John King asks if the easing of roles for women in combat is a good thing. And Santorum answers with: "“I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country . . . but I do have concerns about women in front-line combat. I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat,” he added. “And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”
"Other types of emotions?" That must be his Low T talking. Those old guys get so cranky when it's "that time of life."
In Santorum's 2005 book, "It Takes a Family" he famously came out against women working outside of the home. He wrote, "It provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home." Yes, he blamed radical feminism. And he quickly lost his senate seat by 17 points.
So, keep talking Rick. You're sure to win the primary against Herbert Hoover who's looking more progressive and forward thinking every time you open your mouth.
Multiple stories have broken recently in Charleston, South Carolina about the Southern Republican Leadership Conference failing to pay a $227,872 bill at the luxury Charleston Place hotel, which it had rented out as part of its efforts to showcase presidential candidates before the South Carolina primary.
In its federal complaint, the hotel says in March it originally entered into an agreement for the booking which ran from Thurs. Jan. 19 through Sun. Jan. 22. South Carolina political operative Robert C. Cahaly, who is named as co-defendant in the lawsuit, served as the group's signatory. The contract was amended on Dec. 20, 2011.
In the complaint filed in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, the hotel says it has come to believe that the SRLC "was grossly undercapitalized, failed to observe corporate formalities, was insolvent, and was mere[ly] used as a façade for the operations of the defendant Cahaly." In addition it says, "Cahaly, an individual businessman, has sought to hide from the normal consequences of carefree entrepenuring by doing so through a corporate shell.
"Due to their incompetence, the defendants failed to properly plan or manage the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, and it was poorly attended," the hotel says. "The conference was so poorly attended as to cause one Republican candidate, Newt Gingrich, to cancel his appearance.
"Poor attendance caused many of the conference sponsors to leave the conference," it continues. "Poor attendance left the defendants responsible for a significant payment to the plaintiff under the terms of the contract."
The article continues by saying, "at 3:01 p.m., the time when the defendants were due to check out of the hotel, the defendants emailed [hotel] management and cancelled the meeting at which they were supposed to settle the bill." In the email, the SRLC allegedly accused the hotel of difficulties with refunds or adjustments, poor overall treatment and a hotel manager instructing an SRLC staffer to engage in illegal activity, according to the City Paper article.
Sounds more like bitterness over the poor attendance of their conference than mismanagement by the hotel.
If there was one factor that put Newt Gingrich over the top last week in South Carolina, it was his combative response to John King's opening salvo about ABC News' upcoming interview with Gingrich's ex-wife in last week's debate. Here is Newtie's specific accusation:
Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said 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. They're attacking the governor. They're attacking me. I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.
Except, well, Newt didn't offer even one personal friend. When pressed on it by John King this week, he finally handed off the actual facts to his staff, who then had to come back and admit that yes, the only witnesses offered to ABC News were Newt's daughters. No personal friends. Now it's possible he has no personal friends. But to say such a thing would be mean, so instead I'll just conclude he lied. If ever there was a classic case of someone afflicted with a supreme case of unwarranted certitude, it is Newt Gingrich.
Rick Santorum had Newt Gingrich in his sights during Thursday's debate, and he gnawed at him every way he could in order to garner even a little bit of attention. I'm no fan of Rick Santorum's, but it's pretty ridiculous for Newt Gingrich to call for he (and Ron Paul) to withdraw from the primary race so the only "true conservative" can challenge Mitt Romney.
Newt, never shy and always in love with himself, did exactly that on Wednesday. On Thursday, Santorum was declared the winner (if you can call it that) in Iowa, and has more delegates going into South Carolina than Gingrich. Santorum was also endorsed by the social conservatives after their secret meeting and vote in Texas, though Gingrich alleged there were dirty tricks associated with the final vote on that endorsement.
Which brings me to this debate slice, where Santorum is asked by John King to react to Newt's claim that [Santorum] "doesn't have any of the knowledge to do something on this scale."
Michele Bachmann went on CNN with John King to talk about her possible presidential run and said that her decision was not going to be based on whether Sarah Palin gets in the race. Riiiiiiight. I highly doubt that she'll enter if Palin jumps because they have the same followers. But King then called Bachmann out on all the many false statements she made about Obama. Her response was to say that, well, she reads a whole lot (slap to Palin?), and then blamed the articles she read in the AP for getting all her facts wrong. King told her she shouldn't be blaming factually correct news reports for her mistakes. She admitted that she could use a little messaging discipline. Hey, at least she heard of the AP.
KING: Let's deal with a few things. They should watch you, that's right. You had a conversation with Chris Wallace right after the Libya invasion started, the Libya bombing started, where you said, you know, you heard a report from an ambassador in Tripoli that maybe 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 people had been killed. That number was, of course, not anywhere near reliable. So some people said, well, Michele Bachmann just sees one little report and goes and quotes it on television. Do you have to work on discipline if you're going to run for president?
BACHMANN: I think it's important to have discipline and a message. That's true. And have I been right in -- have I been accurate in everything that I've said? No, that's not true. You can -- you can fact check. But the fact is, I read and I read a lot. And that morning, I had read in a -- a TV -- a report by A.P. And the overall number was correct and it was a number that was given by the ambassador. It wasn't in one particular engagement, but it was the number of people who had been wounded so far. So that was accurate.
You see she reads. However, making sure of the facts comes second.
KING: Another thing people cite is when the president was going to India, there was a report in a publication over there that used this wildly exorbitant number about how much his trip would cost. And you...
BACHMANN: Oh, sure.
KING: -- you, for several days...
BACHMANN: And -- and what I was doing...
KING: -- were talking about that.
BACHMANN: -- again, I was -- I was quoting from "The Financial Times." And so I -- I gave the source that I was quoting from and it was a financial newspaper from India. And so it isn't my job to go and fact check sources that come out in publication. And so I was using that quote. But you're right...
KING: It's your job as a candidate...
BACHMANN: -- when it's -- when it...
KING: -- when people...
KING: -- the left...
BACHMANN: You have a very good point...
Doesn't she have a staff working for her? We know she'll repeat falsehoods or make up insane ideas like the anti-Americans in Congress at the drop of a dime
KING: -- the left----likes to use you as a galvanizer.
BACHMANN: You have -- you have a very good point, though, that I think when you're -- when you're in the presidential realm, I do think that message discipline is required. And I think that that is something that, you know, all of us have areas that we need to do better on and that's certainly one that I'll pay a lot of attention to.
KING: I read a fundraising e-mail under your name just an hour or so ago. It was talking about: "Our president is too busy gallivanting around Europe with his Irish cousins to focus on rebuilding our economy and strengthening our nation." Now, people have a lot of fun in fundraising letters. But a President Bachmann would never take a little personal detour on a very important overseas trip for a G8 summit or sitting down with the prime minister of the United Kingdom?
BACHMANN: Well, of course presidents take trips. But remember, I think if the shoe was on the other foot and if we had a Republican as president and we just saw the devastation in Joplin, Missouri and we see the president of the United States playing ping pong on TV and we see him serving up hamburgers in -- in a day when we aren't dealing with devastation in the heartland of the United States, that would be fine for the president to be out doing those things. I don't fault him for that. And it's actually a -- a small thing in the scheme of things.
The right keeps on trying to find a false equivalency for Bush falling down on the job in NOLA and can't do it, but Michele doesn't mind fundraising off any crazy thought. The fake "$200-million-dollar-a-day trip to India story" was debunked immediately, but it didn't stop her or the Limbaughs from transmitting it as much and as often as they could.
I was kind of shocked that King went at many of her falsehoods directly, but good for him. We need more of this from the media in any campaign against any party. Bachmann is a treasure trove of misinformation and badly spun talking points, so King and his cohorts have a lot of work to do if or when she gets in the race.
Instead of discrediting Andrew Brietbart for being a lying liar that hurts people, CNN's Kyra Phillips thinks the Shirley Sherrod story means we need to attack anonymous bloggers for their indiscretions. WTF? If a liberal blogger had released a phony video that targeted a Republican in the same way as Breitbart did, the outrage that would have followed from the media would have been cataclysmic. But when it's done by a conservative hitman ... crickets.
Phillips calls anonymous bloggers cowards, but what does that make Andrew Breitbart? I wonder if MSMers are really that naive? Breitbart smeared ACORN and essentially destroyed the one organization in this country dedicated to enrolling minority voters with doctored videos -- and yet he was positively celebrated for his efforts, and never faced any accountability when the entire smear was proven a fraud. Then he led the video smear of Sherrod. Who has been anonymous in any of these stories? We know all too exactly who smeared Sherrod. Why is CNN focusing on a nonexistent issue?
Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the “mixed blessing of the Internet,” and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet. “There are so many great things that the internet does and has to offer, but at the same time, Kyra, as you know, there is this dark side,” Roberts said. “Imagine what would have happened if we hadn’t taken a look at what happened with Shirley Sherrod and plumbed the depths further and found out that what had been posted on the internet was not in fact reflective of what she said.” But Phillips replied that the mainstream media “can’t always do that.” “There’s going to have be a point in time where these people have to be held accountable,” Phillips said. “How about all these bloggers that blog anonymously? They say rotten things about people and they’re actually given credibility, which is crazy. They’re a bunch of cowards, they’re just people seeking attention.”
The whole reason you might think anonymous bloggers would be a problem is that they could make stuff up and nobody would know who they were in order to sanction them. In this case, though, there’s nothing anonymous about Andrew Breitbart so this problem shouldn’t exist. Except instead of sanctioning Andrew Breitbart, a specific individual with a specific name, and the other specific institutions (who employ specific individuals with names) CNN’s team is lashing out vaguely at “the internet” and “anonymous bloggers.” The issue here, however, is primarily Andrew Breitbart. To a secondary extent, it’s Fox News and conservative talk radio. And to a broader extent it’s a conservative movement that continues to celebrate Breitbart and Fox News despite their legacy of inaccuracy and race-baiting. Anonymous bloggers have nothing to do with anything.
The rage used to be focused on people leaving anonymous comments on websites, but CNN uses a false equivalency to turn it into bloggers. Why doesn't CNN denounce Breitbart and lead the way to discredit any such political operatives who act in a dishonest way?
I think this is telling. This is the only actual example of Obama’s alleged demonization of business that Zuckerman offers — and it’s essentially a mini-Breitbart, a quote taken out of context to make it seem as if Obama was saying something he wasn’t. That’s typical of the whole argument.
Oh, and one more thing: are there no copy editors at the FT? When I quote someone in my column, I supply the source material, and my copy editor checks, not just to be sure that the quote is accurate, but that it’s not taken out of context. But I guess such rules don’t apply if you’re a conservative.
Now that the firestorm over Shirley Sherrod's firing is beginning to die down, it's worth looking at the specific statements Andrew Breitbart made on national cable TV to justify himself before the full video was released.
His appearance on John King USA on July 20th had a very revealing moment in it, one that's worth looking at in depth.
Every time Breitbart opens his mouth a lie flies out. Beginning at the beginning, and remember, this was before the full tape was released.
BREITBART: It has to -- this tape is about the NAACP. Its race (ph) on debt is about nondiscrimination and when Shirley Sherrod is talking there in which she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applaud -- with applause and the NAACP agrees with me and it rebuked her and the audience. So the entire conversation about race right now in this country is because the NAACP brought up without evidence, again, and including the false narrative that the "n" word was hurled at three black congressmen, this is asserting that the NAACP condoned racism and was caught on video. And the more video that we've seen that we haven't even offered, there's even more racism on these tapes. This is deeply problematic.
KING: I'm happy to look at those tapes, and I promise I will look at those tapes if you post them, but I want to come back to another -- you say context is everything. We believe facts are important, too --
BREITBART: If that -- if it is the case and it can be shown to me that the incident that she's talking about was done many years ago and not in her current context, but as a reporter you tell me how you confirmed that the incident that she's talking about was 24 years ago? You tell me as a reporter how CNN put on a person today who purported to be the farmer's wife?
What did you do to find out whether or not that was the actual farmer's wife? I mean there -- if you're going to accuse me of a falsehood, tell me where you've confirmed that this incident happened 24 years ago. This is Shirley Sherrod trying to save her job when her problem is with Vilsack (ph) and the USDA and the NAACP, both which have rebuked her and forced her to leave her position.
KING: I think she has legitimate questions as do we for Secretary Vilsack (ph), the NAACP, the Agriculture Department and perhaps even the Obama White House. But did you reach out to her when you posted this to ask her -- I have this tape. I think it shows what I -- what you believe to be damning conduct or questionable conduct. Did you reach out to her and say what incident are you talking about? When did this happen?
Now, when King starts pressing, Breitbart starts squirming.
After Rand Paul won the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky last night, the folks at CNN had a big laugh over the "optics" of an anti-government spending candidate celebrating his victory from a private country club.
King was the first to bring up Paul's choice of locale: "I can't resist. This might come across as a bit of a cheap shot, but he's the tea party favorite or is he a country club Republican?"
Amid some laughter, panel member Paul Begala scoffed: "It's a cocktail party, not a tea party. It's the worst optics he could have."
But there was something else going on in Bowling Green. When John King first talked to CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin, who was on the ground at the club, the "Bowling Green Country Club" sign was clearly visible behind her. A few minutes later, when CNN switched to Campbell Brown's show, Yellin was back. But the club's name was covered up by a "Rand Paul: U.S. Senate 2010" sign.
Just another Country Clubbing conservative. He also showed no class whatsoever when he refused to take a call from his defeated opponent, Trey Grayson.
After winning Kentucky’s Republican primary Tuesday night, Bowling Green ophthalmologist Rand Paul refused to take the call of congratulations from opponent Trey Grayson, according to Grayson’s campaign manager Nate Hodson.
Hodson did not elaborate, except to say “it happened.” “This is truly a classless act in politics,” said Marc Wilson, a Republican lobbyist and friend of Trey Grayson.
Show some dignity at least in victory. This behavior is very disturbing. What a jerk.
It should be said that Paul appears to have a fairly consistent -- if nativist -- constitutional philosophy: The Constitution grants certain inalienable rights to Americans but not to foreigners. That shouldn't be mistaken for Constitutional fidelity, the Constitution distinguishes between "citizens" and "persons" for a reason, and foreigners charged with crimes in the U.S. have always been given the same due process rights as anyone else, precisely because freedom is as much about what government is allowed to do to you as much as it is about what you are allowed to do. So is Paul better than "most Democratic Senators" or Obama? Outside the PATRIOT Act, he seems to be your average Republican.
That means he's also pretty much your average Democrat, unfortunately. More importantly, though, it takes away his one redeeming value. If he's not good on civil liberties, he's got absolutely nothing going for him. On everything else he is so far off the map that he makes, well, Mitch McConnell, look moderate by comparison. He's a teabagger's dream (and proud to wear the label) but Paul is a progressive's nightmare when it comes to taxing millionaires and regulating business. The worst of all possible worlds in fact. And his views on equal rights are downright stomach churning.
If you support a woman's right to choose then you're out of luck with Rand. Do we really need another Ben Nelson on this issue? The only thing he really has going for him is his father's name. I've heard many bloggers complain about nepotism being used to get elected to Congress and to acquire very sweet jobs on TV. As Scott Horton and Digby point out--rightfully so--that Paul's beliefs fall in line with your basic country club conservative republican, except he'll be more extreme. "Baby" Paul is nothing without Poppa Bear.
(Please click on the graphic to donate to C&L's Fellowship Action Campaign fundraiser)
Somethings never change. Rep. Pete King has a history of spewing ridiculous statements when it comes to war and national security. As TPM puts it:
In recent years, the New York Republican has gained a reputation for demagoguing every terror incident by hyping the threat of radical Islam and suggesting that Democrats' policies are putting Americans' lives at risk. And now he's back at it.
Whenever there's a hint of trouble he's Johnny on the dime to give asinine quotes that the media laps up in his effort to smear anyone who's not a Republican.
After Faisal Shahzad,the suspected NYC bomber failed at his task, it was time to fill air space on cable -- and like clockwork King got himself on the tube to pass along his latest demagoguery. With the case of NYC being only hours old and no tangible information available, good old Pete tried to guess what the motive might be for this violent act. Out of the endless possibilities of what might have triggered the terrorist attack, King decided to hypothesize that "South Park" was a possible target.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that a car bomb found Saturday night in Times Square might have been the work of Islamic extremists who were upset over an episode of the Comedy Central series that attempted to depict the prophet Muhammad. It's one possibility out of 100, but this vehicle was close to a Viacom building, which owns MTV and Comedy Central," King said Sunday during an appearance on CNN. "
CNN's John King found that puzzling as well and asked him if he got a little ahead of himself by naming South Park as a target.
John King: Earlier today you raised some eyebrows when you were trying to figure out who might be responsible for this and you were being careful when you said "might," but you did say one possibility and again, this is one possibility, close to the Viacom building you were saying at the outrage the South Park incidents not that long ago. Was that perhaps getting a little ahead of yourself?
Pete King: No, not really because I know that it is being looked at by investigators as one of the possibilities. Iwas going down the list of possibilities and that is one of them to show again how many things the police and the joint terrorism task force have to look at and that is one of them.
Since the Pathfinder was parked near Viacom, which is home to Comedy Central which hosts South Park, that was all the proof Stark needed to pass it along to the mainstream. Why was he speculating?
King has no problem in a time of crisis and a possible terrorist attack to grab a microphone, and to me it sounds like he's publicizing tactics law enforcement use when dealing with these incidents so that he can make himself appear very, very important and in the know. I would expect a pundit to make this kind of assertion, but for a congressman to offer wild speculation hours after an incident is almost criminal. I repeat, why is he there at all at a time of crisis?
King: Conditions on the ground are different than what you see on television.---As we go through the city of Baghdad, it was like being in Manhattan. I’m talking about bumper to bumper traffic. Talking about shopping centers, talking about restaurants, talking about video stores, talking about guys--on the street corner, talking about major hotels. And so, at that moment, people must be amazingly resilient and you would never know that there was a war going on...
...in Mosul---I remember seeing news reports about roller coasters. Where you had two or three parking lots filled with their cars on a Sunday afternoon. Again, that’s not something you’d see on television, and at any given time a suicide bombers can walk into an amusement center, but the point I’m making is that the situation is more stable than you think....
I wish the media would ignore this fool, but conservatives can never say anything too far out or too far right.
As Bob Menendez explains to John King in the video above, the proposal includes lots of Republican ideas, mostly as a standing invitation to Republicans to actually participate in the process rather than resorting to the reflexive opposition that's come to characterize their behavior in the past year. Whether they will or not is going to be up to them -- though Democrats will be capable of at least proceeding with the debate without them.
And at this point -- considering that it took over a year to pass health-care reform -- that's probably the best Dems can hope for. But there's no doubt it's past time to begin the national discussion. Immigration reform is far from dead.
1. The framework describes a plan to immediately register undocumented immigrants and establishes a temporary immigration status so that they can work legally, pay taxes, travel abroad, and no longer live in fear of deportation. Eligible immigrants and temporary protected status (TPS) holders will be considered for the first step of the legalization program, an interim “Lawful Prospective Immigrant” (LPI) status, as soon as the program is up and running. After eight years, these immigrants can apply for green cards and get on a path to full U.S. citizenship.
5. On family-based immigration: family immigration backlog would be cleared in eight years. Spouses and children of Legal Permanent Residents are moved to “immediate relative” immigration category, reducing their waiting period to enter the U.S. now and in the future
6. Increased labor protections and remedies, as well as a commission to determine future employment-based visa numbers based on labor market needs.
On the other hand, the framework also includes some provisions that many advocates for comprehensive immigration reform are not going to like, particularly in the enforcement sections. Senator Menendez said as much at yesterday’s press conference. Some of the “zero tolerance” language governing future deportation rules raises red flags, given our past experience with immigration laws like those passed in 1996. Legal experts are dissecting the outline now, and we look forward to their review of the detention and deportation provisions in the coming days.
Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.
The proposal is one of the biggest differences between the newest immigration reform proposal and legislation crafted by late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
The national ID program would be titled the Believe System, an acronym for Biometric Enrollment, Locally stored Information and Electronic Verification of Employment.
It would require all workers across the nation to carry a card with a digital encryption key that would have to match work authorization databases.