PoliticsPresident Barack Obama

Previous 10 Next 10 
From: Bread Upon The Water1/10/2012 11:12:04 AM
   of 149288
Stanford Law Professor states Obama's recent "recess" (?) appointments are unconstitutional and that Obama's acts continue the practice of governing by regulation that started in the Bush administration.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (107201)1/10/2012 11:42:21 AM
From: Road Walker
   of 149288
What does BWDIK mean.

"But what do I know".

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Road Walker who wrote (107193)1/10/2012 11:51:19 AM
From: koan
   of 149288
I strongly disagree that government is inept. I worked for state government in pretty high positions and budget positions, off and on, for 25 years. I never saw any appreciable waste and the little waste I could find was more than compensated for by people working more than they were paid for.

I think you got it right when you said people want social services and don't want to pay for them.

As well, there has been a huge propanda machine by the right wing over the years using government as the whipping boy to win elections and!; to keep peoples eye off the theft the corporations were engaged in.

Look at what bush did with 9/11!

I hear it all the time, big government is a huge danger. No, big corporations are the huge danger.

The average right winger has little idea of how our society really works and where the dangers are, and so just parrot what FOX news and Republican's tell them is the truth.

We have a problem of ignorance, not government. And last, Americans will not vote in the best and the brightest. Nixon/Mcgovern, Raygun/Carter/Bush's!

Harding, Coolidge and Hoover!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Road Walker who wrote (107204)1/10/2012 11:58:27 AM
From: koan
   of 149288
My response to a conservative. of 6703 Conservative <<The only liberals were the handful of Marxists. They were mostly in the academia not politicians. The Liberal movement was started much later. Lincoln was no liberal.>>

You are misunderstanding liberal. A liberal is perfectly described by any simple dictionary definition. It is a state of mind:

lib·er·al /'l?b ?r ?l, 'l?b r?l/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uh l, lib-ruh l] Show IPA

favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: manalagi who wrote (107194)1/10/2012 12:31:41 PM
From: tejek
   of 149288
Now that Todd Palin has endorsed Newt Gingrich

Will Mitt Romney got an endorsement from Joe the Plumber?

That was odd coming from T. Palin. Is he upset his 15 minutes are up?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: bentway1/10/2012 12:54:11 PM
   of 149288
The 20 Biggest Donors of the 2012 Election (So Far)

The casino mogul betting $5 million on Newt Gingrich, Wall Streeters investing in Mitt Romney, Obama's Hollywood pal, and the other 1 percenters trying to sway the race.

( Who's buying the country? )

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (107195)1/10/2012 12:59:39 PM
From: tejek
   of 149288
The video clip is well worth watching.

Quite a field

Reader F.B. flagged an interesting exchange on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” yesterday in which Joe Scarborough passed along assessments of the Republican presidential field from veteran political journalists. Here’s the clip:

[watch clip]

Folks who’ve been covering politics for 40 years told Scarborough, “‘This is the worst field.’ …This is the weakest field they’ve seen, by far. Not even a close second.” Mike Barnicle added, “It used to be up here, there was a libertarian candidate, Lyndon LaRouche and you’d cover him for comic relief…. Now you can cover almost the entire Republican field for comic relief.”

That’s cruel, but it’s not inaccurate.

GOP voters have noticed, too. A new CBS News poll found that only 37% of self-identified Republicans are satisfied with their current choices — and the number of Republicans who want more choices is going up, not down, as the process continues to unfold.

You’d expect to see the opposite at this point, as GOP voters get a better look at their presidential field. But as it turns out, the more Republicans learn about their choices, the more they’d like to support someone else.

And that’s just the rank and file. Among the prominent party voices, Ross Douthat called this “the weakest presidential field of any major party in a generation”; Bill Kristol has invested quite a bit of time urging late-entrants to get into the race; and Fred Barnes put it this way last week: “Would Romney be odds-on to win the nomination if Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie or Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush were in the race? Not likely.”

All of these assessments are quite persuasive. At times, it’s tough to watch the race for the Republican nomination and not think, “Wow, these are some really awful candidates.”

Last month, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was in the lead. Not too long before that, Herman Cain was taken seriously as a candidate for national office. Over the summer, Michele Bachmann — Michele Bachmann — appeared to be a top-tier challenger.

The 2012 presidential race was one many Republicans expected to win fairly easily, creating a unique opportunity for those with national ambitions, and yet, the party is left with a field that can generously be described as “ mediocrities.”

I have to wonder whether some of those who considered the race but decided not to pull the trigger are kicking themselves at this point.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (107195)1/10/2012 1:03:16 PM
From: tejek
   of 149288
The thing about Romney is that he should have it all........he's rich, successful, and right out of Central Casting. However, you listen to one of the guy's speeches and within minutes you begin to dislike him...........not because of the content of his speech but because of his presentation. He's not someone I could trust........Huntsman yes, Romney no. And so who are Rs going for............Romney of course.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: koan who wrote (107205)1/10/2012 1:45:31 PM
From: Road Walker
   of 149288
I strongly disagree that government is inept.

Me too. Some of the most honest, competent and hard working people I know work in government. When someone in the private sector makes a mistake, they get a scolding, maybe if it's a bad mistake fired. When someone in government makes a mistake, they make the papers.

I've often thought that there might be too much over site of government employees. It so punishes risk taking that they do spend too much time weighing decisions.

But i thought you might be interested in Brooks take on things.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

From: tejek1/10/2012 2:14:52 PM
   of 149288
Taking a sledgehammer to the foundation

Mitt Romney has run into quite a bit of scrutiny lately, most notably about his background as it relates to jobs.

He said there have been times he worried about getting fired, and that wasn’t true. He said he “ likes being able to fire people,” and that became a big headache. He’s being haunted by many of his unemployed victims. Romney’s also made all kinds of claims about President Obama’s jobs record, all of which have been debunked.

But the one claim that really matters is Romney’s insistence that he deserves credit for creating “over 100,000 jobs” at his private-equity firm.

The Romney campaign initially refused to substantiate the claim, which is never a good sign. Then it said the number is accurate just so long as one excludes all of the layoffs Romney’s firm made, and includes jobs created after he left the firm. Then Romney himself said the figure is a net total, after the layoffs are factored in.

Glenn Kessler returns to the subject today, and his assessment is less than kind.

Romney never could have raised money from investors if the prospectus seeking $1-million investments from the super wealthy had said it would focus on creating jobs. Instead, it said: “The objective of the fund is to achieve an annual rate of return on invested capital in excess of the returns generated by conventional investments in the public equity market and the private equity market.” Indeed, the prospectus never mentions “jobs,” “job,” or “employees.”

Second, it has become increasingly hard to understand how Romney’s personal involvement played a role in creating these jobs, especially years later. He clearly is adding up all the jobs now at the companies that are thriving, arguing these numbers far outweigh the job losses at companies that failed. But as the Wall Street Journal reported Monday, the failure rate one can attribute to Bain Capital changes significantly if one counts five years from an investment or eight years from an investment.

Bain, in fact, rejected the Journal’s analysis, saying it “uses a fundamentally flawed methodology that unfairly assigns responsibility to us for many events that occurred in companies when we did not own or control them, and disregards dozens of successful venture capital investments.”

In other words, Bain appears to be rejecting a central premise of Romney’s calculation — that years after the investment ended, one can attribute either good news or bad news about the company to Bain’s involvement.

Kessler’s analysis concludes no part of Romney’s claim is credible or supported by evidence, and that much of the candidate’s argument fails to “pass the laugh test.”

This is no small revelation. As Jonathan Cohn put it, “The linchpin of Romney’s most powerful argument has turned out to be bogus.”

That’s not an exaggeration in the slightest — this analysis is taking a sledgehammer to the foundation of the Republican frontrunner’s entire campaign. Romney’s message can be summarized in one sentence: “I’m a successful businessman with a track record of creating jobs.” Romney doesn’t like to talk about health care (his plan was mirrored by the president); he doesn’t like to talk about his gubernatorial record (he failed miserably to create jobs); and he doesn’t like to talk about social issues (he was a liberal on these issues up until quite recently). The raison d’etre for Romney’s effort comes down to his private-sector record and the “over 100,000 jobs” he created.

And that talking point has been debunked, leaving Romney with no credibility on his campaign’s top issue.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.