.004-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

It's been a while since I posted and I have a million thoughts swimming in my head. So, since Broadway Carl is nice enough to give me the key, I thought I'd let myself in and dump all these thoughts and be done with it. So, here goes:

Rick Perry says that when he's the President, he'll "shut down" the border (with Mexico) within 100 days. I love how the anti-Big Government guy says that when he's Big Government he'll do what he couldn't do as Medium Government. And if he were President and if his replacement as Governor didn't want Big Government coming into the state, then what? See, there's a problem when you always say Big Government is bad and that states are the shiznit. And then you, as the Big Gun of The Big Shiznit State, can't shut the shiznit down without begging the Big Government to do it for you. And all the while you've been wanting Federal employees to get a freeze/cut in pay or lose their jobs altogether and or lose some of their benefits. Oh, wait, those same people you want to lose their jobs or pay are the very people the Big Government needs to send into your big shiznit state. So, how's that gonna work for ya? Good thing we'll never find out.

*****

Speaking of Rick "Keep Big Government Out -- Until I am Big Government" Perry, he wants to force rape and incest victims to be blocked from accessing abortions. Now, in some ways, at least this is consistent. I never understood how someone who said the SANCTITY OF LIFE was so damn precious that a piece of tissue was the essence of life, could then throw in a moral exception for rape or incest. Either you think that baby is more sacred than its mommy or you don't. So in that regard, his revelation (a week before a really important campaign trip) at least is consistent with his SANCTITY OF LIFE ideas. But here's the problem. Rick Perry hasn't been raped and impregnated. Yes, there are women who are raped who give birth and give their babies to loving families. Or there are women who are raped and choose to make something good of something horrible. And those women raise their children with love and respect and no angst whatsoever over the conception trauma. If I met a woman like that, I would bow to her in awe. A woman like that would have to be kind and loving and selfless in her love for her child. That, as a mom myself, is commendable. But what about the women who are held at gunpoint, and cut with knives and left for dead after being raped by more than one man? The women who lock themselves away from the outside and jump at the sound of the mail truck outside. What about the women who can barely move on with life, let alone nurture a growing child inside. A child she may not consider a child because she doesn't think life begins at conception. What about that woman? Those women? Let's honor the children of rape as survivors. Let's be glad they had a chance at life despite the first step in getting them here. But let's not ask every woman to be strong enough to get through nine months if she can't even get through the first nine days.

******

Riding on his tour bus with his wife and Wolf Blitzer, Mitt Romney was saying that Obama has been so bad for the economy, yadda, yadda, yadda. Then he did something that makes me scream. You see, one of my biggest pet peeves about politicians is when they make definitive statements (like "Obama has been bad for the economy") yet, when CBO data is presented to them to show the opposite (like Wolf did to Romney) they say, "I'll take a look at that, but...". NO! If you've formed an opinion about Obama's policies, you should ALREADY have read the CBO data. The CBO data is one of the most trusted, accurately processed data in the country. PERIOD.

******

My last thought of the evening is about Rachel Maddow screaming for days about us needing a ticker-tape parade. I had to stop listening because it bothered me so much. Do I want to show our appreciation for the troops? YES. But before we spend a lot of money on confetti and road closures, can we make sure each man or woman coming home has a job? Or a home? Can we make sure their medical needs are met? And before we have a big celebration, can we wait until every troop comes home from that OTHER war? That other war that many who have come from Iraq may very well be shipped off to soon. Can we show we respect the men and women who have fought these long wars by DOING MORE than a parade? Please?

And considering Rachel is the only major media person I have heard saying this for days, you can imagine who popped into my head today when I heard all these damn GOP candidates complaining that Obama hasn't thrown the returning troops a parade. Thanks Rachel. Thanks a frickin' lot. This is why I get frustrated with Rachel. As much as I adore her, she drives me crazy. Why can't some of that "we want a parade" energy be directed toward giving us phone numbers and websites of resources where we can help returning troops and their families. I am sure many troops would LOVE a parade. Let's just wait until we can have it for all of them, and until we've done everything else for them that we can. Okie doke?

****

Disclaimer: this was a quickly-typed brain dump so screw it if there are typos. You get my points or you don't.

Our Voting Reality

2011-12-28T08:44:00.000-05:00

I just came across a Facebook post linking to a Glenn Greenwald article titled, "Vote Obama – if you want a centrist Republican for US president." Knowing Greenwald's work, I declined to read the Guardian article. But I did rebut my Facebook friend who'd commented on his post with, "I've been saying this all along."

My response: "Sure, you can say that. But if you DON'T vote Obama, you'll have an extreme right wing conservative Republican to take his place. And you'll have no one to thank but yourself."

The reality is that, whether we like it or not, we participate in a two party system.

I picked up a book that everyone should read, but unfortunately it's out of print. Still, look for it on Amazon or a used book store... maybe even the public library. It's called "Why I Am A Democrat" written by Ted Sorensen. The same Ted Sorensen who was President John F. Kennedy’s special counsel, adviser and speechwriter. And the main reason why I responded to my friend the way I did, was eloquently written by Sorensen just 11 pages into his book, published in 1996, at the height of the Newt Gingrich controlled House of Representatives. Substitute a name here and there, and it could have been written yesterday. I'm including it here because no amount of paraphrasing can do it justice. (Emphasis mine.)

...I have always deemed it an obligation of citizenship to cast a vote for that better major party candidate, however deeply disappointed I may have been for some of his positions or actions and however skeptical I may have been about any likely improvement.
I understand why many people find voting the lesser of two evils objectionable. But it is necessary to remind ourselves that voting for a third-ticket candidate with no reasonable prospects of victory can only help the "more evil" of the two major candidates become President.
Nor are the two presidential candidates ever equally "evil" - or equally "good." Any voter who reads or listens with care can discern important differences in how they would behave in moments of crisis and in whom each would appoint to high office, important differences in how each would lead and would react to the failures and frustrations of leadership. In some election years, these differences may seem small and the choice unappealing. But a choice must be made.
Moreover, Independent candidates - with or without temporary tailor-made third parties - who say they are "above" politics or who substitute personal piety and pleasing platitudes for hard decisions on controversial political issues are usually either naive or hypocritical and would almost certainly be doomed to failure in the Oval Office. Deadlocks and delays in Washington and the inadequate response to knotty problems like the decline in family economic security are not simply the result of failed personalities, waiting to be reminded by personal strength and charm. I do not want to be "rescued" from politics by a white knight unable or unwilling to balance a ticket, make a deal, form a coalition, compromise a policy, trade a favor, and displease a lot of people. Politics, with all its need for reform, is still the fiber with which democracy is woven, the grease that enables the wheels of government to turn, the cement that binds a diverse and disparate country. Most members of Congress will not long listen to a President who constitutionally lacks the legal authority to lead without them and politically lacks the practical tools to lead with them.
If an independent or third party candidate - or, worse yet, several of them - did in fact win enough states to block an electoral vote majority, for either major party nominee, the President would be chosen by the House of Representatives on a one state, one vote basis, a surefire route o an undemocratic, bitterly divided process that would leave the winner with a faint mandate and a fragmented nation.
There is still another option for disaffected voters: stay home on election day in order to send a message of protest. But that "message" is not distinguishable from those sent by 100 million others, most of whom are not protesting or disgusted or disillusioned, but simply too busy or lazy, too ill informed or unconcerned, too tired or far from home, to go to the polls. Disappointed protesters failing to vote, only help the candidate whom they would most protest, while increasing within their own party the proportionate influence of those who disappointed them.

So with respect to all the Greenwalds and the Hamshers, et al, the choices are not the same. Listen and read what President Obama is talking about. Listen and read what the prospective Republican nominees are currently talking about. How can you say they're both the same?

Can we please stop with that "both sides are the same" meme? Look at any of the Republican candidates and ask yourself if any of them would have repealed DADT, passed health care legislation, ended the Iraq War, passed consumer finance reform, and the myriad of other things that have been accomplished under President Obama's watch. It's a no-brainer, folks.

Crazy Lady

2011-12-27T22:12:00.000-05:00

Just read and shake your head in amazement.

Former "Saturday Night Live" actress Victoria Jackson, working on confidential information she as a web talk show host has special clearance to obtain, has claimed that the United States is being overtaken by radical Muslims bent on bringing the nation under Sharia law.

Yes, Virginia. There IS a Santa Claus!

2011-12-27T21:08:00.003-05:00

Nebraska "Democratic" Senator Ben Nelson is retiring.

The 70-year-old conservative Democrat, whose seat is being heavily targeted by Republicans in 2012, said in a statement that "while I relish the opportunity to undertake the work that lies ahead, I also feel it’s time for me to step away from elective office, spend more time with my family, and look for new ways to serve our state and nation."
"Therefore, I am announcing today that I will not seek re-election," he said. "Simply put: It is time to move on."

This story is being spun as a blow to Democrats, with Republicans needing to net four seats to regain control of the Senate in 2012. But really, if you look at Nelson's voting record, is this other than good news for Democrats? Nelson may have a "D" after his name, but on the big votes he could not be counted on.

Gingrich View on Confederate Flag

2011-12-26T12:50:00.000-05:00

Does Gingrich think South Carolina should fly the Confederate flag on its capitol? I'll give you one guess.

“I have a very strong opinion. It’s up to the people of South Carolina.”

Why would anyone be surprised with his answer? After all, this is an "historian" who wrote a trilogy of alternate history novels in which the Confederacy won the Civil War. But hey, at least he's against slavery.

Must Reads

2011-12-24T15:30:00.003-05:00

Benjamin Wittes: NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed

Chris Chase: Braylon Edwards Gave 79 Students $10,000 for College

The Rude Pundit: Politifact and The Lie of The Lie

Justin Rosario: A Very Merry Fox Christmas: Obama’s Christmas Card Just Isn’t American Enough

Tom McMahon: Merry Christmas, Middle Class! House Republicans Just Voted To Raise Your Taxes By $1,000

Dana Milbank: Braveheart Republicans? Or false-hearted?

Eugene Robinson: Which Candidate Should Answer That 3 a.m. Phone Call?

BooMan: Wanker of the Day: Charles Krauthammer

Dino Grandoni: Perry's Latest Oops Moment: 'Kim Jong the Second'

Jonathan Chait: When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable? - If every Democratic president disappoints, maybe there’s something wrong with our expectations. Tough love from a fellow traveler.

President Obama's Weekly Address - December 24, 2011

2011-12-24T08:21:00.000-05:00

The President and First Lady Thank our Troops for their Service this Holiday

Dumbass Quote of the Day

2011-12-23T14:34:00.003-05:00

“I’ve talked to enough members over the last 24 hours who believe that, ‘Hey, we don’t like this two month extension [but] if you can get this fixed, why not do the right thing for the American people, even though it’s not exactly what we want.”
~John Boehner, Speaker of the House, explaining why House Republicans decided to cave on the temporary extension of the payroll tax cut after painting themselves into a corner.

As one of my readers posited regarding the bold text above, "Let's mull that over for a minute."

"...Why not do the RIGHT THING for the American people, even though it's NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT?" For someone who's fond of using the phrase, "We're here to do the people's work," he sure has a tendency to disregard what the people actually want.

Fair and Balanced (The Brent Bozell Is a Racist Edition)

2011-12-23T11:34:00.001-05:00

Judge for yourself:

Bozell appeared on Hannity as part of the show's weekly "Media Mash" segment to talk about purported mainstream media failings. After listening to a clip of MSNBC host Chris Matthews saying that Newt Gingrich "looks like a car bomber," Bozell responded:
BOZELL: How long do you think Sean Hannity's show would last if four times in one sentence, he made a comment about, say, the President of the United States, and said that he looked like a skinny, ghetto crackhead? Which, by the way, you might want to say that Barack Obama does. Everybody on the left would come forward and demand he be fired within five minutes for being so insulting towards a leader of the United States.

Really? Well, that skinny, ghetto crackhead took out Bin Laden, something the previous dry drunk, coke head couldn't do. ...See how easy that is? And disgusting?

I Can't Believe This Is Still Going On

2011-12-23T11:24:00.002-05:00

What a waste of time and money.

The so-called birther movement was dealt another legal blow Thursday when a federal appeals court tossed out a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief...
...The lawsuit was filed in 2009 by 40 plaintiffs, including conservative activists Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake, who ran for president and vice president respectively as members of the American Independent Party against Obama in 2008.

Alan Fucking Keyes. This is just disgraceful. What was that thing about frivolous lawsuits they constantly harp about?

Just Say "Oops" and Get Out (The House GOP Payroll Tax Cut Fiasco Edition)

2011-12-22T21:03:00.000-05:00

What the hell happened? How is it that the Republican "We'll-Slit-Our-Wrists-Before-We-Raise-Taxes-All-Hail-Grover-Norquist" Party found themselves on the wrong side of a tax cut issue?

House Republicans have privately offered up the terms of their surrender on the payroll tax cut, pending sign off from their notoriously unwieldy caucus...
...After conceding for weeks, the Dems finally said this far and no further — and actually meant it. You read that right.

And there is the crux of the issue. For the last year, Republicans decided that to defeat President Obama in 2012, they were going to be the Party of No, even on issues with which they agreed. They would grind the gears of government to a halt, economy and the American people be damned, just to regain control of the White House with whatever clown du jour would rise to the top of the GOP primary elections.

And for a while it worked. The President, whether you agreed with him or not, would make compromises with the intransigent Republicans because unlike them, he wasn't prepared to throw his fellow Americans under the bus. Some called it "pragmatism," some called it "caving." Either way, President Obama never stopped trying to make it work. He never walked away from the table, unlike others.

But there's a problem when you go all-in on every hand. Eventually, your bluff is going to be called. You can't have the winning hand every single time. And the pot the House Republicans eventually lost is any possible credibility with the voting public. What they could possibly have been thinking in their push to kill the payroll tax cut is anyone's guess. Perhaps it's Obama Derangement Syndrome kicking in at such a high level, they believed their own bullshit that anything the President says or does must be a bad thing, therefore it must be opposed. Even if it means rejecting issues and policies that the GOP has historically been in favor of.

So today they thought better of it and they've finally decided to fold a hand, but wagered too much in the process. Time will tell how much this will harm their chances in 2012, but judging by Congressional Republican approval ratings, my guess is that they're in for a rude awakening come November.

Let The Feeding Frenzy Begin

2011-12-21T21:15:00.000-05:00

When the Wall Street Journal... the Rupert Murdoch owned, conservative Wall Street Journal is shaking its head at the John Boehner "led" House of Representatives (AKA Lord of the Flies), you know you're in trouble.

The GOP leaders have somehow managed the remarkable feat of being blamed for opposing a one-year extension of a tax holiday that they are surely going to pass. This is no easy double play...
...At this stage, Republicans would do best to cut their losses and find a way to extend the payroll holiday quickly. Then go home and return in January with a united House-Senate strategy that forces Democrats to make specific policy choices that highlight the differences between the parties on spending, taxes and regulation.

Now I don't really agree with this op-ed's point of view as to why the House GOP should cut their losses, but they certainly got it right in that Boehner and Co. have painted themselves into a corner, and should retreat and live to fight another day. Sometimes you have to know when to fold your hand. But for some reason, they think seem to think the best strategy is to go all-in every time. The problem with that strategy is that eventually, someone is going to call your bluff.

Cartoon of the Day

2011-12-21T20:20:00.001-05:00

Just Say "Oops" and Get Out (The Romney/Osama Bin Laden Edition)

2011-12-21T18:53:00.000-05:00

Via Political Wire:

"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort."
-- Mitt Romney, quoted by Reuters in 2008, on the United States entering Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden.
"I think other presidents and other candidates like myself would do exactly the same thing."
-- Romney, in an interview on MSNBC earlier today, downplaying credit for Obama for ordering the raid in Pakistan that finally killed Osama bin Laden.

Another Example of Boehner Leadership (Kill C-SPAN Edition)

2011-12-21T14:23:00.000-05:00

How cowardly can the House Republicans and House Weeper John Boehner get? Cowardly enough to prevent as vote on the Senate payroll tax holiday that passed with huge bipartisan support, adjourn for the day completely ignoring Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer at the podium... and then cutting off the C-SPAN feed.

“We regret, Mr. Speaker, that you have walked off the platform without addressing this issue of critical importance to this country,” Hoyer added.
Moments later, the mic appeared to cut out. A few seconds after that, the video feed switched away from the House floor to a still image of the Capitol Dome. It appears someone in House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) office cut the feed, as C-SPAN tweeted afterwards: “C-SPAN has no control over the U.S. House TV cameras – the Speaker of the House does.”

Transparency, indeed.

Go To NewtGingrich.com

2011-12-21T12:42:00.000-05:00

You'll like what you'll see.

Gingrich owns Newt.org, but NewtGingrich.com is controlled by someone with very different motives.
The website alternately redirects to a slew of websites with negative association to Newt: from the homepage of Tiffany, to the Freddie Mac homepage, to negative news articles about his campaign.

Try it: NewtGingrich.com

So, hey, come up with a Plan B

2011-12-20T15:26:00.005-05:00

POSTED BY JHW22

Within hours of Secretary Sebelius denying an application to make a morning after pill available, over the counter, to girls under 17, women's rights groups went ape shit on their fellow woman's rights advocate. Ignoring their own previous appreciation of Secretary Sebelius' years of advocacy and ardent support of reproductive rights, she was enemy number one and she was playing "politics".

I called bullshit right away.

My take has always been that the ball was dropped by the FDA and the pharmaceutical company, NOT Secretary Sebelius. It's easy to blame her because she did the hard thing. But the anger should be directed toward the folks who rushed the data and the application.

The same people who acted as if the FDA was infallible should be SCREAMING about Yaz. We can't say the FDA is perfect on this issue and condemn them for allowing women, like my friend, Heather, to suffer a stroke because of her reproductive choices.

I also found the cries of her playing politics extremely hollow when just days prior to her being accused of playing politics, she denied a grant to Catholic Bishops because they didn't provide access to family planning centers in their human trafficking resource program. As someone who cares a great deal for programs to combat and aid victims of human trafficking, this hurt my heart. But I completely understand that women victims of trafficking need full access to full health care. How does the Secretary who was willing to make that Solomon choice, suddenly become the enemy playing politics?

The issues the Seretary faces aren't easy. They are going to piss someone off. To accuse her of playing politics because you don't like the choice she made is lame and ignorant of complexities.

I think the real politics were being played by women's rights groups who focused so much on one aspect, that may have inadvertantly caused harm to the very girls they are trying to help.

This issue can be resolved if the women's groups put the politics aside and make every decision thoroughly and with great care and foresight. I commend Secretary Sebelius for keeping the bigger picture in mind despite being accused of playing politics. No women should play any part of a political game at the sake of the girls.

And if I lose my feminist card for this, so be it. I'll go with my plan B and join a group of logical people who care that the girls are spoken up for in more ways than one.