IntoxiNation

Conservatives Just Love Wasting Our Tax Dollars

jamie — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:13:38 +0000

One of the darlings of conservatives is up in arms over saving money:

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) fired up the crowd at Thursday's Conservative Political Action Conference with red-meat rhetoric the right loves to hear.

The five-term lawmaker, who faces a tough reelection bid this fall, accused President Obama and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) of forcing top-down priorities on Americans.

"I want my liberty back," King declared Thursday, earning strong applause from the crowd.

King compared the Capitol Hill janitors who replaced the lightbulbs in his office with lower-energy bulbs to the East German communist secret police, describing them as "Nancy [Pelosi]'s Stasi troops," and complained of a water-saving showerhead in his shower.

So doing things that will save the government money is the equivalent to being a Nazi? If you think conservatives really are what they say, you are sadly mistaken. That's why the GOP is in such disarray today. No one knows what they really stand for!

Tags:

cpac,

steve king,

lower-energy bulbs

Those Crazy Kids!

jamie — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:12:27 +0000

News

They just do the darndest things:

The son of U.S. Representative Steve Chabot is charged with breaking and entering and making a false alarm. Brandon "Randy" Chabot is a student at Miami University.

Oxford Police tell Local 12 News they found the 22-year-old at 2:05 a.m. Sunday morning outside the McCullough Hyde Annex building on Morningside Road. They arrived at the building after a fire alarm had sounded.

When they questioned Chabot police say he appeared highly intoxicated and gave off a strong odor of alcohol. They say Chabot falsely claimed he worked in the building.

Since Chabot is a Republican I'm sure we'll hear how the children of politicians is off limits.

Tags:

miami university,

steve chabot

The Republican Dilemma: 4 More Years or 8 Years

jamie — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:00:30 +0000

Elections 2012

With 64 seconds to go and the NY Giants 5 yards from scoring and only down by two, Patriots coach Bill Belichick made a rare and very strategic decision - he let the Giants score. That gave him the time he needed to hopefully come back and win the game, instead of the Giants being able to run down the clock.

That was one of the most technical coaching decisions we have ever seen in football and one that can translate to this year's presidential race.

With less that 9 months to go and facing a decision of eight years of Mitt Romney or four more years of Barack Obama, how do Republican voters go? This poll may shed some light on that:

The latest WND/Wenzel Poll shows none of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates has solidified the base of the party, with one in five GOP voters leaning toward support of Obama in November.

First off, that poll is from World Net Daily, so I'm sure it won't get a lot of trust, but it does echo something I have thought about for the past few months and even blogged about before. Republicans are not enthused about their candidates - at all! They really wanted to see Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels get in. When it comes to Romney, many would rather have anyone else but him. So do we want to be stuck with one of these guys for eight years or take a loss of four years, put President Obama back in office, and take the time to regroup and get a stronger candidate to run in 2016?

But like Belichick's decision, there is a big risk here.

By 2016 we could see the economy make a pretty big turn around. Unemployment could easily be back down to the 5% mark and the GDP going up. Likewise we could see the deficit shrinking and the budget under control. In other words, it could be a repeat of the 90's all over again. If that's the case, would a Republican win in 2016 or would the American people trust a Democrat more to keep the ball rolling?

If history repeats itself then we would see a Republican win. Bill Clinton inherited a horrible economy from George H.W. Bush and ended up turning it around. By the time he left office the economy was doing great, save the dot com bubble burst. The people then elected George W. Bush President. Of course Bush didn't win by a landslide as we all know.

One of the rumored Democrats to run in 2016 is Joe Biden. Sure he will be 72 at the time, but that's only a year older than Mitch Daniels would be in 2020. Joe Biden is also highly liked by a bunch of people on both sides of the aisle. He fills that "I would like to have a beer with that guy" persona that helped Bush win. Biden's biggest obstacle would be getting past the nomination process. If he did that and made it to the general, I could easily see him besting Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush.

So the clock is running down and Republicans are facing an increasingly hard choice. Four more years of Obama or eight years until they can get someone they really want. I think I would take a Belichick risk and go with the four more years.

Tags:

republican party,

bill clinton,

Bill Belichick,

joe biden,

barack obama,

George H.W. Bush,

George W. Bush,

Politics,

mitt romney

Is Obama "Embracing" Super PACs?

jamie — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:37:19 +0000

Elections 2012

EMBRACE:

to take or receive gladly or eagerly; accept willingly: to embrace an idea.

That seems to be the word the GOP is using to describe President Obama's decision to accept Super PAC funds. Here are some examples:

Videos of Obama condemning Super PACs…which he now embraces (PJ Tatler)

Obama Embraces Citizens United: “Special Interest” Money to Bankroll Campaign (Verum Serum)

Obama embraces the super PAC (Politico)

But is Obama really "embracing" the super PACs, or is he rather trying to level the playing field? Here's what Jim Messina, Obama's campaign manager, writes about the decision:

The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.

But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands.

Over the last few months, Super PACs affiliated with Republican presidential candidates have spent more than $40 million on television and radio, almost all of it for negative ads.

This decision came out yesterday after the Koch brothers said they would dump up to $500 million to defeat Obama. Big money is what this election cycle is all about and for Obama to fight back, he needs to fight fire with fire; not embrace it, but out of necessity.

Of course the super PAC fight hasn't been just between Democrats and Republicans. We have seen the same arguments break out in the GOP primary. Romney accuses Gingrich of using super PAC money to attack him, while denouncing the unlimited funds. In turn Gingrich does the same thing.

The point is that unlimited money in campaigns is WRONG. We are now taking the decision away from the people through the process that has governed this country for centuries and are now highly skewing it. It's time to get the money out of politics and the best way to do that is going to 100% publicly funded campaigns. Let the candidates make their case, not corporate/big money interests.

Tags:

jim messina,

newt gingrich,

barack obama,

super pacs,

campaign finance

Ignoring The Threats At Home

jamie — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:51:24 +0000

National Security

Since Barack Obama took the oath of office there has been a rise of anti-government extremists. It seems like we hear about some new group being arrested every couple of weeks. Now the FBI is warning about this growing threat:

Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States, the FBI warned on Monday.

These extremists, sometimes known as "sovereign citizens," believe they can live outside any type of government authority, FBI agents said at a news conference.

The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.

Routine encounters with police can turn violent "at the drop of a hat," said Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI's counterterrorism division.

But the right seems to want to dismiss this threat. Here's how Drudge is pushing the headline right now:

Notice how he puts quotes around extremists, as to signify that that really isn't the meaning?

This has been an ongoing battle from the right. It started in 2009 when DHS issued a report on the rise of right-wing extremism. The GOP was up in arms over it and fought back until the report was pulled. Over at Crooks and Liars, Dave Niewert has been vigilant on tackling the issue. Matt Osbourne even did a video mashup of these stories:

The threat we are facing from our own people is very real and very dangerous, yet we have people in our country who want you to believe no such threat has ever or will ever exist. They forget about people like Timothy McVeigh and Scott Roeder. Instead of turning down the anti-government rhetoric, they amplify it and don't consider the fact that there are people out there who take the ideas very seriously, to the point of committing such crimes.

Perhaps we are getting to a point where the mouthpieces, who promote such hatred towards our government, start being held responsible. Of course that could have a serious backlash as it becomes a freedom of speech issue. So the best way to combat these loons is for the mouthpieces of the right to start denouncing the actions and fess up to their involvement in promoting it, even if it was innocently.

Or maybe these mouthpieces are just hoping one of these people are successful and then they can say it makes President Obama weak on terrorism?

We are one nut away from another Oklahoma City bombing and that scares the hell out of me. None of us are safe, yet so many of us ignore the fact that the rhetoric we listen to and amplify is fueling the next domestic terrorist attack. Wake up America and demand our leaders and talkers return a level of civility in our national dialog. America is better than that and it's time to prove it.

Tags:

Oklahoma City,

federal bureau of investigation,

timothy mcveigh,

Scott Roeder,

barack obama,

Dave Niewert,

Matt Osbourne,

Domestic terrorist,

right wing extremists,

Right Wing Violence

Rep. John Fleming (R-Duhhhhh) Pans The Onion As News

jamie — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:27:34 +0000

Politics

Did you hear about that $8 billion "abortionplex" Planned Parenthood is opening? Well Congressman John Fleming (R-La) sure did and he even went to Facebook to complain about it:

But apparently the rock Fleming already lives under doesn't realize that The Onion is a satire site. Here's the original article:

Planned Parenthood announced Tuesday the grand opening of its long-planned $8 billion Abortionplex, a sprawling abortion facility that will allow the organization to terminate unborn lives with an efficiency never before thought possible.

During a press conference, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards told reporters that the new state-of-the-art fetus-killing facility located in the nation's heartland offers quick, easy, in-and-out abortions to all women, and represents a bold reinvention of the group's long-standing mission and values.

You can read the rest of it here. What really amazes me is that if Fleming was so pro-life then why wouldn't he of heard about this "long planned" huge complex going only a couple of states away? Perhaps that should have been indicator number one. Of course realizing indicators INDICATES thinking, and we are talking about a Republican here. Nuff' said.

Tags:

john fleming,

planned parenthood,

satire site,

The Onion

Gingrich: Forget Who I Was

jamie — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:24:02 +0000

Elections 2012

Typical Republican BS:

As recently as last week, Newt Gingrich's communications director has been criticized by editors on Wikipedia for dozens of edits he has made and requested in defense of his candidate.

While some of the changes were minor, Joe DeSantis has removed or asked to remove factual references to Gingrich's three marriages as well as mentions of ethics charges brought against him while he served as speaker of the House. These efforts continued as recently as Monday.

Wikipedia records show DeSantis has made over 60 adjustments to entries in the online, publicly-edited encyclopedia to the biographical entry on Gingrich, the similar page on his wife, Callista, and a separate page on one of their books, Rediscovering Good in America.

Wikipedia is getting fed up with it too:

DeSantis has actively lobbied for changes to the articles since mid-December in a discussion forum called "Talk" on the site, and previously from May to June of last year, though his most recent direct edit to the site was in June of 2011.

Last Tuesday, DeSantis drew the ire of an editor on the site.

"I'll raise the question in the appropriate place, but I have to say this micro-managing by a Gingrich campaign director is a matter of concern to me even though you now are identifying yourself. Pointing out factual errors is one thing, but your input should not go beyond that, even here on Talk," the editor known as Tvoz, wrote on a page devoted discussing possible edits.

Maybe after Newt builds our moon base and sends people to inhabit it, he can then work on the mind erasing beam and wipe the memories of what a horrible person he really is from everyone. Just maybe...

Tags:

Joe DeSantis,

newt gingrich

The Republican Plan Backwards

jamie — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:43:55 +0000

Politics

John Boehner is here, in his district today, to unveil the Republican jobs plan:

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-West Chester Twp., will talk at ThyssenKrupp Bilstein of America Inc. on Monday about the U.S. House Republicans’ jobs plan.

This is the second time a major Republican politician has promoted their jobs plans at ThyssenKrupp, a manufacturer of shock absorbers for automobiles. Ohio Gov. John Kasich visited the plant in June to promote JobsOhio, the nonprofit agency formed in 2011 responsible for the state’s job creation efforts.

While it's great that ThyssenKrupp is doing well, this area is still bleeding jobs at a record pace:

The news also came Friday that the Liz Claiborne distribution facility in West Chester Twp. will close Sept. 1, affecting 365 jobs.

The mass layoff notice is the fourth released for Butler County in 2012 by Ohio Department of Job and Family Services’ Office of Workforce Development. Job losses announced this year total 548 between Diversapack of Monroe, Liz Claiborne and Schneider Logistics Inc. of West Chester Twp.

Xanterra Parks & Resorts said last month it lost its contract to manage Hueston Woods Lodge in College Corner, but the 93 employees were offered their jobs with the new manager.

Mohawk Fine Papers of Hamilton closed in January, cutting another 137 jobs. SMART Papers of Hamilton will have cut more than 200 jobs if it closes this month. Pella Corp. of Fairfield also said in 2010 it would eliminate 198 jobs when it closes in 2012, but 40 jobs have already been shed by the company through attrition.

Then we got the typical plan of the GOP:

The House Republican Plan for America’s Job Creators proposes easing regulatory burden; reform of the tax code; passing pending free trade agreements; modernizing and improving the patent system; review of the visa system; reauthorizing U.S. FDA programs; modernizing domestic energy production; and paying down the country’s debt burden, according to the plan online at www.gop.gov.

But what's really interesting about this is that on the same day as Boehner's visit and in the same newspaper promoting it, we learn that these regulations actually create jobs:

New fuel-economy standards mandated by the Obama administration last summer could create more than 23,000 jobs in Ohio over the next decade, according to a recent report from Ceres, a nonprofit group that studies “sustainability” issues.

The government’s new Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards, known as CAFE, would require automakers to raise the minimum average fuel economy of the cars they sell in the U.S. to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The current standard is 27.5 miles per gallon.

Advocates say the push to improve fuel economy will spur hiring at auto plants and suppliers of fuel-saving technologies while at the same time slashing fuel costs for businesses and consumers.

So Boehner is actually pushing a plan that could end up costing his state 23,000 jobs, while celebrating less than 200 jobs in the area.

Now doesn't that sound like the most awesome plan you have ever heard of?

Tags:

ThyssenKrupp Bilstein of America Inc.,

layoffs,

Liz Claiborne,

butler county,

john boehner,

employment

Stop The Government Handouts!

jamie — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:14:58 +0000

National Security

Ever since President Obama announced plans to cut defense spending the right has been up in arms, accusing him of "gutting the military". Sadly though the Republicans aren't the only ones upset over it:

Panetta said the U.S. Army would still have about 37,000 soldiers in Europe even after it withdraws two of its four combat brigades - about 7,000 soldiers - as part of efforts to cut $487 billion from the defense budget over the next decade.

"Our military footprint in Europe will remain larger than in any other region of the world," Panetta told a Munich security conference.

"That's not only because the peace and prosperity of Europe is critically important to the United States, but because Europe remains our security partner of choice for military operations and diplomacy around the world. We saw that in Libya last year, and we see it in Afghanistan every day," he said.

We constantly hear politicians talk about the "runaway spending" in Washington and our growing national debt. They want to do things like cut spending on infrastructure, education and health. While all three of those things have a direct influence on our national security, Republicans constantly argue against cutting spending on defense.

Our defense spending is already the biggest part of our budget and we spend more on it than rest of the world combined. We usually get presidents trying to cut defense spending, even Republican ones, but as soon as lawmakers take up the issue pork projects take precedence and the spending ends up going up.

But we do have a budget problem and huge deficits. That means that the United States can no longer afford to be the police of the world. It's time for other nation's to worry about their own security and we start eliminating all the stationed troops around the world. It's time to scrap wasteful military programs, like the F35 fighter jet.

If we want to be serious about getting our fiscal house in order then we need to stop spending so much on our defense - period. Sadly though the GOP will refuse to hear any such thing and our defense spending will continue to skyrocket while our future soldiers are less educated, fatter and won't even have decent roads to travel on to get to their bases. That is the very sad state of our union and one that must be addressed.

Tags:

F35,

military budget,

leon panetta,

barack obama

Unemployment Now At 8.3%

jamie — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:22:49 +0000

Economy

Some good news on the jobs front:

The United States economy gained momentum in January, adding 243,000 jobs, the second straight month of better-than-expected gains.

The unemployment rate fell to 8.3 percent, giving a cause for optimism as the economy shapes up as the central issue in the presidential election. The Labor Department’s monthly snapshot of the jobs market uses a different survey, of households rather than employers, to calculate the unemployment rate.

It still has a ways to go, but it is going in the right direction. If this trend continues we could see it back in the 7% range by summer. That would be a really great boost to help President Obama.

Tags:

department of labor,

unemployment,

barack obama

Obama Looking Good In The Buckeye State

jamie — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:25:15 +0000

Elections 2012

Here in Ohio, one of the key battleground states, Obama is looking pretty good right now:

President Obama leads all 4 remaining Republican challengers in Ohio among general election voters. He leads Mitt Romney by 7 points (49-42), Newt Gingrich by 12 (51-39), Ron Paul by 10 (48-38), and Rick Santorum performs best, trailing Obama by 6 points (48-42).

Obama’s job approval rating stands at 48% approval and 48% disapproval, an improvement from 41-49 the last time PPP polled Ohio in November. By contrast, the Republican field’s collective favorability rating appears to be suffering from the negative turn the primary contests have taken in the last several weeks. All Republican candidates have net negative favorability ratings, some of them quite large – Newt Gingrich is at 25-59, Ron Paul is at 27-57, Romney’s at 28-56, and Santorum again performs best at 35-48.

Ohio isn't the only place Obama is looking good. Even nationally he has been up and the right leaning Rasmussen just gave him a +4 advantage this week nationally over Romney and even a bigger lead over Gingrich:

In potential Election 2012 matchups, it’s President Obama 47% and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 43%. However, if former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee, the president holds a double-digit lead, 50% to 38% (see tracking history)

If you look at a longer range of polling, such as this from RCP, you can see definite momentum for Obama:

While the President currently only holds a +2.2 RCP average, the biggest momentum has come in the past couple of weeks, which also coincides with the increased negativity taking place in the GOP primary battle. If you only look at the past two weeks, Obama now has a +3.4 advantage. That explains why GOP insiders are starting to get really nervous:

Ed Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman and leading GOP strategist, said: “I do think there is concern amongst a lot of Republicans that the nature of this debate has become counterproductive. I don’t think it’s something that won’t be overcome, but I’d say there’s frustration that [the campaign] is not more focused on the issues.”

Even Sarah Palin, who has been a vocal advocate for a long race, decried the tone Tuesday night.

“It diminishes the energy headed into the general,” Palin said on Fox, describing a “process that hasn’t been attractive to the electorate.”

With Obama looking stronger in Ohio and more than a month to go before Super Tuesday, when battleground states Ohio and Virginia hold their primaries, Obama stands a chance to grow even stronger. Newt's speech last night indicated that he plans to continue the attacks and maybe even get more vicious. This will all help Obama out in the long run. Knowing that, I bet some of the GOP elders are pushing Newt to either calm down or drop out right now. I would sure love to be a fly on the wall for those conversations.

Tags:

Super Tuesday,

republican party,

mitt romney,

newt gingrich,

Ohio,

primary contests,

their primaries,

ed gillespie,

barack obama

Florida Exit Polls Shows Newt's Problem

jamie — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:44:15 +0000

Elections 2012

With Mitt Romney enjoying a huge win in Florida last night it's time to look at the exit polls. The very first question is the one that pops out to me:

Mitt Romney has almost double the support from women as does Newt Gingrich. That's a rather large split and one that really spells problems for the Gingrich brand.

It can be safely assumed that Gingrich's past marriages and the nasty way in which they ended plays a big part in this outcome. That's what really hurts Newt's overall electability problem. If he somehow does get the nomination, Newt risks alienating an important part of the electorate because of his past indiscretions. In an election that is going to go down to the wire, that is a breaking point for the GOP.

Next we have another issue that the media doesn't seem to be paying attention too - the Tea Party influence.

62% of Romney voters somewhat oppose the Tea Party as compared to 17% of Newt's. This is one that really, really jumps out at me.

The Tea Party has made it clear they want to see Gingrich win the nomination, yet Romney won huge yesterday. It really shows that the influence of the Tea Party is in serious decline. This is also a trend we have been seeing more and more.

Given the Tea Party's influence in the 2010 election and their lack of influence in the primaries this year, it appears that America's nightmare may be coming to an end. Ironically the media, who helped push the Tea Party into our everyday lives, has been mostly silent on this. In the first presidential election since the movement started, we are seeing their influence almost non-existent. My guess is that if Barack Obama wins in November we might see a small rise by the Tea Party, but that will end up being short lived and the GOP will quickly start working on a strong candidate for 2016.

The biggest outcome of yesterday though was Mitt's win. Given the upcoming primaries and caucuses, I think it's safe to say Gingrich has going to have a very bad February. At this point it's pretty safe to say that Mitt Romney will become the nominee and that this primary season is essentially over.

Even with that, we still got February to get through and Gingrich is getting nastier by the day. He might end up being Obama's best surrogate this election cycle and that's really going to hurt his standing with the GOP in the future.

Tags:

mitt romney,

republican party,

tea party,

newt gingrich,

Florida,

the primaries

Is Trump Going To Jump In?

jamie — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:41:00 +0000

Elections 2012

More signs pointing to a 3rd party run by Donald Trump:

Donald Trump’s top political adviser told ABC News he’s speaking to “high-level political operatives” to explore a third-party presidential bid on behalf of the real estate mogul, in a sign that Trump may not quite be done with the 2012 presidential race just yet.

“I can confirm that over the past two weeks I have spoken with many high-level political operatives, campaign managers, finance directors — some of whom I have spoken to in the past. Most are new people from all over the country,” said Michael Cohen, executive vice president at the Trump Organization and special counsel to the reality-TV star.

“Until the time Mr. Trump decides to either endorse a candidate or run himself, I am exploring on his behalf the possibilities of ensuring Mr. Trump appears on the ballot in all states, and to develop a team of professionals who could ensure a potential victory,” Cohen added.

A Trump run will devastate the GOP's chances at regaining the White House. They will experience what the Democrats have felt with Nader. Here's hoping he does it!

Tags:

donald trump,

republican party,

abc news,

presidential race

GOP Continues To Sour On Their Choices

jamie — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:38:30 +0000

Elections 2012

The biggest problem facing the GOP this year is the increasing dissatisfaction their electorate has over the choices to take on President Obama. At a time when that dissatisfaction should be calming, the opposite is true:

Republicans evaluating the field of potential GOP presidential nominees are increasingly negative about the current slate of candidates, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center.

Fifty-two percent of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters said the GOP field was "fair or poor," an eight percentage-point increase since the question was asked in early January.

Likewise, the number of Republicans who had positive feelings about the candidates dropped. Forty-six percent rated the current field of four candidates "excellent or good," a drop from the 51% who had that response in January. The GOP field has undergone substantial change since then, with former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Texas Gov. Rick Perry dropping out of the contest.

Monday's poll from Pew, which was conducted in partnership with the Washington Post, is the first time since this election cycle the negative response from voters outweighed the positive. Pew began asking the question in May 2011.

This number will easily translate to a lower voter turnout in November and that means the GOP's chance of claiming the White House will evaporate. The fact that the Republican Party could not find a viable candidate to energize the base against Barack Obama in this economy really shows a more serious problem facing the party.

Tags:

pew research center,

republican party,

barack obama,

opposition research

More Proof Of Newt's Love Of Mandates

jamie — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:06:26 +0000

Elections 2012

New audio has surfaced from 2009 of Newt Gingrich embracing health insurance mandates. The key takeaway:

The real foundation, the most important, uh, part of this is individual rights, responsibilities, and expectation of behavior.

Uh, we believe that there should be must-carry, that everyone should have health insurance, or if you’re absolute, uh, libertarian we would allow you to post a bond. But we would not allow people to, uh, be free riders failing to ensure themselves and then showing up in the emergency room, uh, with no means of payment. Uh, if you have, uh, must carry, then the insurance companies have told us that we can have must-issue and you will therefore have a system in which you don’t have to worry about cherry picking and maneuvering. As we move beyond today’s press conference, this is kind of general model we’re going to be advocating…

And you can even hear it for yourself:

As the blog Verum Serum points out:

But the real news here I think is that this clip really should dispel once and for all any questions over Gingrich’s support for a national health insurance mandate. Somewhat strangely he’s never really denied supporting the mandate, and in fact as late as May of last year reiterated essentially the same position on Meet the Press. Yet throughout the campaign he has said repeatedly that it is “clearly unconstitutional”, and more recently claimed absurdly that he has only ever supported state level mandates.

Well, here you have it: not only has Gingrich been a long-standing proponent of a federal health insurance mandate, he clearly and unequivocally called for it as part of the White House health reform initiative in May 2009. Mission accomplished then.

There is something else worth noting in this clip. Not only did Gingrich make the “conservative” argument for the mandate in dealing with the free rider problem, he also advanced a favorite argument of the left. Which is that the only way insurers could be required to offer coverage to everyone regardless of their health status (“must issue”), was to require everyone to carry insurance. This was ultimately the argument which convinced none other than Barack Obama, who remember, opposed an individual mandate during the Democrat primary campaign in 2008.

Yet with all this proof of what Newt really stands for we still have his supporters that will try to spin it, just the same way so many think Newt is totally 2nd amendment while ignoring him claiming that in 1996 while working behind the scenes for better gun control. Nothing this man says can be trusted - just ask the two former Mrs. Gingrich.

Tags:

health insurance mandate,

newt gingrich,

federal health insurance mandate

The Most Polarizing President Ever?

jamie — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:59:43 +0000

Politics

"The Fix" in today's Washington Post offers up this headline:

Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever.

When you look at how divided this country is that could be easy to conclude, but is it President Obama's fault? First let's take a look at how they come to this conclusion:

For 2011, Obama’s third year in office, an average of 80 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing in Gallup tracking polls, as compared to 12 percent of Republicans who felt the same way. That’s a 68-point partisan gap, the highest for any president’s third year in office — ever. (The previous high was George W. Bush in 2007, when he had a 59 percent difference in job approval ratings.)

In 2010, the partisan gap between how Obama was viewed by Democrats versus Republicans stood at 68 percent; in 2009, it was 65 percent. Both were the highest marks ever for a president’s second and first years in office, respectively.

But consider what this President has had to go through. Before he even took the oath of office, one of the biggest voices proudly proclaimed that he wanted to see "this President fail". Now many try to say "Rush Limbaugh is just a radio personality", but that sentiment was quickly picked up by actual politicians, including Rick Santorum, who is currently a Republican presidential candidate. Furthermore, any Republican politician who tried to soften Rush's words ended up on his show apologizing to him.

Then we have all the other stuff he has endured from the right. Take the whole birther thing as an example. This wasn't some rogue group of unknowns pushing the conspiracy theory that President Obama's parents colluded with the state of Hawaii in the early 60's to fake his birth in the United States just so he could become President some day. It was echoed by some of the loudest mouths out there, like Donald Trump, unlike the truther movement that tried to say George Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, which were denounced by every mainstream Democrat out there.

But going back to the numbers, they are actually misleading. First off George Bush saw a 76% gap in his 4th year, which was an election year. His gap did decrease after that, but not for the reasons you might think. Here's the chart that Gallup and the WaPo used:

The gap did decline for Bush in years 4-6, but that wasn't because Democrats started to approve of Bush. Actually the opposite occurred - Democrats view of Bush kept declining, but so did the Republicans.

The article does sum it up rather nice:

“Obama’s ratings have been consistently among the most polarized for a president in the last 60 years,” concludes Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones in a memo summing up the results. “That may not be a reflection on Obama himself as much as on the current political environment in the United States, because Obama’s immediate predecessor, Bush, had similarly polarized ratings, particularly in the latter stages of his presidency after the rally in support from the 9/11 terror attacks faded.”

Our guess is that Jones’ latter hypothesis is the right one — that we are simply living in an era in which Democrats dislike a Republican president (and Republicans dislike a Democratic one) even before the commander in chief has taken a single official action.

(emphasis added)

And this is a problem with our society today. The new millennium ushered in a period of the 24 hour opinion cycle. Instead of hearing news, we are flooded with people offering the grimmest opinion of the opposition possible. We live in a period where the quick zinger sound bite is also the win. A perfect example is what right wing darling Allen West (R-Fl) said over the weekend:

"We need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, (audience boos) and my dear friend the chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain't on the table," West said. "Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America."

A member of Congress telling people that he doesn't agree with to "get the hell out of America". I don't believe President Obama ever said anything that polarizing and if he did I would blast him for that. The best ideas in this country were the product of politicians from both sides of the aisle working together. We can't have that today, especially when we have a Speaker of the House who proudly claims "hell no" to anything the President asks for and even calls the State of the Union address "pathetic" before even hearing it.

I'll be the first to admit that the left has engaged in it's fair share of bashing the right, but the right has taken it to a whole new level. The Republicans have shown since 2009 that they care more about their party than they do the country. Mitch McConnell proved that when he said they didn't want to see the economy improve so that they can win back the White House. They are willing to let people become homeless and children starve just to gain political power.

It's time for America to try and unite, but that isn't going to happen until we get some grown-ups that denounce that crazy talk from our politicians and media personalities. Until that happens American will continue down this dark path of severe partisanship and nothing will be accomplished in this country. That's what these numbers really show me and I wish the Washington Post would have mentioned that.

Tags:

the washington post,

George W. Bush,

Allen West,

rick santorum,

mitch mcconnell,

donald trump,

partisanship,

gallup

Shorter Newt: "They Are Out To Get Me!"

jamie — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:37:41 +0000

Elections 2012

After the NBC debate Newt Gingrich blamed the media for not allowing the audience to cheer and even threatened to pull out of future debates that do the same. Now he's claiming that the cheering audience last night was stacked against him:

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich rode a strong performance and crowd enthusiasm at a debate in South Carolina to victory in that state’s primary, but the crowds at two debates in Florida this week haven’t been as wild for Gingrich. Now his campaign is claiming that rival Mitt Romney’s campaign stacked the audience at Thursday’s debate with its supporters to shift the energy toward Romney, the Huffington Post reported.

“They definitely packed the room," Kevin Kellems, a Gingrich adviser, told the Post.
But that’s not the case, according to both the Florida Republican Party and the Romney campaign. The party, which doled out 900 of the 1,200 tickets, says most of them went to “rank and file” Republicans.

“We did a very thorough job of getting them to the rank and file, vetting them to make sure they went to registered Republicans and then making sure they went out to people that were not knowingly affiliated” with the campaigns, Party spokesman Brian Hughes told the website.

But I guess in this case there could be some truth. The "rank and file" Republicans are the ones who are opposed to Newt winning the nomination. They are the ones currently out there blasting him in the news cycle 24/7. It's not the Democrats or the "liberal media", but Newt's own party that is against him. Newt has a serious problem and can't even logically blame his usual nemesis' for it.

Tags:

nbc,

Florida Republican Party,

newt gingrich,

Florida,

Primary

Newt's Latest, Most Awesome Endorsement

jamie — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:57:35 +0000

Elections 2012

Newt Gingrich just got an endorsement from of all people, Randy "Duke" Cunningham - straight from his prison cell:

Newt, a voice out of the past. Down but not out and still fighting. First I do not want anything from you but have been watching the debates. I have 80% of inmates that would vote for you. They might not be able to but their extended families will. When you are president I could help you with prison and justice reform if wanted.

Now Newt will start advocating for felons to get a vote!

Tags:

Randy,

newt gingrich

PolitiFact Or PolitiHack?

jamie — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:01:27 +0000

Media

PolitiFact is back at it again, showing that they don't even know the meaning of fact. Tuesday night they gave President Obama a half true for this statement in the SOTU:

in the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005

PolitiFact originally called that only half true but now have changed it to mostly true, with this editor's note:

EDITOR’S NOTE: Our original Half True rating was based on an interpretation that Obama was crediting his policies for the jobs increase. But we've concluded that he was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed and have decided to change the ruling to Mostly True. The original article is archived here.

Here's what they originally nailed Obama on:

As for whether 2011 was the best job-producing year since 2005, he’s right if you’re counting private-sector jobs, and slightly off if you’re counting all jobs.

But the President specifically said business, meaning private sector. He didn't at all mention government jobs. This is back to the definition of what "is" is.

So what is PolitiFact dinging him on now? Here we go back to the updated article:

Finally, there's another dimension. In his remarks, Obama described the damage to the economy, including losing millions of jobs "before our policies were in full effect." Then he describe the subsequent job increases. This suggests that he’s taking a degree of credit for the job growth, which runs counter to the reality that no mayor or governor or president deserves all the blame or all the credit for changes in employment.

(emphasis added)

Catch that? Read that highlighted part again. They say it "suggests that he’s taking a degree of credit for the job growth" and ding him by saying he doesn't deserve all the credit. It didn't even take a paragraph for PolitiFact to counter themselves - they did it in a single sentence. They blame him for taking full credit right after saying he took a DEGREE of credit.

It's obvious that ~~PolitiFact~~ PolitiHack has some apparent policy against giving the President a full truth. There's plenty to question him on, but this one he did get the facts straight and the "fact checkers" totally got it wrong.

Tags:

barack obama,

politifact,

state of the union

Conservatives Rally Behind One Obama Idea

jamie — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:01:36 +0000

Politics

Honestly this is one of those "common sense" bills that should already be in the books:

Conservatives in the blogosphere found one small aspect of the president’s State of the Union address that they could praise: a bill banning insider trading by members of Congress.

“Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress and I will sign it tomorrow,” President Barack Obama said Tuesday night, to applause.

But perhaps conservatives should look to one of their own for stalling this legislation:

The Republican sponsor of the bill in the House, Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus of Alabama, had scheduled a markup of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act for next week. But on Wednesday, Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia cancelled the markup session.

Cantor reportedly said he blocked the bill to give Congress more time to examine the issue. Critics of the move, however, fear that any delay could kill the bill entirely.

Congress constantly passes bills on a whim, but for some reason Cantor wants this one to have time for extra scrutiny. Why is that? Perhaps it's so they kind find ways to sneak loopholes into it or something.

There's no reason a bill can't make it to the President's desk within the next few days, except for certain members of Congress don't want it. I say if they don't feel they shouldn't have to follow the same laws as the rest of us then it's time to remove them from office. We can start with Eric Cantor.

Tags:

barack obama,

Spencer Bachus,

eric cantor,

insider trading,

congress

Dear Nancy; Put Up or Shut Up

jamie — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:49:43 +0000

Elections 2012

This exchange happened in an interview on CNN with Nancy Pelosi:

John King, CNN: "You make your case there passionately for President Obama. But also understand that this is a tough reelection climate for any president, Democrat or Republican in this economy. Because of your history with Speaker Gingrich, what goes through your mind when you think of the possibility, which is more real today than it was a week or a month ago, that he would be the Republican nominee and that you could come back here next January or next February with a President Gingrich?"

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: "Let me just say this. That will never happen."

King: "Why?"

Pelosi: "He's not going to be President of the United States. That's not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn't going to happen."

King: "Why are you so sure?"

Pelosi: "There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen."

You can watch the video here.

What is it that Nancy is saying she "knows" that would cause someone to not be elected President or even nominated for their party? It must be pretty damn serious for this to happen.

The real troubling part is the secrecy involved. Given the number of Gingrich era Republicans out there blasting him, I can't believe that someone else wouldn't know this big "heads in the duffle bag" secret. It's also meant to lead to a lot of speculation of what it could be, if anything.

God knows I can't stand Newt Gingrich, but Pelosi is engaging in very dirty politics here. As Jonathan Turley puts it:

Once again, it should be Democrats who denounce this type of politics. It should not fall to either Gingrich or Republicans. What is really astonishing is that I would think that the Democrats would be dying to have Gingrich nominated and offering Obama a target-rich environment. Regardless of the political wisdom, it is wrong to constant claim to have dirt on a politician . . . while promising to reveal it later.

I couldn't agree more and what Pelosi is doing will actually help strengthen Newt.

So Nancy, if you know something so serious about Newt then you must tell what it is. The man is running for President of the United States and I would hope the former Speaker of the House would consider that an important enough position to ignore stupid little games.

Tags:

john king,

Jonathan Turley,

nancy pelosi,

newt gingrich,

CNN

Gingrich Then: "President Reagan is clearly failing"

jamie — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:39:55 +0000

Elections 2012

No other GOP candidate has invoked Ronald Reagan more than Newt Gingrich. Nate Silver has been keeping count and Newt has invoked the former President 55 times as compared to Mitt Romney, who has only done it 6 times. Perhaps that's because Newt is trying to erase his history of bashing Reagan when it came to the fight against the USSR:

But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

Calling Reagan a failure and comparing what he was doing to Adolf Hitler? And this isn't from the "liberal media" or some unnamed source. This article appears in the very conservative National Review and is authored by Elliot Abrams, former Bush and Reagan administration official.

But what makes this even more interesting is how Newt constantly tries to take partial credit for the fall of the Soviet empire. He states it in every debate, yet history shows he was a man opposed to what Reagan was doing.

It's going to be interesting to see how Republicans, especially those that view Reagan as the messiah, will react to this recollection of history. I bet the Romney campaign is eating this up today.

Tags:

elliot abrams,

ronald reagan,

newt gingrich,

National Review

The Growing GOP Civil War

jamie — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:57:02 +0000

Elections 2012

Since Newt's win in South Carolina this weekend and Florida only a week away the civil war in the GOP is really heating up. The battle is establishment verses base and it's really becoming fun to watch.

First off we have this from CNN:

Veteran Republican leadership aide Ron Bonjean said on the record what most of his colleagues would only tell CNN privately.

"Most people on Capitol Hill and in Washington are very nervous about a Gingrich candidacy," he said. "It sends a shiver down a lot of Republican spines."

"You can actually feel the nervousness from Republicans around town that Gingrich could actually bring the craziness back of his speakership from the 1990s. It's everywhere."

The establishment remembers what it was actually like having Newt Gingrich in charge. They hated it and don't want to see it return. That explains this from another establishment person, Bill Kristol:

I’ve got to think Monday night’s debate further swelled the groundswell of support for Mitch Daniels. The liveliest part of the debate was at the beginning, when Mitt went after Newt—and Republicans all over America watched with fascinated horror at the thought that these are the two GOP frontrunners. The only spectacle in American politics more off-putting than Newt Gingrich in self-righteous defense mode is Mitt Romney in self-righteous attack mode. I thought Mitt’s attacks were somewhat more dishonest than Newt’s defenses were disingenuous, but it was good to move on to the rest of the debate, where little further damage was done.

And Kristol isn't alone. Artur Davis even has a piece up on the National Review calling to draft Jeb Bush.

But perhaps the best writing on the wall comes from today's Wall Street Journal, where they explain why the GOP "deserve to lose".

Getting another candidate in this late in the game isn't going to happen. All the states up to and including Super Tuesday have already finalized their ballots, so they would need a massive write in campaign to get anywhere. With a little over a month to go, that is not going to happen.

So the GOP is now stuck with either a Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich candidacy. Does either of these men have what it takes to unify the GOP base? Some might think so, but I really don't. The exit polling has pointed to a highly fractured Republican electorate and neither man has the appeal necessary to rally the troops.

When Republican voters head to the polls in November they are going to do so with a hard decision to make. Do they want to wait another four years and hope that a Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush jumps in there, or are they willing to wait eight years to really get a candidate they can rally behind? If I were facing that choice I would prefer to give it another shot in four years.

But what really has me scratching my head is why hasn't one of these other GOP stars gotten in the race? Why did Christie, Daniels, Bush, etc. all decide to sit this one out? They would be facing an incumbent President with a low approval rating and an economy that is still on life support. It seemed like a perfect time for one of them to run, but they didn't.

Perhaps what is happening behind the scenes is the establishment would rather see Obama win and give the economy the time it needs to work out a little better. Then a real star can get in there and run. That means they have cast Romney to their own martyrdom in hopes that this might make him go away. Sure it seems rather radical, but we are living in radical times and I could see this easily being a viable argument. Hope Romney rides it out and goes away, spend the next four years getting someone polished and ready to go, then run them in 2016. At the same time hope the economy improves a little, but not enough to make Obama look good.

If political science were chess, this would be one of the best moves ever.

Of course while all this plays out there is still that civil war going on. Will the base be able to squirm through another four years of Obama? Will they be able to handle the establishment trumping their will?

The aftermath of what is about to come is going to be as interesting to watch as the actual battle. The GOP has made what was an almost impossible job for Obama seem a lot more viable - get re-elected. The best part for our side is that the GOP has no one to blame but themselves.

Tags:

wall street journal,

republican party,

artur davis,

jeb bush,

bill kristol,

mitt romney,

newt gingrich,

the National Review,

Elections in the United States

Natural Racism

jamie — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:22:36 +0000

Elections 2012

Newt Gingrich spends a lot of time denying he is a racist yet his own words tell a different story.

At the height of his career in Congress, Newt Gingrich used to tell audiences that renewing American civilization was "the central challenge of the rest of our lives."

But before Gingrich could deliver his grand new theory of American civilization to the public in a 1993 speech, his deeply divisive racial stereotypes would need to be removed.

"For poor minorities, entrepreneurship in small business is the key to future wealth," Gingrich wrote by hand in a first draft. "This is understood thoroughly by most of the Asians, partially by Latinos, and to a tragically small degree by much of the American black community."

If it wasn't for staffers, Gingrich would have gone out there and spewed his typical racist sounding rhetoric. If this the kind of man we want sitting in the Oval Office? People think we are divided now, but just imagine what a President Gingrich would do to this country with his hate filled rhetoric. And this is they guy the GOP is gathering behind right now. Talk about tragic.

Tags:

republican party,

newt gingrich,

racism

Why Don't We Have A Balanced Budget Now?

jamie — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:26:12 +0000

Elections 2012

Bob Cesca points to this line from Newt Gingrich:

GINGRICH: “When I was speaker, we had four consecutive balanced budgets.”

As Bob points out, we only had two, not four balanced budgets.

But there is something else here that has been eating away at me. More and more the right is trying to make it out that Newt was the sole man responsible for the balanced budget. They won't mention President Clinton and that it involved negotiations. Somehow the Speaker of the House has become the budget writer for the United States under these people.

So why haven't we had one since? In the 14 years since the time Newt refers to ten of those years we had a Republican Speaker. Neither Dennis Hastert nor John Boehner have produced a balanced budget. During most of Hastert's term we also had a Republican controlled Senate and White House. Why no balanced budget?

I'm not going to get on Newt for lying. We know this is a man that has a hard time ever telling the truth. What does get me is how many people on the right buy into this line of bullshit. To those people they need to ask themselves this; if the Speaker is the man who balances the budget and that is what we need right now, then why isn't Newt running for Congress? I think we all know the answer to that....

Tags:

congress,

dennis hastert,

newt gingrich,

Presidency of Bill Clinton,

john boehner,

speaker,

united states house of representatives

Right Wing Terrorism, Plain and Simple

jamie — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:16:25 +0000

Elections 2012

This is a truly disgusting story:

Last night, I got the most chilling phone call I have ever received. It was Jake Burris, Ken Aden’s campaign manager. Last night, Jake and his four kids had come back to their Russellville home. As they were getting out of the car, one of his children discovered their family cat dead on the front porch. One side of the animal’s head had been bashed in and an eyeball was hanging out of its socket. But there was something even more horrifying to be found on the corpse.

Written across the animal’s fur in black marker was the word “LIBERAL“.

Ken Aden is a Democrat running for Congress in Arkansas. This story can only be described as terrorism and it is the kind of crap that must stop.

(You can view the very graphic image here)

Tags:

Arkansas,

Ken Aden’s campaign manager,

Ken Aden,

Jake Burris

BREAKING: SCOTUS Rules Police Need Warrant To Electronically Track Vehicles

jamie — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:52:23 +0000

News

The 4th Amendment gets a win:

The Supreme Court says police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.

The court ruled in the case of Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones. A federal appeals court in Washington overturned his drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed a GPS device on his vehicle and then tracked his movements for a month.

Tags:

GPS,

Privacy law,

supreme court of the united states,

search warrant

BREAKING: Lamar Smith Puts SOPA On Hold

jamie — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:57:42 +0000

Politics

Awesome!

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) announced today that the House Judiciary Committee, which he heads, "will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution." Smith added that he has taken critics' concerns "seriously."

"It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products," Smith said in today's statement.

The decision to wave the white flag on SOPA comes just hours after U.S. Senate leaders announced they had postponed their vote on the Protect IP Act (PIPA) scheduled for Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that the recent criticism on both SOPA and PIPA forced his hand, but Reid did acknowledge that he hopes to reach an agreement with the bill's foes "in the coming weeks."

This is what happens when the people speak and democracy takes action. Or, if you're Chris Dodd, it's an "abuse of power" by we the people.

Tags:

SOPA,

lamar smith

Chris Dodd - Corporate Whore and Douchebag

jamie — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:53:30 +0000

Politics

This man needs to go away for good:

Dodd mentioned rethinking the film industry's distant relationship with Silicon Valley, and said he would welcome a meeting between Internet companies and content providers in order to rework the bills. Unfortunately, there was no mention of his inflammatory comments before the blackout, including calling the Internet protests an "abuse of power" and accusing critics of punishing officials trying to fight "foreign criminals." Dodd may take a different tack in his next round of lobbying, but cutting out the alarmist rhetoric probably won't be part of it.

Calling the exercising of our Constitutional right to freedom of speech an "abuse of power"? An "abuse of power" is using your time in office to fatten your wallet. You should know something about this.

Now go away once and for all. America is much better off without assholes like you around.

Tags:

chris dodd,

PIPA,

inflammatory comments

BREAKING: Reid Postpones The PIPA Vote

jamie — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:00:18 +0000

Politics

The following statement was just released by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

“In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday’s vote on the PROTECT I.P. Act.

“There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved. Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs. We must take action to stop these illegal practices. We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day’s work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio.

“I admire the work that Chairman Leahy has put into this bill. I encourage him to continue engaging with all stakeholders to forge a balance between protecting Americans’ intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the internet. We made good progress through the discussions we’ve held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks.”

This is a good start, but we still must work to make sure there are significant changes to both PIPA and SOPA. The problem with these bills is that they were written by the music/movie industry. I don't have problems with interest groups suggesting what goes into bills, but for them to write them is a slap in the face to our democracy. Congress should act as a filter between what is right and what shreds the foundations of our democracy. In this case they failed.

Tags:

harry reid,

SOPA,

PIPA,

senate majority leader