I know this has been out there for a few days, but I still wanted to respond. Conservatives have long tried to carry the mantle of America exceptionalism are our global superiority. They say the left doesn't believe Americans are the kings of the universe. Hey, we're tree huggers, aren't we? Rove wants Americans to think we're giving up being the leaders of the free world to China and the terrorists. It's quite childish and has been for a long time. They also prop up their straw man that all a person has to do is strap on their boots, pull them tight and they too can host a show like Bill O'Reilly and join the 1 Percenters club. It's so easy if only you try. That's all it takes you lazy rubes -- but you'd rather live off the dole then go to college, work and feed your family.

Well, here comes Super Bowl XLVI and it's usually the most watched TV event every year. For years many people tuned in to actually watch the ads because it was the one time that there was a greater creative license bestowed upon the ad agencies to produce as clever an ad as possible. That changed after conservatives hijacked the SB and the ads with the Janet Jackson flap which was created by conservatives lame attempt to attack Hollywood once again. This time it worked. Movement conservatives even went on TV and said their kids had been permanently damaged by the brief Jackson areola flashing. Wow, for an exceptional people, conservatives are very scared of nudity. They pressured networks and the NFL into thinking children never have seen nekkid body parts before. Heaven forbid if their kids walk in on them right after a shower. They could be damaged for life seeing a reflection of their own bodies.

I bet you don't remember many of the ads from Feb. 5th now except one: Clint Eastwood's ode to Detroit. I was caught up in the game and angry that the Giants blew their first half lead, but Clint's voice momentarily caught my interest and I tried to figure out where what was happening. Ha! It was all about American Exceptionalism and the resilience the auto industry had endured to recover after the global financial crisis. Paulbots screamed to let them all crumble, but Eastwood's message was we can find a way through tough times because the second half is coming. You'd think this would cross party lines since Clint is known to be a center right guy. Not so. See, Karl Rove can't have anything said about America now that makes a case for a positive future. How dare Eastwood praise us.

Karl Rove: I was frankly offended by It. I'm a huge Clint Eastwood fan. It was an extremely well done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.

Say, what? Is he kidding me? Clint was shocked too and so he felt he had to call out his spinning.

Continue reading »

Former RNC chairman Michael Steele was on MSNBC's "NOW with Alex Wagner" this morning and used the Ron Paul "states' rights defense" to attack gay marriage during a debate on the Prop 8 ruling with Don Choi. But when he was asked by John Heilemann how he would feel if a state passed a law saying he couldn't marry a white woman, he went into an incoherent and belligerent rant about his skin color making bigotry against gays different from racism against blacks, and used the typical conservative tactic of feigned outrage at even being asked the question. Huh? See, he didn't appreciate being asked THAT question when trying to justified HIS flawed position. Hey, Michael, racism and bigotry hurt.

Choi: Michael, I really get lost in some of your vocabulary, all I know is that when I fell in love it was worth fighting for and you can put all this vocabulary and talking about this state and that state, but bottom line is what translates in my book is that you don't think I have the deserve to be married in every state of America.

Heilemann: Michael, I'm curious about if you think it would be okay in modern America where it there would be in some states in America where black men could not marry women? If local states said that was unacceptable.

Steele: First off let's just be very clear about a couple of things.

Heilemann: Just answer the question.

Continue reading »

So Romney and his PACmen spent over fifteen million dollars worth of smear ads against Newt Gingrich in Florida to seal the deal of beating him in the third primary. Romney was upbeat afterward, but many movement conservatives were not.

Jonah Goldberg: What is Wrong With This Guy?

Congratulations to Mitt Romney for his big win last night. It was a win that, Romney supporters hoped, would help bury concerns about his ability to seal thedeal to do what it takes. But I’m not so sure. If you’re a straight-laced grown-up with money to burn, burying Newt Gingrich shouldn’t be that hard. Romney talked about the economy, Newt about lunar statehood (which I favor!). Romney drowned Gingrich in negative ads and Gingrich supplied endless fodder for the accurate ones and plausibility for the inaccurate ones. Was that really the test of his political chops everyone is saying?As a bunch of us have been writing around here for a while, the under-emphasized dynamic in this race isn’t that Romney isn’t conservative enough (though that’s obviously a real concern out there) it’s that he’s simply not a good enough politician.

Jonah and many other conservatives are really pissed that Mitt on the next day said that he's 'not very concerned about the poor.'

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there,” Romney told CNN. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.

Oh, dear. That wasn't too bright. Bill O'Reilly was trying to downplay this flub on The Factor by saying the Democrats will seize on any single word by Mitt that they can take out of context to smear him. Nice try, Bill. It was a bonehead move.

But great politicians on the morning after a big win, don’t force their supporters to go around defending the candidate from the charge that he doesn’t care about the poor. They just don’t.

You would think after all the rigorous training Mormons are known to subject their children to when it comes to speaking to large groups of people at a young age and then sending them out on two year conversion missions to hone their craft of convincing people to like them, Mitt is one big flop in that category. Unlike his father, who was legendary for his two years in European mission work, Romney just has a problem with connecting and he's making his base nervous.

A recent Pew Poll shows Mitt's unfavorable rating is up to 47%. I believe the GOP thought that having so many debates would give them a chance to constantly bash President Obama without supplying much substance other than lunar bases, hating the gay, electrocutions and building electric fences against Latinos, but what has happened is America is watching and the GOP is being hurt by the added attention. Many republicans really dislike Romney, but view him as the only one to able challenge Obama. I still am surprised by this poll since the country is suffering from the 2008 global financial meltdown. And before Florida's results were in the GOP elites were freaking out over Gingrich's rise and then his attacks of their anointed one.

I know many progressives are feeling very antsy right now with these GOP circus debates and primary days dominating the news cycles so I did a little research into how our base felt about our candidates to contrast the GOP contest at about the same time. Democratic voters were very pleased with the field of candidates that were running for election.

via Gallup Politics on 02/03/08

The new poll indicates that whatever the outcome, Democrats nationwide will be equally satisfied with their nominee. They show equal levels of enthusiasm for the prospects of Clinton and Obama each being on the ballot in November. In addition, they are no more likely to believe one of the candidates is more electable in the fall than the other.

Specifically:

Fifty-five percent of Democrats (including independents who lean to the Democratic Party) say they would vote for Obama "enthusiastically" in November were he the Democratic nominee; 53% say the same of Clinton.

Forty-five percent of Democrats think Clinton has the better chance of beating the Republican candidate for president in November; 43% choose Obama.

By contrast, Gallup finds more lopsided attitudes among Republicans -- working strongly in McCain's favor. Republicans are less enthusiastic about voting for each of the leading potential nominees than the Democrats are about theirs; however, McCain is the clear leader on this score over Romney. McCain also beats Romney handily in perceptions of which of the two has the better chance of winning in November.

In the Florida returns there is another troubling number that was revealed about Mitt and the rest of the current field.

Another warning sign for Romney: Nearly 4 in 10 GOPers want someone else to run: And this also has to worry Romney and his team a bit, too: 38% of Florida Republican primary voters said they’d like to see someone else run for the GOP nomination, versus 58% who said they’re satisfied with the field. It’s a striking number, because these are Republicans who TURNED OUT and voted.

38% are hoping for a brokered convention I guess. Wow. Things are tough in this country and many on our side have been very disappointed, but if we elect a phony conservative like Romney at this point in time, the middle class may never, ever recover. GOP unrest is a good thing.

Fox News and business network pundits loudly proclaim the wealthy pay all the taxes and poor people are grubbing off of them. What they're talking about are federal taxes, so that they can create their own fraudulent narrative about the federal deficit and spending. However, the working class is bludgeoned by state and local taxes, which drains them of all the resources they have to be the type of consumers this country needs in order to thrive.

Kevin Drum explains:

Still and all, it's true that the federal income tax is indeed progressive. Conservatives are right about that—though it's not as progressive as it used to be, back before top marginal rates were lowered and capital gains taxes were slashed in half. But conservatives are a little less excited to talk about other kinds of taxes. Payroll taxes aren't progressive, for example. In fact, they're actively regressive, with the poor and middle classes paying higher rates than the rich.

And then there are state taxes. Those include state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and fees of various kinds. How progressive are state taxes?

Answer: They aren't. The Corporation for Enterprise Development recently released a scorecard for all 50 states, and it has boatloads of useful information. That includes overall tax rates, where data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that in the median state (Mississippi, as it turns out) the poorest 20 percent pay twice the tax rate of the top 1 percent. In the worst states, the poorest 20 percent pay five to six times the rate of the richest 1 percent. Lucky duckies indeed. There's not one single state with a tax system that's progressive. Check the table below to see how your state scores.

When you speak to average Americans they have no idea what real tax policy is because it's so complex, and easily repackaged into right wing talking points. I remember during the first tea party protest in Santa Monica there was a small business owner who was joining in because California raised fees on her business, so she was upset. I explained to her that THIS protest was about the federal government. She had no idea what I was talking about. She assumed Glenn Beck was right and Obama was taxing her into submission when in fact it was Arnold. The middle class is more concerned with their payroll tax—because that's what they survive on—than with the overall federal tax rates that affect the wealthy. To them, it's all the same. Many governors have been guilty of pillaging their treasuries to create tax breaks for businesses which then creates a major deficit. And guess who gets screwed? The little guy and union workers.

State Sen. Shadrack McGill (OCTET-STREAM - 13.01 KB)

I've heard a lot of insane attacks on paying teachers more money, but this one might take the cake. Shadrack McGill loves increasing legislators' salaries because somehow it'll stop corruption in politics, but you should never raise the pay of a teacher because it will interfere with their biblical calling.

Can you understand this logic from a Bible-thumping Republican?

State Sen. Shadrack McGill defended a pay raise his predecessors in the Legislature passed, but said doubling teacher pay could lead to less-qualified educators.--

Lawmakers entered the 2007 legislative session making $30,710 a year, a rate that had not been changed in 16 years. The raise increased it to $49,500 annually.

"That played into the corruption, guys, big time," he said. "You had your higher-ranking legislators that were connected with the lobbyists making up in the millions of dollars. They weren't worried about that $30,000 paid salary they were getting," McGill said, adding that lawmakers have to pay for their expenses out of pocket.

McGill said that by paying legislators more, they're less susceptible to taking bribes.

--
"He needs to make enough that he can say no, in regards to temptation. ... Teachers need to make the money that they need to make. There needs to be a balance there. If you double what you're paying education, you know what's going to happen? I've heard the comment many times, ‘Well, the quality of education's going to go up.' That's never proven to happen, guys.

"It's a Biblical principle. If you double a teacher's pay scale, you'll attract people who aren't called to teach.

"To go in and raise someone's child for eight hours a day, or many people's children for eight hours a day, requires a calling. It better be a calling in your life. I know I wouldn't want to do it, okay?

"And these teachers that are called to teach, regardless of the pay scale, they would teach. It's just in them to do. It's the ability that God give 'em. And there are also some teachers, it wouldn't matter how much you would pay them, they would still perform to the same capacity.

"If you don't keep that in balance, you're going to attract people who are not called, who don't need to be teaching our children. So, everything has a balance."

Whenever I hear a bizarre rationale given by a card-carrying member of the religious right to defend some nutty point of view I think it can't get any more insane. And then comes McGill.

In his world shouldn't these righteous state senators be compelled on biblical principles not to take bribes because it's against the ten commandments?

I never thought an attack ad produced by Republicans that attacks another Republican would ever make me mad, but I was wrong—even if the attack is directed at Newt Gingrich.

Republican hypocrisy is frustratingly typical and we often write about it on C&L, but this Romney Super PAC ad is disgusting because it exposes just how far these allegedly non-affiliated groups will go, as it accuses Gingrich of the exact character flaws that define Romney as both a man and as a politician. Namely, flip flopping on all issues and supporting a health care mandate, which is a key component of Romney's own health care bill in MA.

Voice over: And Newt was a long-time supporter of a national health care mandate, the centerpiece of Obama-care. The Gingrich record, thirty years in Washington, flip flopping on issues...

I was on The Alyona Show on RT television to discuss the two year anniversary of the Citizens United decision. Alyona asked me if Newt was really angry over the Super PAC ads that have been hammering him, and I said "Absolutely."

Republicans love the Citizens United decision because it allows them to buy our political system like never before, and Newtie supports that. However, when a person is on the receiving end of the attacks, it stings. That's human nature.

I doubt he expected to be on the receiving end of Super PAC attack ads when the court handed down its decision, or if he did anticipate it, he probably thought he'd be able to out-spin them. It hasn't worked out that way, as these types of ads defeated him in Iowa. Newt fell flat on his face in the Florida debates and these ads will help cement his defeat there too, if the vote turns out the way the new polls are showing.

Continue reading »

I was really surprised at this column by E.J. I was raised Catholic too, but I'm outraged at the Church's hostility towards contraception and I didn't think he bought into this narrative. And let's be honest E.J, many pro-lifers will not vote or support Obama anyway so why should this matter to him or any progressive Catholic? Why should the president do any more for them than the Democratic Party already has?

Obama’s breach of faith over contraceptive ruling

All religions live in the U.S. and must honor our laws. What's being offered is not illegal. How many times are women and progressives supposed to kowtow to the religious right? It's infuriating and I grew up Catholic.

Digby writes:

Tell me again why I'm supposed to care that "progressive" Catholics are unhappy that president Obama mandated that Catholic institutions that employ people who are not members of the faith have to provide birth control coverage under the health care law? I'm hearing they feel "betrayed."

Welcome to our world folks. Now you know what it felt like for the rest of us when the administration made a deal with the Church to give abortion coverage pariah status in the health care law and treat it as though it is something so dirty that decent people wouldn't even want their money to touch the money of those who bought this dirty coverage. It wasn't pleasant.

I don't pretend to understand why progressive Catholics, who I'm told practice birth control at similar rates to non-Catholics, are upset that the government is mandating low cost coverage for everyone—for something they personally practice. That sort of hypocrisy is simply beyond the ken of a heathen like myself. But as a political matter, the*President made the right decision. Pro-choice progressive women have been shafted over and over again on reproductive issues and to enable this growing anti-birth control crusade to gain traction at the hands of a Democratic president would have been a true betrayal of epic proportions. Keep in mind that Democratic women outnumber Democratic men by nearly 10 points.

I feel betrayed by a religion that taught me only how to be a better person when I attended in the '60s and '70s. I'm so sick and tired of these hypocrites telling women what they can and cannot do.

Today, 1 in 3 women has trouble affording birth control. The U.S. has one of the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies in the industrialized world, and studies show that women who plan their pregnancies are likely to be healthier, seek prenatal care, and have healthier children.

Given all of this, shouldn't the question be why a group of mostly men—bishops or otherwise—need an extra-extra special exemption from prioritizing the health of women? Sadly, this is no freak occurrence. When the Obama administration made the misguided decision not to allow Plan B to be sold over the counter, the debate focused exclusively on the way he—"as a father"—viewed the idea of 11-year-old girls getting Plan B with their pack of gum. The overwhelming majority of young women who were simply trying to avoid pregnancy or abortion, both far more risky than Plan B, were ignored. And when a collection of almost all men pushed the "Bart Stupak amendment," holding health reform they supposedly supported hostage for the sake of inroads on their anti-choice agenda, the actual impact their amendment would have on women was virtually absent, as news coverage lionized these men's dedication to their consciences.

Shouldn't we ask why women's health, our ability to control our lives and bodies and careers, is such a popular political football? Is it because the women who actually are affected have no voice in our political system?

Bart Stupak got run out of office for supporting these people. They are not interested in facts or freedoms. We do not live in a monarchy where men are the lords and women are the chamber maids. Dionne's instincts have been compromised by the same propaganda as so many Americans have been over the years. It's really sad.

Rick Santorum fared incredibly well in the Iowa caucus Tuesday night. It ended in an almost virtual tie with Romney pulling ahead by a handful of votes. In Santorum's "victory speech" he discussed his family's working class roots. We rarely hear anything much about Mitt Romney's family even though his father ran American Motors and was Governor of Michigan. What about Romney's roots?

I decided to research Mitt Romney's father. George Romney was a powerful industrial and political figure of his day.

Romney's family came from England, converted to Mormonism, came to America and quickly turned to plural marriage which led them to an unexpected exile and exodus to Mexico and then just as abruptly, they fled back to the USA to avoid a revolution.

It's an unexpected backstory to the "next in line" probable GOP nominee.

In this post I'll use information I found from the book by Tom Mahoney published in 1960 called 'The Story Of George Romney."

Mitt comes from a long line of Romney's that resided in England for generations and when an early Mormon missionary from America named Orson Hyde came to England to spread their word, Gaskell Romney and his wife Elizabeth converted in 1839. Soon after they boarded a boat to America. (pg 50)

He and his wife, who had been Elizabeth Gaskell, were attracted by a street meeting of Orson Hyde, one of the first Mormon missionaries to England, and in 1839 were baptized.

If you're not familiar with the Mormon religion, Joesph Smith, the founder, said he had vision as far back as 1820 in upstate New York and traveled West, where his flock finally ending up in Utah, led by Brigham Young after Smith was killed. After writing the Book of Mormon, Smith had a revelation which is known as Article 132 from the Mormon text called Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, a sort of addendum book to the Book of Mormon.

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

Continue reading »

I haven't been writing too much lately because of publisher type duties I have to perform, but when I saw this bit of ridiculousness from Hot Air aimed at myself I wanted to respond. Everyone, right or left knows I don't make stuff up like some people we know (fill in the names yourself) but when Tina Korbe says that there's no way I could defend my earlier post about the riotous scene at Oklahoma State, I couldn't pass up the chance. By the way, I happen to be pretty good friends with Ed Morrissey, even if we view politics differently so this isn't personal towards Hot Air.

But I’m not sure John Amato of CrooksandLiars.com could come back with a follow-up piece that would convince me of the rightness of his reasoning in this little bit of commentary, provocatively headlined “#OWS Are Just Sleeping in Tents; College Football Fans Are Rioting.”

In it, just as the headline suggests, Amato argues that fans storming the field after a football game constitutes violent rioting.

Had he just stopped there, the piece would have been funny enough — but still somewhat defensible. He at least offers some evidence for his perspective: After the Oklahoma State University Cowboys subjugated the University of Oklahoma Sooners this weekend in the annual Oklahoma rivalry game aptly known as “Bedlam,” OSU fans were in such a hurry to dismantle the goalposts that they inadvertently injured at least 12 fellow fans, including one who had to be airlifted to the hospital.

She obviously missed my point so I'll let one of the biggest sports talk show hosts do it for me. In the above video, WFAN's talk show host Mike Francesa explained the riotous situation in Oklahoma State, which he described from someone on the field as "natural disaster" like that took place. His words not mine. Mike is a known Republican and political junkie so he doesn't have a political agenda about this incident like say, Hot Air does. he ripped into the entire event and wondered if stadiums will need to build fences so fans can't get on the field.

Now Korbe either doesn't understand the meaning of my earlier post or is not being honest about it, that's up to her to figure out.

But the more likely explanation than Amato’s is that the police have turned to questionable tactics to evict OWS protesters because Occupiers have proved themselves to be, time and again, belligerent. Defying lawful orders to pack up and leave isn't exactly the way to ensure you’re evicted peacefully.

Did you happen to see the police called in with pepper spray, tear gas and hazmat suits to make sure tea party town halls during the August recess didn't turn ugly, did you? And they did turn very ugly because groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity disseminated memos designed to aggressively disrupt those town halls.

The memo above also resembles the talking points being distributed by FreedomWorks for pushing an anti-health reform assault all summer. Patients United, a front group maintained by Americans for Prosperity, is currently busing people all over the country for more protests against Democratic members. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the NRCC, has endorsed the strategy, telling the Politico the days of civil town halls are now “over.”

Continue reading »

Mitt Romney's political positions seem to switch depending upon which year and what type of electoral base he faces. It's not a surprise that Red State's Erick Erickson proclaimed that Mitt Romney is the Harriet Miers of Republican candidates and has only one principle mission in life: to be president.

I’ve been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself. You want him to be tough? He’ll be tough. You want him to be sensitive? He’ll be sensitive.
--
Along the way, he’ll drop lots of coin to grease the skids for himself. Mitt Romney is the silly putty of politicians — press on him real hard and he’ll take on whatever image you press into him until the next group starts pressing.

Republican billionaires have a fantastic track record of getting Republican opinion leaders to support them and an even better track record at losing elections. Mitt Romney will be no different.

There's no example more striking than his 2002 campaign to become Governor of Massachusetts. The state is typically blue and for him to run for the highest office there he had to become as pro-choice as his Democratic opponent Shannon O'Brien was. Check out his questionnaire form above in which he signed his name for Planned Parenthood. Romney's birthday is March 12, 1947, which means he was more than 50 years old when he filled this out. It's truly amazing to see him switch on a dime into present day anti-choice Mitt, chameleon-like, and it would appear as if 2002 Romney never existed.

Jennifer Rubin wrote this piece in the Weekly Standard a few years ago and I found the document to go along with her research.

A recent Internet video highlighted comments made during a 1994 debate against Sen. Edward Kennedy in which Romney declared that he supported a "woman's right to choose." Romney quickly distanced himself from those comments, winning praise from conservative pundits. But a look at Romney's second campaign, the 2002 race for Massachusetts governor, reveals that his pro-choice stance and support for embryonic stem cell research were clear and ardent less than five years ago.

In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses:

Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES

Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES

Continue reading »