Jun 092013
 

I’m writing early again to beat the heat that will take a day or two to dissipate from the building.  I slept from about 10 PM to 1:00 AM, put up my articles, and slept from 4:00 AM until 12 Noon.  Nevertheless, I still feel quite tired and think it may be a side effect of the Chantix.  Other than sacrificing my next door neighbor to the devil, the drug has caused no mental aberrations. ;-)  It is my hope that I will be able to send out links, as I have been too pooped to do so for the last several days.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 4:45 (average 4:26). :-( To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Short Takes:

From Alternet: “Right to work” is the most dishonest phrase in American political discourse. It sounds like it’s defending people’s right to earn a living. But as used by its supporters, it means making it impossible for workers to form an effective union, couched in the language of “freedom” and “choice.”

Specifically, it means laws banning “union shops,” in which everyone in a workplace has to join the union or pay a fee to cover the cost of union representation.

The ‘Right to work’ label should be ‘Right to be paid less so the 1% can have more’.  Support Union Labor!!

From Daily Kos: Attention every journalist that is currently trying to write the definitive 2012 presidential campaign retrospective: We finally have the real reason that Mitt Romney failed in his bid to unseat President Obama. In fact, we get the answer straight from the loser presidential runner-up himself.

The answer? His penny-pinching, underdog campaign simply couldn’t keep pace with the cash-fueled machine that was the Obama re-elect…

…It’s a touching story. It is also complete bullshit.

According to a campaign finance study by the New York Times, the GOP’s big three (the RNC, the Super PAC Restore Our Future, and the Romney campaign) actually outspent the Democratic big three (the DNC, the Super PAC Priorities USA, and the Obama campaign) by about $6.3 million in the election cycle…

I would think that CNN should have challenged Little Lord Willard’s lie. Are they trying to goose-step higher than Faux Noise?

From Huffington Post: House Republicans just don’t get it.

That was the message Latinos and immigrant rights advocates sent to the GOP on Thursday when nearly all House Republicans voted to approve an amendment to defund the deferred action program that currently allows undocumented youth to stay and work in the United States.

The amendment to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill also restricts DHS from implementing prosecutorial discretion policies that allow immigration officials to delay the deportations of undocumented immigrants who haven’t committed serious crimes and are considered “low-priority.” It was approved 224 to 201, with House members largely voting along party lines. Six Republicans voted against it, and three Democrats voted for it.

Immigration hard-liner Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who offered the amendment, celebrated Thursday, saying his amendment would prohibit the Obama administration from implementing “executive amnesty.” He also warned that the passage of the amendment is “the first test of the 113th Congress in the House of Representatives on immigration.”

“My amendment blocks many of the provisions that are mirrored in the Senate’s ‘Gang of Eight’ bill,” King said in a statement. “If this position holds, no amnesty will reach the president’s desk.”

Fortunately, before this can go anywhere it has to pass the Senate, and I don’t see that happening. However, it should send a clear message to Latinos that Republicans do not represent them at all. The three Democratic pigs (porcine apology here) who goose-stepped with racist Republicans were John Barrow (D-GA), Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC) and Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV).

Cartoon:

9Cartoon

He’s frowning, because they were reinstated for the rich in 2011. :-)

Share
Nov 052012
 

One of the hallmarks of Willard Romney’s campaign has been the clear and irrevocable stances he has taken on both sides of every issue.  It’s hard to tell what, if anything, he represents.  However, Robert Reich has determined that there are some things we actually can know about him and has formulated a list of his guiding principles.

5TopTen

…The ten guiding principles of Romneyism are:

1. Corporations are the basic units of society. Corporations are people, and the overriding purpose of an economy is to maximize corporate profits. When profits are maximized, the economy grows fastest. This growth benefits everyone in the form greater output, better products and services, and higher share prices.

2. Workers are a means to the goal of maximizing corporate profits. If workers do not contribute to that goal, they should be fired. If they cannot then find other work that helps maximize profits in another company, their wages must be too high, and they must therefore accept steadily lower wages until they find a job.

3. All factors of production – capital, physical plant and equipment, workers – are fungible and should be treated the same. Any that fail to deliver high competitive returns should be replaced or discarded. This keeps an economy efficient. Fairness is and should be irrelevant.

4. Pollution, unsafe products, unsafe working conditions, financial fraud, and other negative side effects of the pursuit of profits are the price society pays for profit-driven growth. They should not be used as excuses to constrain the pursuit of profits through regulation.

5. Individual worth depends on net worth — how much money one has made, and the value of the assets that money has been invested in. Any person with enough intelligence and ambition can make a fortune. Failure to do so is sign of moral and intellectual inferiority… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

There are five more that I have not included, and clicking through to read the rest of them is well worth your time and effort!

To summarize, Romney will push government of, by and for the 1%.  When Romney said he didn’t care about 47% of Americans, he lied.  The truth is far closer to 99%.

Vote_Check-mark_2

Share
Nov 032012
 

I must have been mighty pooped yesterday, because when my work was done I slept the rest of the day.  Today I’ll be collecting data for my final Election Projection tomorrow.  I’m current with replies.  Tomorrow is a holy day in the Church of the Ellipsoid Orb, and my Broncos will be meditating with the Bengals.  It will be televised here, so I’ll try to get the blog up early.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 4:13 (average 5:57).  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Short Takes:

From MoveOn: Bruce Springsteen Is Concerned For American Women

3springsteen

We should all be more than concerned.

From MSNBC: How Faux Noise Politicized the Sandy Benefit

 

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

I watched most of it, and it was so apolitical that I fell asleep. This is one more example of projection, Republicans accusing Democrats, without cause, for the things Republicans are doing themselves.

From Huffington Post: Republican Mitt Romney has millionaire backers, a huge staff and years of campaign experience, which may be enough to win the White House. President Barack Obama has one asset Romney can’t match, however: Bill Clinton.

The former president is sprinting through battleground states, delivering more speeches than Obama himself and, arguably, carrying much of the president’s re-election hopes on his 66-year-old shoulders.

As secret weapons go, they don’t get much better than Slick Willie!

Cartoon:

3Cartoon

Share
Nov 022012
 

I’ve heard some pretty absurd reasons for voting Republican, but that is to be expected.  There are no reasons for voting Republican that are not absurd.  However, I’ve been hearing a new one, that argues, in effect, that folks should vote Republican, because they do not give a damn about the American people, and because Democrats do.  Paul Krugman explained it.

2FilibastardsIf President Obama is re-elected, health care coverage will expand dramatically, taxes on the wealthy will go up and Wall Street will face tougher regulation. If Mitt Romney wins instead, health coverage will shrink substantially, taxes on the wealthy will fall to levels not seen in 80 years and financial regulation will be rolled back.

Given the starkness of this difference, you might have expected to see people from both sides of the political divide urging voters to cast their ballots based on the issues. Lately, however, I’ve seen a growing number of Romney supporters making a quite different argument. Vote for Mr. Romney, they say, because if he loses, Republicans will destroy the economy.

O.K., they don’t quite put it that way. The argument is phrased in terms of “partisan gridlock,” as if both parties were equally extreme. But they aren’t. This is, in reality, all about appeasing the hard men of the Republican Party.

If you want an example of what I’m talking about, consider the remarkable — in a bad way — editorial in which The Des Moines Register endorsed Mr. Romney. The paper acknowledged that Mr. Obama’s signature economic policy, the 2009 stimulus, was the right thing to do. It also acknowledged that Mr. Obama tried hard to reach out across the partisan divide, but was rebuffed.

Yet it endorsed his opponent anyway, offering some half-hearted support for Romneynomics, but mainly asserting that Mr. Romney would be able to work with Democrats in a way that Mr. Obama has not been able to work with Republicans. Why? Well, the paper claims — as many of those making this argument do — that, in office, Mr. Romney would be far more centrist than anything he has said in the campaign would indicate. (And the notion that he has been lying all along is supposed to be a point in his favor?) But mostly it just takes it for granted that Democrats would be more reasonable… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

I urge you to click through and finish reading Krugman’s excellent piece.

The bottom line here is this.  Democrats have been more reasonable, because they have been willing to cooperate to meet the needs of the American people.  Republicans, on the other hand, have been perfectly content to harm the American people to blame Obama for the consequences. The argument that voting Republican will end gridlock is probably false.  If Republicans are successful with this tactic, it will send a clear message to Democrats, that the only way they can succeed politically is to become just as intransigent as the Republicans have been to negate the advantage.

The opposite of this reason to vote Republican is true.  The Democratic Party, that was willing to cooperate, should be rewarded for caring about Americans, while the Republican Party, that was not willing to cooperate, should be punished for the harm they have done to Americans.  The last thing American voters should do is send a message that sabotaging America is a valid way to make political gains.

Vote_Check-mark_2

Share
Nov 012012
 

When politicians find themselves in the midst of a crisis, it would be unrealistic to assume that they don’t care about how they do politically because of it.  The best way for them to do well politically is to set aside partisan concerns and do their jobs well, working together with others, regardless of political affiliation, to provide the aid that the people need.  Both Democratic President Barack Obama, and Republican Governor Chris Christie are doing very well politically, because that is exactly what they are both doing.  Compare that with the Bush administration response to Katrina.  They did not warn residents to evacuate until after the hurricane hit New Orleans.  They did not preposition rescue workers and equipment.  Neocon Nero fiddled in Crawford for three days while New Orleans drowned.  Instead of taking responsibility, they tried to blame local Democrats, and they favored Republican areas when directing relief.  Bush did so poorly politically that he never recovered.  Now, the absolute worst thing a politician can do is to get caught trying to use the crisis for political advantage, while doing nothing to actually help.  That brings us to Willard Romney.

1RomneyReliefWhile President Obama made the decision to cancel scheduled campaign appearances this week in light of the disaster that Hurricane Sandy has brought to New York City, New Jersey, and a number of other states, including the key battleground state of Ohio, Mitt Romney just couldn’t pull the plug. Instead of doing the respectful thing and canceling his campaign appearance on Tuesday, just after Sandy made landfall in New Jersey, the Republican presidential candidate decided to re-brand his "Victory Rally" and call it "Relief Rally" instead.

The campaign decided that it would stage a photo op of Romney accepting food donations from supporters and loading up a truck with food after the event. But campaign staffers soon began to worry about the last minute nature of the call for donations, and worried that people wouldn’t show up with anything. To ensure that Romney wasn’t left without any donations and an empty truck, BuzzFeed reports that the campaign went out the night before the event and spent $5,000 at a local Wal-Mart. They bought up supplies like granola bars, canned food, and diapers. These items were then used as props to put on display while they waited for the real donations to show up.

For their part, the campaign says that it donated relief supplies, but would not confirm an amount.

What makes it all even more ridiculous is the fact that the Red Cross didn’t even want the items that Romney’s campaign collected. They’d have been better served with a $5,000 donations. Of course that wouldn’t be as nice of a photo op as standing by a table overflowing with canned goods… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Cleveland Leader>

When people came without donations, they were told them they were not allowed into the event without a donation and given a donation from Romney’s purchased stash to humbly present to Lord Willard.

Then Romney went back on the campaign trail, but promised no attacks or excessive partisanship, before Obama returned to the campaign also.  Like everything else he says, that was a lie.  Rachel Maddow contrasted Obama’s and Willard’s responses to the storm.

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

Did you heat that? An elected Republican official, speaking officially at a Romney campaign rally, said Republicans should tell their children to steal the Halloween candy from the children of Obama supporters to threaten their parents.  Despite Willard’s bogus promise, could anything be more extremely partisan than that?

On a final note, Obama has always been willing to work with Republicans to solve the people’s problems and meet their needs by the way he is working with Christie.  Can you imagine how much better off we would all be, had Republicans been willing to work with Obama from the time he took office, instead if deciding to sabotage America to make Obama look bad?

Share
Nov 012012
 

Here are the results of our poll on the importance of the last two debates on the presidential election.  While the respondents are not demographically balanced, the poll contains no internal bias.

Poll1101

And here are your comments.

Posted by lucy j. on October 30, 2012 at 1:15 am

 

debates are really only my opinion against your opinion. The world does not run on debates. When world leaders meet behind closed doors they do not waste time on debates only policy. "Here’s what I’m willing to do and then show me what you are willing to do ".

 

Posted by Yvonne White on October 28, 2012 at 7:44 pm

 

The debates are for show – If someone is waiting until the debates to decide, then they’re just lazy probably stupid enough to be a Teabagger.

 

Posted by Rixar13 on October 25, 2012 at 6:36 pm

 

Very important –

clip_image001

 

 

Posted by Dad4theFuture on October 24, 2012 at 6:56 pm

 

I think it should be important, but it seems many of our country are now saying only the first was…and not just Faux news or Romneyites

 

Posted by Lynn Squance on October 19, 2012 at 2:47 am

 

I said very important for 3 reasons:

1) there are still some undecided voters (which I personally find hard to believe given that the campaign is over a year long);

2) after Mr Obama’s less than stellar performance at the first debate, people needed to see the passion of 2008 standing up for the people against the Reichwingnuts;

3) because of the time limits, all the topics of concern can’t be covered adequately in one debate. It’s foolish to even try.

I hope that Mr Obama will come out swinging again in the 3rd debate. As Muhammad Ali said "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!"

 

Posted by Patty on October 16, 2012 at 9:39 pm

 

I still think the debates are important. Tonight Pres. Obama was able to refute Rmoney’s lies and explain how he changed his position on nearly everything since winning the RepublicanT primary. Candy Crowley even called him on one fact he got wrong.

It was priceless!

I voted Somewhat Important, instead of Very Important because so many voters have already decided.  I expected that a strong performance by Obama would stop the momentum Romney gained in the first debate, but not reverse all the gains he made by appearing more moderate than he is to lazy, uninformed voters, and itr appears that I was correct.

Our new poll is appropriate for this time.  I bet you can guess what my vote is!

Share
Oct 292012
 

When the fascist five trashed the Constitution in an attempt to hand our electoral process to the 1%, they said that there were rules that would prevent Citizens United from corrupting the system.  I strongly suspect that, even when they said it, they knew it was not true, because the Republican Party cares nothing whatsoever for rules.  To understand this, let’s examine what is happening to a state with a history of clean elections.

29CitUniIn 2010, a group now called American Tradition Partnership brought a lawsuit against Montana, seeking to throw out the state’s anticorruption law. It argued that the law, which barred corporate spending on candidates’ campaigns, was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. In June, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority obliged and handed the group a big victory by blocking the state law.

Now a report by ProPublica shows that this group, which supports development of natural resources, apparently misled the Internal Revenue Service when it applied for and received tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” group. It said it would not try to influence elections for public office, yet it has done so repeatedly.

A Montana agency that monitors campaign practices found that the group’s purpose is “to directly influence candidate elections through surreptitious means.” It hides its donors and, as the Center for Public Integrity reported, shields the identities of those carrying out its attacks on candidates who favor alternative sources of energy. As the state agency said, all this deception “raises the specter of corruption of the electoral process.”

The conservative justices waved away the well-documented record of political corruption in Montana that gave rise to its law. Instead, they reaffirmed the baseless theory that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Any review of history would lead to a different conclusion… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

Photo credit: FreakOut Nation

If this were the only rule Republicans were breaking in their quest to create a permanent regime of one-party rule, in which elections do not matter, a Republican corporate plutocracy.  Sadly, it is not.  By law, there is no coordination allowed between third party funders and the campaigns they support.  However, there is now evidence that this same group has been running the campaigns of Republican candidates, and doing so from a Meth-house no less.

29KochTooThe boxes landed in the office of Montana investigators in March 2011.

Found in a meth house in Colorado, they were somewhat of a mystery, holding files on 23 conservative candidates in state races in Montana. They were filled with candidate surveys and mailers that said they were paid for by campaigns, and fliers and bank records from outside spending groups. One folder was labeled “Montana $ Bomb.”

The documents pointed to one outside group pulling the candidates’ strings: a social welfare nonprofit called Western Tradition Partnership, or WTP.

Altogether, the records added up to possible illegal “coordination” between the nonprofit and candidates for office in 2008 and 2010, said a Montana investigator and a former Federal Election Commission chairman who reviewed the material. Outside groups are allowed to spend money on political campaigns, but not to coordinate with candidates.

“My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that WTP was running a lot of these campaigns,” said investigator Julie Steab of the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, who initially received the boxes from Colorado… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Raw Story>

Photo credit: ATS

As smoking guns go, this baby is a howitzer.  Now, you may be wondering why a porno picture of a filthy Koch is adorning this article.  I cannot state this as fact, because the donors are kept secret, but I cannot imagine the Koch Brothers attending this group’s meetings were the group not made up of well-bought Koch Suckers.

This is one more way Republicans are working to steal our ability to elect candidates of our choice.  No Republican may be allowed to take the White House, before the extreme Republican ideologues on the Supreme Court are replaced with honest Justices, and effective campaign reform has been accomplished.

Share