Gerald Herbert / AP
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks to the traveling press corps after arriving in Atlanta, Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012.
*** And the retool is biographical, policy-based, and anti-Washington: But you also get the sense that Romney’s retool after his losses in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri is going to go well beyond biography. He is now set to deliver an economic speech at Ford Field -- where the Detroit Lions play -- on Feb. 24. You don’t create a setting like that unless you have something new to say. Don’t be surprised if this economic speech is used to make a better sale with conservative voters. And when it comes to attacking his GOP rivals, he’s casting both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum as Washington insiders. But there’s one problem here: If you’re going to criticize your opponents as being DC insiders, you probably don’t want to come to DC -- as Romney is doing today -- and raising money from these same insiders. As the New York Times writes, “The timing of Mr. Romney’s aggressive assault on Washington was hardly ideal. He is scheduled to spend Thursday in the capital, surrounded by lobbyists and other donors who are each asked to raise $10,000 in contributions before attending a policy discussion. His campaign has designated “Industry Finance Chairs” from the energy, defense and financial sectors.” By the way, don’t expect the same “Empire Strikes Back” style of attacks on Santorum and Gingrich going forward as we saw in Florida. The campaign seems to get that, while effective at defeating Gingrich in Florida, it did damage to Romney as well.
*** GOPers and conservatives tell Romney to step it up: This retooling comes as GOP leaders and conservatives are asking Romney to step up his game. Politico's Martin writes, “A day after Romney was convincingly defeated by Rick Santorum in non-binding contests in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri, high-profile Republicans voiced long-simmering worries that the would-be standard-bearer lacks a compelling message for conservatives — and must be bolder to capture the party’s nomination.” (And don’t miss this quote from Sen. Jon Kyl in the piece: “Every time he defends his health care action in Massachusetts and every time he says something like [indexing minimum wage], conservatives wonder whether he has the instincts to usually take the conservative position on issues.) And today, the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page hits Romney’s “inability, or unwillingness, to defend conservative principles. He seems to retreat at the first sound of a liberal moral argument.”
Rick Santorum is trying to capitalize on the momentum from his clean sweep in Tuesday's Republican presidential contests. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.
*** Dems break ranks on the contraception issue: You know where the politics are on this contraception brouhaha -- at least for now -- when Republicans are uniting and when some Democrats are breaking ranks. Tim Kaine, the former DNC chair who’s now running in Virginia’s Senate race and has been searching for a way to show some distance from his former boss, said that he disagreed with the Obama administration’s decision. “I think the White House made a good decision in including a mandate for contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act insurance policy, but I think they made a bad decision in not allowing a broad enough religious- employer exemption.” Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, who’s up for re-election, also opposes the policy. And West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, also up for re-election, called it “un-American” and a “direct affront to the religious freedoms protected under the 1st Amendment,” Politico says. If these Democrats running in tough (or potentially tough) races were looking for a way to create some distance from Obama, they certainly found it.*** Yet polling (for now) shows the issue isn’t as controversial as the noise suggests: That said, supporters of the policy are pointing to polls showing that it isn’t as controversial -- even among Catholics -- as the DC noise machine suggests. A recent Public Religion Research Institute poll found that a majority of Catholics think employers should be required to provide health-care plans covering birth control at no cost. And a Democrat sent First Read a poll conducted by Dem pollster Celinda Lake -- from Aug. 2011 -- showing that 53% of Catholics say that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposition to free birth control in the health-care law makes no difference to them. Also, the Democratic National Committee will hold a conference call at 1:30 pm ET hitting Mitt Romney on this contraception issue with two Massachusetts health-care experts. “Romney is a politically calculating hypocrite, and we're gonna call him out for it tomorrow as a pre-buttal to his appearance at CPAC,” DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse says. Still, the White House is well aware they’ve fumbled the roll-out of this policy, and they know they can’t afford to let this debate linger beyond the weekend. Expect to hear something from them -- perhaps from the president himself -- that indicates they are open to finding compromise to implement this policy. And expect to hear something before the weekend.
*** Obama’s first three years: Here’s a good read today: Jim Fallows’ piece in The Atlantic on the first three years of Obama’s presidency. His conclusion: Obama was unready for the presidency (as almost all new presidents are) and temperamentally unsuited to it in several ways. But he also argues that many of his accomplishments -- as well as how quickly he’s learned on the job and from his mistakes -- has been underappreciated. And Fallows makes another point about the importance of 2012 for Obama: The outcome of the election will determine how his first three years in office will be later viewed. “If a year from now Obama is settling in for a second term, a halo effect will extend back to everything he did during his first four years... Yet if a year from now a just-beaten former President Obama is thinking about his memoirs … the very same combination of missteps and achievements will be viewed as a narrative leading inexorably to defeat.”
Slideshow: Obama's third year in the White House
*** CPAC is back: The three-day Conservative Political Action begins today in DC, and here are some of today’s more notable speeches, NBC’s Adam Perez reports: Jim DeMint (9:25 am ET), Marco Rubio (10:35 am), Mitch McConnell (11:50 am), Michele Bachmann (12:20 pm), Rick Perry (1:20 pm), House Speaker John Boehner (1:35 pm), Herman Cain (4:25 pm), and Paul Ryan (7:30 pm). The current presidential candidates speak tomorrow, and Sarah Palin delivers the keynote on Saturday.
*** On the 2012 trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: It’s a relatively slow day: Santorum stumps in Oklahoma, rallying in Oklahoma City and Tulsa… Romney visits Washington, DC for a reception with VA Gov. Bob McDonnell… And Paul and Gingrich are off the campaign trial.
*** The Chamber goes up with ads: Turning away from the presidential contest, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is beginning a TV ad blitz in 12 House and eight Senate contests. “The goal is to help Republicans win a majority of seats in the Senate while protecting the GOP majority in the House,” the Wall Street Journal writes. The ads are here.
Countdown to Super Tuesday: 26 days
Countdown to Election Day: 271 days
u
These are just a few of the comments, if you want to read more click here
Ron Indiana
The Underlying Issue:
Santorum has won four primaries; Romney has bought two, and Gingrich hoodwinked South Carolina. It seems that the conservatives view Gingrich as too flawed and are beginning to gravitate toward Santorum. Consequently, Romney will now set his sights on Santorum and do all he can to destroy Rick with a plethora of negative ads. That's just how it works in politics; attacking your opponent instead of saying what you believe and stand for. It's no wonder that politicians are right down there with used car salesmen.
But as ugly as the Republican primaries have become, dirty politics is not the underlying issue. The underlying issue is legal. In a 5 to 4 decision the Supreme Court decided in the Citizens United case that corporations can operate like people, set up political action committees (PAC's). and support politicians with complete anonymity. At this point no one knows where the money comes from, with the exception of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson who is bankrolling Newt Gingrich. It has been estimated by Forbes that Mr. Adelson makes about 7 billion dollars a year, which translates to around 3.3 million dollars per hour. So the millions he has donated to the Gingrich campaign is really chicken feed.
Most progressives are disappointed that President Obama has accepted the notion that PAC money is needed to win an election and he too has signed-off on forming a PAC. I don't for a minute believe he wanted to, but under the new campaign rules he also has to dance with the devil (PAC money).
In the very first Presidential election since the Supreme Court ruled on the Citizens United case, we are seeing the consequences of that decision. With unlimited money it is now truly possible to buy an election. Most Americans oppose the Supreme Court ruling and abhor the idea that elections can be bought.
Candidates running for office, Republicans and Democrats alike, need to address our current way of electing our President and Congressmen and women. It is time for election reform that both limits the amount of spending by PACs and reveals the source of their donations.
Santorum has won four primaries; Romney has bought two, and Gingrich hoodwinked South Carolina. It seems that the conservatives view Gingrich as too flawed and are beginning to gravitate toward Santorum. Consequently, Romney will now set his sights on Santorum and do all he can to destroy Rick with a plethora of negative ads. That's just how it works in politics; attacking your opponent instead of saying what you believe and stand for. It's no wonder that politicians are right down there with used car salesmen.
But as ugly as the Republican primaries have become, dirty politics is not the underlying issue. The underlying issue is legal. In a 5 to 4 decision the Supreme Court decided in the Citizens United case that corporations can operate like people, set up political action committees (PAC's). and support politicians with complete anonymity. At this point no one knows where the money comes from, with the exception of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson who is bankrolling Newt Gingrich. It has been estimated by Forbes that Mr. Adelson makes about 7 billion dollars a year, which translates to around 3.3 million dollars per hour. So the millions he has donated to the Gingrich campaign is really chicken feed.
Most progressives are disappointed that President Obama has accepted the notion that PAC money is needed to win an election and he too has signed-off on forming a PAC. I don't for a minute believe he wanted to, but under the new campaign rules he also has to dance with the devil (PAC money).
In the very first Presidential election since the Supreme Court ruled on the Citizens United case, we are seeing the consequences of that decision. With unlimited money it is now truly possible to buy an election. Most Americans oppose the Supreme Court ruling and abhor the idea that elections can be bought.
Candidates running for office, Republicans and Democrats alike, need to address our current way of electing our President and Congressmen and women. It is time for election reform that both limits the amount of spending by PACs and reveals the source of their donations.
- 54 votes
Joe in Albany
Comment collapsed by the community
Gee, listening to lefty liberals that believe in political unicorn fairy tales I got the distinct impression that their Messiah, Barry Obama, was going to transform Washington, not the other way around. The actual truth is that Barry is just another full of sh!t politician looking to keep his hold on power in Washington.
FR lefty liberals repeat after me: As Rick Perry said “Oops”
LMAO!!!!
Excerpts from Politico:
The political transformation of Barack Obama
By: Jim VandeHei
February 9, 2012 04:41 AM EST
There are two indisputable facts about politics.
The first is that every modern president in the fourth year of his presidency resorts to the cheap political stunts, broken promises and truth-fudging it takes to win reelection in what has been and will be a 50-50 nation. The reason is simple: Politics is not clean-living; it’s survival.
The second is that Barack Obama, for all his talk of moving beyond conventional political tricks, is doing just that, which wouldn’t be so glaring had it not been for his incessant call for a newer, cleaner and more transparent paradigm for American politics.
So much for the high road: Victory is more important than purity.
It’s debatable whether Obama is more crudely political than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. But what’s transpired over the past several weeks isn’t debatable: He’s made a series of calculated, overtly political gestures that are far more transactional than transformational.
Here’s just a sample:
Sucking up to Wall Street — again
The president better hope those Occupy Wall Street voters don’t read Bloomberg News. Hans Nichols, who covers Obama for Bloomberg, has a richly reported piece that Obama’s most important advisers are privately pleading with the same Wall Street titans they vilify to help fund their reelection campaign.
A super flip-flop
Obama needs the millionaires in the financial services industry to buy his go-easy-on-you-guys spin because they can cut limitless checks to super PACs.
Super PACSs are the newest way for rich people to influence elections. Obama was vehemently opposed to them, calling them a “threat to our democracy.” That vehemence was heartfelt and consistent — until Monday night, when it wasn’t.
The State of the Union is … very political
No one accuses Obama of playing small ball quite as cynically as Bill Clinton did — no school uniforms this year, thanks. But Obama’s January speech to the country was more like a slam dunk contest than a blueprint for sober governance, with no-miss poll-tested proposals that won’t translate into points on the board unless Democrats win super-majorities in both houses, and even then maybe not.
Jamming the pipeline
Never has Obama more angered an essential part of his political coalition than when he decided last year to punt on stricter ozone regulations — without even alerting Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, until the decision had been made. Environmentalists were apoplectic.
So when it came time last month to pick between environmentalists and supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would move oil and jobs through a key part of the country, Obama had no choice but to go green.
He wanted to punt until after the election, but Republicans forced a decision. Presidents face these political jams all the time. Like it or not, they often choose the path of least political resistance. So Obama did.
The contraception conundrum
The administration’s decision to require Catholic hospitals and universities to provide workers free contraceptive coverage seems on its surface to buck the trend of this story — a principled protection of reproductive rights that risks sparking a culture war with white independents, the critical swing-voter bloc.
But even if you accept the premise that Obama’s original decision was apolitical — and conservatives don’t, accusing him of kowtowing to women’s groups — the president’s advisers are scrambling to defuse an endless stream of attacks from church officials, presidential hopefuls and House Speaker John Boehner, who cast it as an assault on religious liberty.
And that, at the very least, makes the administration appear to be playing politics with a sensitive personal and religious issue.
FR lefty liberals repeat after me: As Rick Perry said “Oops”
LMAO!!!!
Excerpts from Politico:
The political transformation of Barack Obama
By: Jim VandeHei
February 9, 2012 04:41 AM EST
There are two indisputable facts about politics.
The first is that every modern president in the fourth year of his presidency resorts to the cheap political stunts, broken promises and truth-fudging it takes to win reelection in what has been and will be a 50-50 nation. The reason is simple: Politics is not clean-living; it’s survival.
The second is that Barack Obama, for all his talk of moving beyond conventional political tricks, is doing just that, which wouldn’t be so glaring had it not been for his incessant call for a newer, cleaner and more transparent paradigm for American politics.
So much for the high road: Victory is more important than purity.
It’s debatable whether Obama is more crudely political than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. But what’s transpired over the past several weeks isn’t debatable: He’s made a series of calculated, overtly political gestures that are far more transactional than transformational.
Here’s just a sample:
Sucking up to Wall Street — again
The president better hope those Occupy Wall Street voters don’t read Bloomberg News. Hans Nichols, who covers Obama for Bloomberg, has a richly reported piece that Obama’s most important advisers are privately pleading with the same Wall Street titans they vilify to help fund their reelection campaign.
A super flip-flop
Obama needs the millionaires in the financial services industry to buy his go-easy-on-you-guys spin because they can cut limitless checks to super PACs.
Super PACSs are the newest way for rich people to influence elections. Obama was vehemently opposed to them, calling them a “threat to our democracy.” That vehemence was heartfelt and consistent — until Monday night, when it wasn’t.
The State of the Union is … very political
No one accuses Obama of playing small ball quite as cynically as Bill Clinton did — no school uniforms this year, thanks. But Obama’s January speech to the country was more like a slam dunk contest than a blueprint for sober governance, with no-miss poll-tested proposals that won’t translate into points on the board unless Democrats win super-majorities in both houses, and even then maybe not.
Jamming the pipeline
Never has Obama more angered an essential part of his political coalition than when he decided last year to punt on stricter ozone regulations — without even alerting Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, until the decision had been made. Environmentalists were apoplectic.
So when it came time last month to pick between environmentalists and supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would move oil and jobs through a key part of the country, Obama had no choice but to go green.
He wanted to punt until after the election, but Republicans forced a decision. Presidents face these political jams all the time. Like it or not, they often choose the path of least political resistance. So Obama did.
The contraception conundrum
The administration’s decision to require Catholic hospitals and universities to provide workers free contraceptive coverage seems on its surface to buck the trend of this story — a principled protection of reproductive rights that risks sparking a culture war with white independents, the critical swing-voter bloc.
But even if you accept the premise that Obama’s original decision was apolitical — and conservatives don’t, accusing him of kowtowing to women’s groups — the president’s advisers are scrambling to defuse an endless stream of attacks from church officials, presidential hopefuls and House Speaker John Boehner, who cast it as an assault on religious liberty.
And that, at the very least, makes the administration appear to be playing politics with a sensitive personal and religious issue.
- 20 votes
Bill, Fairfax VA
Culture Wars
What was the motivation of California voters who passed Proposition 8 banning gay marriage? Were they being punitive by singling out gays and denying them their "right" to marry? Or were they just giving electoral expression to their belief in the need to honor and preserve the integrity of traditional marriage? The distinction is important because the Ninth Circuit has chosen to rule that folks who expressed their belief in traditional marriage can only have done so based on animus towards others – an unwarranted exercise of bigotry that resulted in taking away "rights" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Said the Court:
"The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry."
If there was ever an example of judicial overreach, this is it. The court decided they knew what was going on in the minds of California voters, and they didn't like what they saw. The court decided voters had targeted a "disfavored group" so they smacked those voters upside the head and told them they are evil people who had done constitutional harm to others. Apparently the court saw fit to ignore any harm experienced by those who take a more traditional view of this issue, a view expressed by a majority of California voters. Indeed, anyone who defends traditional marriage is now on notice that their beliefs –no matter how legitimate the manner of expression – can be interpreted as targeting a "disfavored group" and thereby subject to the intervention of a judiciary that would impose its own values in such matters.
The Ninth Circuit has trampled all over anyone who believes in traditional marriage. In their Alice in Wonderland world, folks who subscribe to the outlandish belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman have actually become the "disfavored group" while the folks who engage in deviant behavior have their unions legitimized under the guise of equality under the law for all citizens. But while "all citizens" includes men and women who practice matrimony the old fashioned way, the majority view of the citizens in California has been found to be less equal than others.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Good grief.
What was the motivation of California voters who passed Proposition 8 banning gay marriage? Were they being punitive by singling out gays and denying them their "right" to marry? Or were they just giving electoral expression to their belief in the need to honor and preserve the integrity of traditional marriage? The distinction is important because the Ninth Circuit has chosen to rule that folks who expressed their belief in traditional marriage can only have done so based on animus towards others – an unwarranted exercise of bigotry that resulted in taking away "rights" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Said the Court:
"The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry."
If there was ever an example of judicial overreach, this is it. The court decided they knew what was going on in the minds of California voters, and they didn't like what they saw. The court decided voters had targeted a "disfavored group" so they smacked those voters upside the head and told them they are evil people who had done constitutional harm to others. Apparently the court saw fit to ignore any harm experienced by those who take a more traditional view of this issue, a view expressed by a majority of California voters. Indeed, anyone who defends traditional marriage is now on notice that their beliefs –no matter how legitimate the manner of expression – can be interpreted as targeting a "disfavored group" and thereby subject to the intervention of a judiciary that would impose its own values in such matters.
The Ninth Circuit has trampled all over anyone who believes in traditional marriage. In their Alice in Wonderland world, folks who subscribe to the outlandish belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman have actually become the "disfavored group" while the folks who engage in deviant behavior have their unions legitimized under the guise of equality under the law for all citizens. But while "all citizens" includes men and women who practice matrimony the old fashioned way, the majority view of the citizens in California has been found to be less equal than others.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Good grief.
- 16 votes
Obama was unready for the presidency
Not true. It was the Republicans and right wing bigots who WEREN'T READY FOR HIM. Same could be said for much of the media and Hillary supporters. They sat there for 3 years boo hooing every single thing he did.
This is a man who was willing to work WITH ANYONE in Congress to get things done. The right aisle refused. And they were all wrong. He continues to prove it every single day.
Someone who stands practically alone and tells the Nation that the Iraq War was the wrong war IS
INDEED READY TO BE PRESIDENT.
He's a leader, not a follower, like most of the media is. They are stenographers to the Republican Party. Just check out most cable programs on any given day.
It's sad. They aren't ready for real journalism. That's the problem in this country. They are afraid to stand up to the GOP and have been for years.
President Obama is changing the course of our Nation, slowly but surely.
The GOP and media weren't ready for it, or him. They are gloom and doom pundits and journalists for the most part. They can't get the concept of our President challenging each other to bigger and better things. To forge ahead into the 21st Century.
The auto industry and Iraq are perfect examples.
btw, men: Stay out of women's private lives as they plan their futures for their families. Okay? We're talking about the law here. There is no room in their lives for religious middle ages bigotry. It has to stop.
************
DailyKos:
The Department of Labor reported this morning that seasonally adjusted first-time claims for unemployment insurance benefits fell to 358,000 for the week ending Feb. 4. That was a drop of 15,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 373,000, and the second-lowest level since April 2008. The 4-week moving average that flattens volatility in the weekly numbers was 366,250, a drop of 11,000 from the previous week's revised average of 377,250.
Not true. It was the Republicans and right wing bigots who WEREN'T READY FOR HIM. Same could be said for much of the media and Hillary supporters. They sat there for 3 years boo hooing every single thing he did.
This is a man who was willing to work WITH ANYONE in Congress to get things done. The right aisle refused. And they were all wrong. He continues to prove it every single day.
Someone who stands practically alone and tells the Nation that the Iraq War was the wrong war IS
INDEED READY TO BE PRESIDENT.
He's a leader, not a follower, like most of the media is. They are stenographers to the Republican Party. Just check out most cable programs on any given day.
It's sad. They aren't ready for real journalism. That's the problem in this country. They are afraid to stand up to the GOP and have been for years.
President Obama is changing the course of our Nation, slowly but surely.
The GOP and media weren't ready for it, or him. They are gloom and doom pundits and journalists for the most part. They can't get the concept of our President challenging each other to bigger and better things. To forge ahead into the 21st Century.
The auto industry and Iraq are perfect examples.
btw, men: Stay out of women's private lives as they plan their futures for their families. Okay? We're talking about the law here. There is no room in their lives for religious middle ages bigotry. It has to stop.
************
DailyKos:
The Department of Labor reported this morning that seasonally adjusted first-time claims for unemployment insurance benefits fell to 358,000 for the week ending Feb. 4. That was a drop of 15,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 373,000, and the second-lowest level since April 2008. The 4-week moving average that flattens volatility in the weekly numbers was 366,250, a drop of 11,000 from the previous week's revised average of 377,250.
- 58 votes
David Walker
#1.19 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:32 AM EST
It didn't take John Boehner very long to break his promise to honor the United States Constitution. It didn't take many of us any longer to realize that it really didn't matter, because Boehner doesn't understand the Constitution anyway; something he has proved once again.
However, he does understand Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and he has dragged out a tried and true tactic in the current tempest in a teapot about the Obama Administration "attack on religion". There is no attack on religion. That's BS, but such lies have fabulous appeal to the RINO's who live in Republoworld. Freedom of religion is not under attack, but that doesn't matter to Boehner. All he needs to do is pull out Alinsky tactic number 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." Republicans love to be victims. They don't just enjoy it, they love it.
So it is, Mr. Boehner promises to fight the forces of evil that threaten the sanctity of the First Amendment. Suddenly, Mr. Boehner has discovered the separation of church and state. He just doesn't understand it.
When President Obama offers that dazzling smile, we remember the promise of hope and change. We forget that he is a politician, and the best one in Washington, D.C. Once again, he has laid waste to the weak minds of the right. Boehner's contention that the Obama Administration's insistence that health insurance include contraception infringes on religion is beyond simple-minded. It is embarrassingly stupid.
However, economic indicators clearly favor the President, and Republicans are now desperate for a diversion. This is it, and it is utterly ridiculous. The "new rule" from the Feds is already a rule in 28 of the 50 states. Boehner and his states' rights friends must have missed that fact. Contraception is a non-issue. Does anyone who is remotely in touch with reality honestly believe Catholics are listening to the Pope on this issue?
This is a labor issue, not a religion issue. Every Catholic is still free to practice his religion EXACTLY as he or she did prior to the Sebelius decision to notify employers about their responsibilities. It's about employers, not clergymen. Indeed, the rule ends Catholic employers' discrimination against their employees of other religions, who are atheists, or non-believers that do not have issues with contraception. No Catholic is obligated to use contraception. There is no attack on faith. There is no attack on religion.
It would certainly be wonderful for the country if Boehner would stop this silly posturing and grandstanding. We have more than enough problems without Boehner and company creating red herrings and straw men.
However, he does understand Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and he has dragged out a tried and true tactic in the current tempest in a teapot about the Obama Administration "attack on religion". There is no attack on religion. That's BS, but such lies have fabulous appeal to the RINO's who live in Republoworld. Freedom of religion is not under attack, but that doesn't matter to Boehner. All he needs to do is pull out Alinsky tactic number 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." Republicans love to be victims. They don't just enjoy it, they love it.
So it is, Mr. Boehner promises to fight the forces of evil that threaten the sanctity of the First Amendment. Suddenly, Mr. Boehner has discovered the separation of church and state. He just doesn't understand it.
When President Obama offers that dazzling smile, we remember the promise of hope and change. We forget that he is a politician, and the best one in Washington, D.C. Once again, he has laid waste to the weak minds of the right. Boehner's contention that the Obama Administration's insistence that health insurance include contraception infringes on religion is beyond simple-minded. It is embarrassingly stupid.
However, economic indicators clearly favor the President, and Republicans are now desperate for a diversion. This is it, and it is utterly ridiculous. The "new rule" from the Feds is already a rule in 28 of the 50 states. Boehner and his states' rights friends must have missed that fact. Contraception is a non-issue. Does anyone who is remotely in touch with reality honestly believe Catholics are listening to the Pope on this issue?
This is a labor issue, not a religion issue. Every Catholic is still free to practice his religion EXACTLY as he or she did prior to the Sebelius decision to notify employers about their responsibilities. It's about employers, not clergymen. Indeed, the rule ends Catholic employers' discrimination against their employees of other religions, who are atheists, or non-believers that do not have issues with contraception. No Catholic is obligated to use contraception. There is no attack on faith. There is no attack on religion.
It would certainly be wonderful for the country if Boehner would stop this silly posturing and grandstanding. We have more than enough problems without Boehner and company creating red herrings and straw men.
- 47 votes
Obama Diary/PM Carpenter:
Appearing on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show last night, the unflappable David Boies, of Bush v. Gore fame, calmly and damn near indifferently explained to his host that there is no — repeat, no — Constitutional, First Amendment issue at stake in the most recent Inquisition into ‘Obamacare’s’ purported tyranny, this time over the Catholic Church’s holy conscience.
To put it idiomatically, this is a no-brainer. Which is also why, of course, culture-warring demagogues like Rick Santorum and suddenly Mitt Romney and virtually half the U.S. House will ride it to absolute exhaustion.
Still, that's what demagogues do. That's what they're expected to do. And who among us cares to fritter much time in blaming lizards for crawling or bats for flapping or black widow spiders for mariticide?
Should we not, however, expect something a bit more honorable from the Church? -- you know, the one worried about its integrity and conscience?
****************
Yes, we should expect something a bit more honorable from the Church. We always sat around talking as kids about the Catholic Church and how the Church liked big families, in order to keep up membership which equals more $$.
They didn't necessarily treat the kids very well who were from these big Catholic families.
Which didn't make a whole lot of sense to us.
Appearing on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show last night, the unflappable David Boies, of Bush v. Gore fame, calmly and damn near indifferently explained to his host that there is no — repeat, no — Constitutional, First Amendment issue at stake in the most recent Inquisition into ‘Obamacare’s’ purported tyranny, this time over the Catholic Church’s holy conscience.
To put it idiomatically, this is a no-brainer. Which is also why, of course, culture-warring demagogues like Rick Santorum and suddenly Mitt Romney and virtually half the U.S. House will ride it to absolute exhaustion.
Still, that's what demagogues do. That's what they're expected to do. And who among us cares to fritter much time in blaming lizards for crawling or bats for flapping or black widow spiders for mariticide?
Should we not, however, expect something a bit more honorable from the Church? -- you know, the one worried about its integrity and conscience?
****************
Yes, we should expect something a bit more honorable from the Church. We always sat around talking as kids about the Catholic Church and how the Church liked big families, in order to keep up membership which equals more $$.
They didn't necessarily treat the kids very well who were from these big Catholic families.
Which didn't make a whole lot of sense to us.
- 25 votes
This is a man who was willing to work WITH ANYONE in Congress to get things done. The right aisle refused. And they were all wrong. He continues to prove it every single day.
_________________________________
More of the same old, same old, lefty liberal wishful thinking from the fantasy world of Planet Liberal. Within a few days of his inauguration Barry was telling those "anyone's he was willing to work with" who was the BOSS:
Politico 01/23/09:
President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.
Barry saying "If you want to sign on to what I have already decided, it's OK with me." is definitely NOT being "willing to work with anyone".
Except on Planet Liberal, where the only religion allowed is Barryism.
Barry was unqualified to be President and he remains unqualified to be re-elected.
_________________________________
More of the same old, same old, lefty liberal wishful thinking from the fantasy world of Planet Liberal. Within a few days of his inauguration Barry was telling those "anyone's he was willing to work with" who was the BOSS:
Politico 01/23/09:
President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.
Barry saying "If you want to sign on to what I have already decided, it's OK with me." is definitely NOT being "willing to work with anyone".
Except on Planet Liberal, where the only religion allowed is Barryism.
Barry was unqualified to be President and he remains unqualified to be re-elected.
- 12 votes
Romney retools his message
Translation: He is finding lies that would look good in front of the people. After putting his foot in his mouth several times, he needs more than a PR person to re-write his speeches. He need a miracle.
His lies are turning to be so ludicrous. They remind me of those soap operas where people are so desperate, they will do anything or said anything, just to get what they want.
Poor Romney. If only he knew that at this point, the more he tries, the worse he looks.He is going to end up looking pathethic.
He should "thank" Donald Trump for the endorsement. I am sure that it went well that a couple of billionaries "reached for each other" in -from all places- Las Vegas.
Morons
Translation: He is finding lies that would look good in front of the people. After putting his foot in his mouth several times, he needs more than a PR person to re-write his speeches. He need a miracle.
His lies are turning to be so ludicrous. They remind me of those soap operas where people are so desperate, they will do anything or said anything, just to get what they want.
Poor Romney. If only he knew that at this point, the more he tries, the worse he looks.He is going to end up looking pathethic.
He should "thank" Donald Trump for the endorsement. I am sure that it went well that a couple of billionaries "reached for each other" in -from all places- Las Vegas.
Morons
- 17 votes
Another Thought is Ramney is a tool.No you're the tool. To simply see the good fortune of Americans returning work as good, or bad, for any Administration just shows how shallow you are. I'll bet you cheered when there was a military setback in Iraq or Afghanistan because it was bad for Bush.
The Labor Department said seasonally adjusted claims dropped by 15,000 to 358,000 in the week ended Feb. 4. That's the second lowest level since April 2008, before the financial crisis that sent the U.S. economy into its worst recession since the Great Depression.
With these numbers, I envision Ramney and all the other Republicans running around as if their hair is on fire saying, "Argggghhhhhhhh... the numbers are good, the numbers are good!! The Spin is just too much!! How do we beat this guy now?!!! Somebody, quick call David Gregory and Chuck Todd and tell them to spin, SPin SPIN!!!!!!!"
Oh this is just too good, good for America and good for the President.
The GOP do not stand a chance and they know it. That's why Jeb, Mitch and Christy did not run.
We stand united behind the President hell or high water.
I am happy for the rise in people working (although there are still more people out of work than 5 years ago), because it's good for them, good for the country and at the end of the day good for me.
But you can stay in your sick little world and see everything through the prism of Obama.
- 8 votes
No comments:
Post a Comment