Asleep at the Wheel, Western Swing, and Route 66
Labels: Music on Saturday
Labels: Music on Saturday
The free daily newspaper Israel Hayom — a media outlet closely associated with right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — asked Romney if, as president, he would ever consider moving the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In his answer, Romney made some astonishing claims. First, that his policy toward Israel will be guided by Israeli leaders; second, on the Jerusalem issue, he'd do whatever Israel tells him to do; and third, he does not think the United States should take a leadership role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
ROMNEY: The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don't seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel's leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I'll be inclined to do. But again, that's a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don't think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.
I don't speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world's getting warmer. I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don't know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you're seeing.
My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us...
I think the EPA, acting in concert with the president, really doesn't like oil, gas, coal, and nuclear... I really do believe that the EPA wants to get its hands on all of energy and be able to crush it to cause prices to go through the roof... [T]he EPA should not be regulating carbon dioxide.
Huntsman continued popular criticism of Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, by accusing him of changing his positions on issues including Libya, the debt ceiling and Ohio's bill to limit the collective bargaining rights of union workers.
"You can't be a perfectly lubricated weather vane on the important issues of the day," Huntsman said. "Romney has been missing in action in terms of showing any kind of leadership."
"I do believe that the electorate this go around will be looking for clearly defined presidential leadership and I'm not sure we're seeing that," Huntsman added.
At no point did Limbaugh address the fact that he had in effect defended a reviled group first listed as terrorists by President George W. Bush.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this wasn't enough to stop the story from spreading. On Monday the Times of London ran an article about a young woman, Evelyn Apoko, who it said had been "horribly mutilated while working as a human 'mule' for the LRA." The paper wrote that the 22 year-old "demanded an apology" from Limbaugh, but that none had so far been forthcoming.
A group representing Ms. Apoko also wrote to TPM with a link to the video where she asked for that apology, while also detailing what she suffered at the hands of the LRA.
Limbaugh has not yet responded to that. You can watch her video below.
I worry that with the best of intentions, that somehow we get engaged in a commitment that we can't get out of. That's happened before in our history and we need an explanation, and I’m very disappointed, again, that the administration has not consulted with members of Congress before taking such action.
Cain has no endorsements from Republican members of Congress or Republican governors, and very few from officials in key early voting states. He has raised very little money. He has not hired well-known names for his campaign staff. He does not have traditional credentials. He has run for elected office just once before. He has begun to get a fair amount of media coverage, but the tenor has been fairly skeptical.
[I]t would be arrogant to say that the man leading the polls two months before Iowa has no chance, especially given that there is a long history in politics and other fields of experts being overconfident when they make predictions.
As Herman Cain's star appears to be declining, there is already media speculation on who will be the next "it flavor" of the 2012 race. Their conclusion: It might be former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) – the only major presidential candidate who hasn't experienced a polling boomlet.
Everything worries me in this environment. Nobody's gotten elected with these kinds of numbers. So, I'm worried about the general election. I profoundly admit that. Again, Romney's just making a technocratic kind of confidence argument, and he's really a windsock kind of guy. If you don't like his position on something, give it a day and he'll change it.
Labels: 2012 presidential election
Question: Part of your 2004 Senate campaign focused on your stance against abortion, something you've struggled in recent days to articulate after an interview with Piers Morgan. What do you need to clarify in that interview?
Answer: I am pro-life from conception. Abortions, no exceptions. That has been my official stance from the beginning. What Piers Morgan was trying to do was to pigeonhole me on, "Well, what if this was your granddaughter?" You know what? If it's my granddaughter? Yes, this is my official position, and it's always been that. If it's my granddaughter? I used the word "choice." And that's where they jumped all over it. A family will make that choice. I was not talking about the whole big issue.
I work three jobs. I own a house. I have a family to support. I am the 53%.
Almost everything we know about wages and prices tells us that the typical household has suffered a Lost Decade for market wages. Just as important, the price of necessities -- such as health care, a college education, a house, and energy to heat your home and run your car engine -- is growing faster than our incomes. [...]
CBO found that in the three decades between 1979 and the beginning of the Great Recession, real household income grew 60 percent overall. But it didn't grow evenly.
Among the poorest fifth of households, income grew 18 percent. For the next three quintiles, it grew just shy of 40 percent. For the richest fifth, it grew 65 percent. And for the top percentile, it grew by a whopping 275 percent, which means it nearly tripled. Bottom line: Income inequality exists.
Inflation for the period Jan. 1980 through Dec. 2007 was 170%, and that staggering figure excludes energy and food (which, if included would add roughly another 40% or so to the figure.)
By the way, those inequalities get worse once you account for taxes paid.
In other words, the 53% still made out better than the 47%, even after you account for the fact that the 47% paid no income taxes!
And the only reason the 53% made out better is because the top 1% made out like bandits.
So I ask again, why?
Why are you working three jobs just to keep up? Why wouldn't you rather work one job at a living wage and have more time to enjoy the finer things that wage provides.
Finer things, like kids, and family time, instead of rushing off to job number two or three.
Why are you angry at the people who have it even worse than you? Why aren't you angry at the people who have sucked up every spare bit of money lying around like a vaccuum cleaner and stuck it in their pockets, rather than provide a decent wage that allows you to work to live, not live to work?
Why aren't you mad as hell and not going to take it anymore?
(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)
Smith: Jeb Bush the other day said, the Republican candidates for president should categorically reject the notion that Barack Obama was not born in America. This came after you expressed doubts about that.. what would you say to him?
Perry: Oh, I don't think I was expressing doubts. I was having some fun with Donald Trump. So I...
Smith: Are you comfortable that he's an American citizen?
Perry: Oh yeah. It's fun to... ya know, lighten up a little bit...
Adam: So you have no doubt he's an American citizen?
Smith: I have no doubt about it.
Think about what transpired: the Republican presidential frontrunner visited with a Republican phone bank to offer support for the Republican campaign to curtail collective bargaining rights. But Romney refuses to take a position on the issue? He's "supportive" of their efforts, but he won't say whether or not he agrees with their efforts?
Putting aside party and ideology, it's hard to shake the realization that Mitt Romney lacks a certain political courage. He's so desperate to calculate how every decision might affect his ambitions that he struggles to remember what he believes, and either ends up cowardly ducking issues or taking both sides of nearly every fight. It can be hard to watch, and even harder to respect.
When the federal income tax was first imposed in 1913, the richest 0.1 percent of households reaped 8.6 percent of the nation’s income. In 2007, as the recession began, the share going to that sliver of megarich Americans was 12.3 percent.
Those numbers suggest that the Occupy Wall Street protesters can make a compelling case when they complain that the economic scales are unfairly tilted toward the wealthy. The megarich hold more of the nation’s wealth and collect more of the overall income today than at any time since right before the Great Depression.
You remember the Great Depression, right? A time of massive famine in the land, of 25% unemployment, people selling moldy apples to try to make a buck to feed a family of four for a week (they needed to sell 20.)
Back then, it was massive dust storms that sent people packing from their homes, the Great Foreclosure by Mother Nature as her home was raped and pillaged by farmers who only knew how to grow, but not conserve. Today, it's foreclosures by banks, who only know how to lose money, not nurture family fortunes.
You say that you pay the taxes that the 47% do not, and to a degree, you have a point. Most of those people earn so little that they are exempt from income taxes, but not Social Security, Medicare, and other payroll taxes. Nor are they exempt from sales taxes, gas taxes (because, you know, they have to get to their shithole jobs that barely keep them afloat,) or any number of myriad ways that governments reach into our pockets without us even thinking twice.
Many of those people earn enough to pay income taxes, but get to take advantage of deductions and credits that society as a whole deem appropriate: dependent care credits, tuition credits, mortgage interest deductions, and so they don't get taxed twice on the same money, state and local income tax deductions.
So it's really disingenuous for you to imply that you resent "paying" their freight when millions of people are struggling with a kid in college and a mortgage and making money in a state that is deprived of a fair return on the money it fronts to the Federal government just so some mega-rich corn farming conglomerate in Kansas-- you know? The 1%?-- can get subsidies for growing what amounts to an almost nutritionally useless junk food.
Yet you defend that corporation, its board and managers, for taking even more out of the nation than the corn subsidy. You want them to be wealthier, and that's a noble cause, to be sure, IF they're going to give back to the community.
Give back not in the form of a cancer wing to the local hospital that amazingly treats precisely the kind of cancer they've just been diagnosed with, but in jobs and infrastructure improvements that can benefit everyone who works the shithole jobs that allow that corporation to make money hand over fist AND THEN grab enough subisidies and credits to offset ALL their tax liabilities.
It's funny how you'll whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine about the 47%ers who take advantage of the "small beer" tax credits and deductions to reduce a four of five figure tax bill, but you won't raise an alarm about the seven-, eight-, and nine-figure tax bills that are *poof* gone with a blow on the magician's hands.
You want to understand what Occupy is about? Get your head out of your ass. It ain't that hard to get.
The manner in which some in the national team conducted themselves towards Team-N.H. was rude, unprofessional, dishonest, and at times cruel.
Team members were repeatedly ignored regarding simple requests, sometimes going weeks with little or no contact from the national team.
Sadly, they were deceived, constantly left out of the loop regarding key decisions, and relegated to second-class citizens within a campaign in which they were the original members.