The Attack Democrat--Nothing Conservative Here

Santorum says colleges turn kids into secular liberals

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:35:00 +0000

Speaking to a crowd at the First Baptist Church of Naples, Florida, Rick Santorum said that Obama wants kids to go to college because colleges "indoctrinate" kids and turn them into secular liberals.

“We’ve lost, unfortunately, our entertainment industry,” the candidate explained. “We’ve lost our higher education. That was the first to go a long time ago. It’s no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to college. The indoctrination that occurs at American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America — and it is indoctrination.”

“If they taught Judeo-Christian ideology, they would be stripped of every dollar. If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly get. As you know, 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it.

Nope, Rick, it isn’t indoctrination that causes people to become secular liberals. It’s EDUCATION.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/26/rick-santorum-says-obama-wants-kids-to-go-to-college-to-learn-liberalism/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57366219-503544/rick-santorum-left-uses-college-for-indoctrination/

BREAKING NEWS: Two pieces of GOOD economic news

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:15:00 +0000

The Department of Labor announced that first-time jobless claims remained below the week of January 14 continuing a trend that has been going on for several months. This was the biggest drop in first-time unemployment benefit claims since September 2005 and the lowest first-time claims have been since March 2008.

Additionally, the Census Bureau announced that monthly sales of durable goods in December were up 3 percent, another indication that manufacturing growth is continuing, that’s higher than expected and continues another positive trend.

These reports of continuing improvement in the economy are good news for Obama and the Democrats and bad news for Republicans.

A woman for our time—Watch the video.

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:03:00 +0000

Take the time. Watch these three videos. Then, do everything you can to make sure this woman gets elected to the Senate and to even higher office in the future. This is the kind of political talent, smarts, and sense of what is right that we need. Do yourself a favor. Watch this. Elizabeth Warren.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

If the above doesn't play, watch here:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-26-2011/exclusive---elizabeth-warren-extended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-26-2011/exclusive---elizabeth-warren-extended-interview-pt--2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GhKh32Lts8

Another poll has Newt leading in Florida

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:26:00 +0000

Rasmussen Poll: Gingrich 41%, Romney 32% in Florida

A week ago Rasmussen had Romney with a 22 point lead.

Read more here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com//

NEW POLL: Gingrich surges in Florida

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:57:00 +0000

Insider Advantage’s first poll after the South Carolina primary shows Gingrich getting a huge surge in Florida. According to this poll, Gingrich now leads Romney in Florida by 8 points (34% to 26%). A CNN/Time/ORC poll released Wednesday of last week had Romney leading Gingrich by 25 points (43% to 18%). In that poll Gingrich was in third place, slightly behind Santorum. We will see if other Florida polls confirm this surge for Gingrich but I should note that Insider Advantage was the first poll to spot the Gingrich surge in South Carolina.

Additionally, FiveThirtyEight now projects that Gingrich will win Florida with 37.6% of the vote to 30% for Romney.

and here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/did-gingrichs-win-break-the-rules/

Forecast: Newt almost certain winner in S.C. race

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:33:00 +0000

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight says there is now an 82% probability that Newt Gingrich will come in first in South Carolina with a projected 37.8% of the vote. Romney is expected to come in second with 30.2%, Paul third at 15.2% and Santorum fourth with 14.0%.

Silver projects Romney will win Florida with 46.1% of the vote.

Read Silver’s forecast and methodology here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

BREAKING NEWS: Another poll shows Gingrich leading in S.C.

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:25:00 +0000

The final Clemson Palmetto poll has Gingrich leading Romney 32% to 26%. Paul is third in this poll at 11%. The poll has a 4.73 margin of error.

Read the poll results here:

http://www.clemson.edu/media-relations/4047

BREAKING NEWS: Newt leads Romney in S.C.

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:23:00 +0000

Public Policy Polling is conducting a three-day tracking-type poll in South Carolina. Last night’s results show that Newt Gingrich has now taken a 6-point lead over Romney (34% to 28%). Ron Paul is in third place with 15%. Rick Santorum is in fourth place with 14%. Gingrich’s debate performance seems to have been a big factor in his gain in the poll. 56% of those polled watched the debate. Debate watchers went for Gingrich by a margin of 43% to 27%. Gingrich as a 50% to 18% advantage among S.C. Tea Party supporters, 39% to 23% among “Very Conservative” likely Republican voters and 37% to 20% among evangelicals. The margin of error is +/- 5%.

What happens after South Carolina? Some scenarios

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:04:00 +0000

Ron Fournier at the National Journal in a post today offers several scenarios for how the contest for the Republican nomination might play out after South Carolina. Here three in order of probability, according to Fournier.

Most Likely Scenario:

Gingrich wins South Carolina and heads into Florida with momentum. If Gingrich wins Florida or comes in a close second a two-man battle continues all the way to Super Tuesday on March 6.

Next Most Likely Scenario:

Romney wins South Carolina by a narrow margin but can’t seal the nomination because of mis-steps, Santourm being declared the winner in Iowa, Perry dropping out, and Romney’s tax problems. A win in Florida would help Romney get back on track but chances are he still won’t be able to seal the deal. A two-man race continues toward Super-Tuesday.

If Gingrich implodes—as he is prone to do—then Rick Santorum or, less likely, Paul becomes the second man in the two-man race.

Regardless, all of Fournier’s scenarios predict a protracted fight all the way to Super Tuesday and……I hadn’t thought of this….perhaps beyond.

Possible Scenario:

A fight on the floor of the convention.

Fournier says it is not likely but possible that the fight between Romney and Anyone-but-Romney will go all the way to the convention and an alternative candidate we have not even considered might win in a brokered convention. Fournier says GOP leaders already see both Romney and Gingrich as flawed candidates. If neither locks in the nomination, party leaders might push for an alternative such as Mitch Daniels of Indiana. He notes that “Eyebrows were raised in Washington when Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels was tapped to provide the GOP response to Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday night.”

Is a brokered convention likely? No. But, who would have thought a few months ago that such a possibility would have even been discussed. It is now.

Newt ties or leads Romney in SC polls

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:21:00 +0000

Five of six recent polls in South Carolina show Gingrich either leading or tied (within the margin of error) with Romney. Newt seems to be surging just before the S.C. primary. If Gingrich wins South Carolina, Romney will come out of South Carolina with a record of 1-2 versus 3-0 which could not help but damage his momentum, if not his campaign. Bad day for Mitt.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/south-carolina-polls-newt-gingrich_n_1216485.html

BREAKING NEWS: Perry to endorse Newt

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:27:00 +0000

Rick Perry is expected to endorse Newt Gingrich at a news conference today. Perry had 4% of the S.C. vote in latest poll. Gingrich was at 30% to Romney's 37% and closing the gap in the latest poll. Perry supporters could put Gingrich in the lead.

BREAKING NEWS: Perry out

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:35:00 +0000

Rick Perry is expected to announce that he is dropping out of the race for the Republican nomination at a news conference today.

Reading polls—Critical questions to ask

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:43:00 +0000

This political season you will be reading and hearing about lots of polls and surveys reporting on who is ahead and who is behind in this race or that one, who is gaining ground and who is falling out of favor, and so on. Many polls, particularly those conducted by well-known polling organizations are reasonably accurate snap shots of public opinion at the time the polls were conducted. Other polls are just nonsense. A few are deliberate distortions of public opinion designed to serve one interest or another.

So, how do you tell the good poll from the bad? Here are four questions you should ask about any poll you come across.

1. Is the poll biased?

The first and most obvious things you need to know when presented with the results of a poll or survey are “Who did the poll?” and, even more importantly, “Who financed it?” Did the people conducting the poll and/or financing it have an agenda? Was their purpose to inform or persuade?

2. Is the poll/survey based upon a random sample of the population under consideration?

Look for a statement such as the following:

“The results of this poll are based upon a scientifically designed random sample of xxxxxxxx people. It has a margin of error (or sampling error) of xx%.”

Valid national polls will usually sample somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 people. If there is no reference to “scientific design” or “random sample” and/or “sampling error” or “margin of error,” then take the poll as largely fantasy and little fact. Also, be suspicious of any telephone poll that did not include calls to both land lines and cell phones. Many people today have opted not to have a land line at all.

Pay attention to the "sampling error" or "margin of error." Typically, that will be something like three to five percent. In other words, if the sampling error is three percent and the results say a candidate is favored by 52% of the voters what it is really saying is that his support is somewhere between 49% (-3%) and 55% (+3%).

Be particularly suspicious of the results of any poll if there is any indication that people who participated in the poll/survey volunteered to participate by, for example, calling an 800 number or going to a web site and voting online. Such polls are usually very unreliable since the people who participated probably had a reason for doing so and aren’t reflective of the general population.

3. Do the poll results represent true opinions or solicited no-opinion opinions?

Even in the most carefully designed survey or poll some opinions expressed are really no-opinion opinions. Sometimes people don’t want to appear ignorant about social or political issues so they will offer and opinion even when they don’t really have one, a no-opinion opinion.

How do you know if what you are reading about are genuine opinions or no-opinion opinions? Here some things to look for. Did the pollster include a no opinion or other "don't know" face-saving option for people who genuinely didn't have an opinion about the issue? If not, then some of the opinions expressed may be no-opinion opinions.

Also, consult more than one survey on an issue if you can? Did the surveys get different responses during roughly the same time period or reflect an abrupt change in opinion over a relatively short period? People with strong opinions about an issue rarely change their opinions quickly. If several organizations poll on the same subject during the same period and the results of one poll are significantly different from the others, distrust that outlier. They may be something bad wrong with the way that poll was conducted.

4. Are the questions biased?

The wording of the questions asked in polls along with the sequence in which questions are asked have a major impact on poll results. Be suspect of any pollster that doesn’t reveal these two critical pieces of information. Ask if the order in which questions were asked could have affected the final result. In other words, did earlier questions lead the person being poll or suggest the “correct” response?

Additionally, never trust the results of a single poll. If multiple polls conducted by different pollsters using different sets and sequences of questions tend to agree then you can consider the composite results as having some validity. Otherwise, treat the results as interesting but preliminary.

Here are some sources of more help on reading polls”

The British Polling Council has prepared an excellent guide for journalists on sampling and other polling issues entitled “A Journalist’s Guide to Opinion Polls.” See http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/questions.html.

For a summary of the ways polling has changed over the last 30 years or so, see Michael Kagay, “Looking Back on 25 Years of Changes in Polling,” The New York Times, April 20, 2000. See http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/042000poll-watch.html.

Also see Michael W. Link and Robert W.Oldendick, “Good’ Polls / “Bad” Polls—How Can You Tell?: Ten Tips for Consumers of Survey Research,” at http://www.ipspr.sc.edu/publication/Link.htm.

One million say, Governor Walker must go

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:49:00 +0000

Organizers of the United Wisconsin movement to recall Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker submitted petitions on Tuesday signed by one million Wisconsin voters. That far exceed the 540,208 signatures required. Additionally, they submitted petitions signed by 845,000 calling for the recall of the Republican Lieutenant Governor, Rebecca Kleefisch. United Wisconsin is seeking the recall of Walker and Kleefisch for their support of last year’s effort to strip collective bargaining rights from Wisconsin state, county and municipal employees and teachers.

John Nichols of the Nation reports that:

The movement to oust Walker will have secured the support of a higher percentage of eligible voters than has ever before sought to recall an American governor.

No other gubernatorial recall drive in American history has gathered the signatures of so large a proportion of the electorate. The total number of signatures submitted Tuesday represents 46 percent of the turnout in the 2010 Wisconsin gubernatorial election. That compares with 23.4 percent that signed the petitions that initiated the successful recall of California Governor Gray Davis in 2003 and 31.8 percent that signed petitions to recall North Dakota Governor Lynn Frazier in 1921.

The recall election could take place as early as this spring.

Martin Luther King & the Montgomery Boycott

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:00:00 +0000

In honor of Martin Luther King day, I invite you to enjoy the following excerpt from my new book, Getting Things Done in Washington, in which I tell the story of Dr. King's role in the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955.

You can read other excerpts from Getting Things Done in Washington by visiting www.jboyett.com.

Martin Luther King and the Montgomery Bus Boycott

On December 1, 1955, Mrs. Rosa Parks, a seamtress working for the Montgomery Fair Department Store in Montgomery, AL, finished work just before 5:00 PM. She walked a half-block to the bus stop on the corner of Court Street and Dexter Avenue to catch the bus to her home. Mrs. Parks was tired from a long day of sewing and anxious to get off her feet but she decided not to board the 5:00 bus since it was already crowded and there was no place to sit. When the next bus arrived, Mrs. Parks boarded, paid her dime fare, and walked toward the back of the bus past several rows of empty seats, as Black passengers were required to do by law. In Montgomery, a bus segregation law reserved the first 10 rows of seats on public buses for White passengers. The law designated the remaining 23 rows to the rear as the “Colored” section.

Mrs. Parks took a seat in the first row of the “Colored” section. Three other Black passengers took seats in the same row. Mrs. Parks sat quietly, balancing some packages on her lap and thinking about the upcoming holidays. At the next two stops, the bus began to fill up with passengers. At the third stop, several White passengers boarded the bus and took their seats. One White man was left standing since there were no more seats available in the White section. The bus driver, James L. Blake, turned, looked at Mrs. Parks and the other three Black people seated in the first row of the “Colored” section and said, “Now, y’all move. I’ve got to have those seats.” Everyone on the bus knew what Blake meant. He intended to expand the White section to accommodate the single White passenger. The bus segregation law required all of the Black passengers in Mrs. Parks’ row to get up and move to the rear of the bus even though only one White person needed a seat. The law did not allow White people to sit in the same row with Black people even if they chose to do so.

At first, none of the Black people moved. Then, Blake said, “You had better make it light on yourself and let me have those seats.” Reluctantly, three of the Black people got up and moved to the back of the bus where they would have to remain standing for the rest of their trip. Mrs. Parks remained seated. Blake got up and walked back to where Mrs. Parks was seated. He glared down at her and said, “Look woman, I told you I wanted the seat. Are you going to stand up?” Mrs. Parks took a deep breath and calmly said, “No.” Now angry that this Black woman was defying him, Blake warned, “If you don’t stand up, I’m going to have you arrested.” “You may do that” said Mrs. Parks. She had decided, she was not going to move. At that point, Blake got off the bus and went to called the police.

Years later in an interview with Donnie Williams, author of The Thunder of Angels: The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the People Who Broke the Back of Jim Crow, Mrs. Parks had this to say about her actions on the chilly December day:

When I got on the bus that evening I wasn't thinking about causing a revolution or anything of the kind. I was thinking about my husband, how he'd spent his day at the barber shop at Maxwell Air Force Base, where he worked. I was hoping he'd had a good day. I was thinking about my back aching and about the pretty sights and sounds of Christmas. I was thinking about how we were going to have a good time this Christmas, and everybody was going to be happy.

But when that white driver stepped back toward us, when he waved his hand and ordered us up and out of our seats, I felt a determination cover my body like a quilt on a winter night. I felt all the meanness of every white driver I'd seen who'd been ugly to me and other black people through the years I'd known on the buses in Montgomery. I felt a light suddenly shine through the darkness.[1]

Blake returned shortly with two police officers who arrested Mrs. Parks for violating the segregation law. They hauled her off to jail.

Later that evening, Arlet Nixon, the wife of Ed Nixon who was the head of the local NAACP, received a phone call from Mrs. Bertha Butler informing her that Mrs. Parks had been arrested. Nixon and Butler were both friends of Mrs. Parks. Mrs. Butler had just happened to have been on the bus and witnessed Mrs. Parks’ arrest. Arlet Nixon was quickly called her husband. Nixon knew Mrs. Parks well since she had worked with the NAACP in Montgomery for more than a decade as a volunteer. He immediately called the city jail, told the desk sergeant who he was and asked why Mrs. Parks had been arrested. The desk sergeant recognized Nixon immediately as a long time civil rights activists who had led a number of voter registration drives in the Black community. He abruptly told Nixon that Mrs. Parks’ arrest was none of his business.

Recognizing he needed help, Nixon picked up the phone and dialed the number of a local White attorney by the name of Clifford Durr. Durr had tried a number of NAACP cases and was a close friend of Nixon. Durr and his wife, Virginia, were both liberal activists. They had developed a close friendship with Rosa Parks during a time when Mrs. Parks had undertaking various sewing jobs for Virginia. Durr immediately agreed to accompany Nixon to the city jail to get Parks out on bond.

That night Nixon and the Durrs gathered around the kitchen table in Parks’ home with Parks, her mother and her husband, Raymond. Nixon began pressing Parks to agree to serve as a test case for a legal challenge to overturn the bus segregation law. He had been trying to put together such as case for some time but had never found the right person and situation for a test case. He was confident he had found that person in Parks.

David Halberstam in his book The Fifities, says the most interesting thing about Parks was how ordinary she was, at least on the surface.

[She was] almost the prototype of the black woman who toiled so hard and had so little to show for it….she was a person of unusual dignity and uncommon strength of character…Rosa was a serious reader, a quiet, strong woman much admired in the local community...Parks had attended the integrated Highlander Folk School, in Monteagle, Tennessee, a school loathed by segregationists because it held workshops on how to promote integration. At Highlander she not only studied the techniques of passive resistance employed by Gandhi against the British, she also met White people who treated her with respect. The experience reinforced her sense of self-esteem.[2]

Segregationist would later argue that the local NAACP orchestrated Parks refusal to relinquish her seat. Parks denied that saying when she boarded the bus that December evening she had no thoughts of challenging the law or anyone. Parks was familiar with previous incidences earlier in the year when Black people had challenged the bus segregation law. For example, in March, Claudette Clovin, a fifteen-year-old student at Booker T. Washington High School, had refused to give up her seat. Another Black teenager, Mary Louise Smith, had done the same in October. Police arrested both Clovin and Smith. A judge had placed Clovin on indefinite, unsupervised probation. Smith pleaded guilty and her father paid her $5.00 fine. Initially, Nixon had thought Clovin might make a good case subject but he later changed his mind. However, Parks maintained she had not been thinking about the Clovin or Smith cases that December evening.

I'd been happy early in the year when Claudette Colvin had been arrested for refusing to give up her seat on the bus. I'd been with Mr. Nixon when he'd declared it was exactly what the black community needed. I'd seen the light in his eyes at the thought of being able to fight against the oppression of the laws that were keeping us down. I'd called my white lady friend Virginia Durr and we started calling folks to alert them to what was going to happen. We knew we were going to have to have help for a long struggle. Then I saw the hurt in Mr. Nixon's eyes when he found out the Claudette Colvin case wasn't the one we could use. I saw the silent hurt take over. But I wasn't thinking about all of that while I sat there and waited for the police to come. All I could think about, really and truly, was the Lord would help me through all of this. I told myself I wouldn't put up no fuss against them arresting me. I'd go along with whatever they said. But I also knew I wasn't gonna give up my seat just because a white driver told me to; I'd already done that too many times.[3]

Nixon very much wanted Parks to agree to participate in a test case. He paced back and forth. “Mrs. Parks, your case is a case that we can use to break down segregation on the bus,” he said. “I gonna ask you…I want to ask you: let us use your case for a test case. I’ll tell you this: it won’t be easy. It’ll be long and hard. We might have to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, and that’ll be a struggle.”[4] Clifford Durr assured Rosa that he could probably get her off with a small fine if she did not want to take the case any further.

Parks was reluctant. Her husband, Raymond, was afraid for her safety if she were to agree. “Oh, the white folks will kill you, Rosa. Don’t do anything to make trouble, Rosa,” he said over and over, “Don’t bring a suit. The White people will kill you.”[5]

Nixon kept talking and answering questions from Rosa and Raymond. Finally, Raymond agreed. “I think Nixon is right,” he said. Rosa’s mother said she agreed also. Finally, Rosa said, “Well, in that case, we’ll go along with you.”[6]

The next day, Nixon began planning what to do next. He called Jo Ann Gibson Robinson, an English professor at Alabama State College for Women, to ask her advice. Nixon respected Robinson’s ideas. She had given him good advice concerning the Colvin case earlier in the year. As a young college student, Robinson had her on run in with a Montgomery bus driver when she accidently sat in the fifth row of a nearly empty bus when she was supposed to sit in the tenth row. The driver kicked her off the bus. The incident angered and embarrassed her. When she had returned to Montgomery to accept a teaching job at all Black Alabama State in 1949, Robinson decided that she would do whatever she could to get bus segregation abolished. Consequently, she was more than willing to help Nixon in any way she could. At one point as they were discussing Rosa Parks’ case, Robinson suddenly said she had an interesting idea. They should do something more than just file a lawsuit. Nixon asked what she meant. Robinson replied that a month earlier she had attended a speech by New York Congressman Adam Clayton Powell. Powell had described a successful bus boycott in New York. Robinson suggested, why not try the same thing in Montgomery. The majority of bus riders in the city were Black, primarily Black women domestics taking the bus across town to work in the affluent White suburbs. The city bus company could not survive without Black passengers. Nixon agreed. A boycott might be just the thing to convince the city to changes its policies.

Someone had to organize and lead the effort. Nixon was not overly concerned about the organizing part. He knew how to do that as he recalled some years later:

There's one thing I know. I know how to organize. I ain't gonna argue with you about doing paperwork. I ain't never been a newspaperman. I ain't gonna argue with no schoolteacher about teaching school. I never taught school. I ain't gonna argue with no minister about preaching. I ain't never preached. But when it comes to civil rights and organizing, I know how to do it.[7]

Nixon was not so sure about being the leader. He was nearly sixty. He thought the leader of the boycott should be a younger man. Additionally, he had to be gone from Montgomery frequently on business. The boycott leader need to be someone who could be in town most of the time. Additionally, the boycott leader needed to be someone who was persuasive, articulate, and who would give the movement a positive image. Nixon thought he knew just the right man for the job—Martin Luther King.

King was only twenty-six years old. He and his young wife Coretta had arrived in Montgomery just the year before. King had accepted an offer to become the new pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church with its affluent Black congregation. He had a Ph.D from Boston University where he had been exposed to the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. He enjoyed classical music and had a habit of sprinkling his sermons with quotations from Socrates, Aristotle, Shakespeare, and Galileo. As Halberstam notes, as a speaker, King was nothing short of brilliant.

He had the ability to make complex ideas simple: By repeating phrases, he could expand an idea, blending the rational with the emotional. That gave him the great ability to move others, Black people at first and soon, remarkably enough, White people as well. He could reach people of all classes and backgrounds; he could inspire men and women with nothing but his words.[8]

When Nixon approached King about leading the boycott, King was not sure he wanted the job. Nixon recalled:

When he heard me talk about how long it'd take and how hard the struggle would be, he wasn't sure. He was a young man just getting started in the ministry. His family was young. His wife had given birth to their first child, a little girl, less than a month ago. He said, 'Let me think about it a while and call me back.' After some more calls, I went to see him at the parsonage on South Jackson Street, and I told him straight out that I thought he was the man who should lead this thing. He paced the floor a time or two, then he turned to me and said in that strong and powerful voice of his, he said, 'Brother Nixon, if you think I'm the one, I'll do it.' I nodded and clasped his hand and held it, and I swear there was something stronger than ever in that handshake. I knew we'd all be one together.[9]

The Montgomery bus boycott began on Monday, December 5, 1955, just four days after the police arrested Rosa Parks. King and his wife woke early. Organizers had distributed leaflets to the Black community announcing the boycott. Pastors in Black churches throughout the city had encouraged their Sunday congregations to join in the boycott. King and other leaders of the boycott, who had organized themselves as the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) with King as president and chief spokesperson, felt if they could get participation from just 60 percent of the Black community, the boycott would be a success.

King recalled that the house he and Corretta lived in was just a short distance from a bus stop. They could see the buses passing by from their front window. Around six o’clock in the morning, the first bus pulled up to the bus stop. King was in the kitchen having a cup of coffee when Coretta rushed into the room. “Martin, Martin, come quickly!” she said. King put down his cup and rushed to the front window. The first bus was still sitting at the bus stop—empty. King knew that the South Jackson bus line that ran by his house was one the busiest in the city. He and Corretta remained at the window waiting. Finally, the second bus came—empty. Then the third bus came. It was also empty except for two White passengers.

King rushed out and jumped in his car. He drove up and down the Montgomery streets closely examining every bus he passed. Most were empty or carried only White riders. King said he counted no more than eight Black people on all the buses he passed that morning. All day long, the buses remained largely empty. Black people walked or thumbed rides or car-pooled. The boycott organizers had hoped for sixty percent participation. They got nearly 100 percent.

The boycott dragged on day after day and month after month. The city refused to make any changes to the bus segregation law and protesters refused to give in and start using the busses again. Ironically at first, boycotters weren’t asking that the busses be desegregated. They were only asking that the bus company eliminate the arbitrary and moveable dividing line between Black and White sections. They wanted an arrangement in which Black people would fill the bus from back to front and White people from front to back and that no one would have to give up their seat once they were seated. It was a perfectly reasonable request but the White city administration refused so the boycott went on and on. Black leaders were surprised at the city administration’s position since they felt their demands were sufficiently limited such that even the most conservative White should be able to accept.

When it became obvious that the city leaders were not willing to settle, MIA filed a suit in the U.S. Federal District Court. The suit asked for more than a change in the seating arrangement. It asked that the court declare bus segregation itself unconstitutional because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The city immediately appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

Months passed and there was no end to the boycott in sight. Eventually, some affluent White people got so desperate to have their domestic help back cleaning their houses that they began driving them to and from work. The Mayor of Montgomery remarked, “The Negroes are laughing at white people behind their backs. They think it’s very funny that White people who are opposed to the Negro boycott will act as chauffeurs to Negroes who are boycotting the buses.”[10]

Some White people reacted to the boycott with violence. King and his family began receiving threatening phone calls. One night while King was away at a meeting, someone set off a bomb on the porch of King’s home. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Two nights later, someone tossed a stick of dynamite onto Nixon’s lawn. The dynamite exploded but again no one was harmed.

Three months into the boycott, the Montgomery city attorney announced that he had found a way to put an end to the nonsense. He cited a 1921 state anti-labor law that made it illegal for anyone to engage in restraint of trade. Police arrested King and 114 Black leaders of the boycott. They were fingerprinted and released on a $300 bond each. In late March, King case came to trial. The charge was conspiracy “without a just cause or legal excuse” to engage in activities designed to hinder a company in its conduct of business.

A number of Black witnesses testified to the numerous abuses they had suffered on the bus lines over the years that provided just cause. A woman testified that a bus driver had once shut the door on her blind husband’s leg and then drove off dragging him along beside the bus. A Black man testified that a bus driver had forced him off a bus at pistol point once because he could not produce exact change. Another said a driver had forced his pregnant wife to surrender her seat and stand simply because a White woman needed a seat. Others told of being verbally abused. One Black woman recalled that a bus a driver had once called her an “ugly black ape.” The judge listened to the testimony and was unmoved. He declared King guilty as charged, ordered him to pay a fine of $1,000 plus court costs, and released him on bail pending appeal. City officials thought they had won. They had not. In fact, they made matters worse for themselves. Black people rallied on the courthouse lawn after hearing the verdict against King shouting their determination to keep the boycott going. They did.

Spring turned into summer. Summer turned into fall. The boycott continued with no end in sight. Black people walked to work, bicycled, shared rides, and did anything to get around the city but ride the busses. The bus company sank into debt. It had to lay off drivers. City officials could not believe it. They thought the first rainy day would drive Black people back to the buses. It did not. City police began stopping Black cabdrivers from carrying groups of five or six at a time for ten cents a ride citing a old ordinance requiring a minimum charge of 45 cents. Police started arresting Black carpool drivers for any minor traffic violation. Police stopped King for driving 30 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone and jailed him for his “crime.” When Black people heard of his arrest and stormed the police station, King was let go on his own recognizance.

Black people in Montgomery did not give up. They had never shown such determination before to defy a Jim Crowe law before. Black people in Montgomery were making history and the news media took notice.

Media Coverage

On Christmas Day, 1954, Montgomery obtained its second TV channel when WSFA-TV went on the air. Two months later the Oklahoma Publishing Company purchased it. The new owners of WSFA were former newspapermen and had a strong commitment to local news coverage. They promised their audience a full 15 minutes of news and 15 minutes of weather coverage each night. Such local coverage of the news and weather was almost unheard of at the time. The other TV channel in Montgomery, in fact, offered no local programming at all, news or otherwise. WSFA hired as its first news director a young man named Frank McGee. McGee was just 30 years old and had only a high-school equivalence. McGee grew up in northern Louisiana and Oklahoma, the son of oil rig worker. He was not ideological but he sympathized with the plight of Black people. He recognized immediately that the bus boycott was a very big news story so he pursued it with vigor. McGee later said the owners of the station gave him pretty much a free hand to put on the air whatever he wanted. He speculated that the owners primarily saw the boycott as an exciting story that would help the station compete with the local newspapers. The story got even more exciting as White people continued to resist any change. The fact that WSFA happened to be one of the few stations outside major markets to have its own film processing equipment helped McGee tell his story and gain national attention. WSFA was a key source of film feeds to the national networks including NBC for stories from the Deep South. McGee’s ongoing Montgomery boycott coverage was included in those feeds and NBC network news picked up the story. Soon the national press corps that had only recently been involved in covering the Emmett Till trial, began arriving in Montgomery. The national reporters had little sympathy for the Montgomery officials when they arrived. They had even less after they met Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks.

The Boycott Ends

In October, the city of Montgomery sought a court injunction to end the car pools and other means of transportation, MIA had put in place as alternatives to the bus system. The city alleged that the car pools were a “public nuisance” and a “private enterprise” operating without a business license. It sought compensation for damages the “illegal enterprise” had caused the city due to lost revenue from bus company revenues and an end to the car pools. MIA asked for a restraining order from the federal courts but the courts denied their request. King and other leaders of the MIA received subpoenas to appear at a hearing on Tuesday, November 13.

As the chief defendant, King was seated at the front table along with the prosecuting and defense attorneys on the day of the hearing. It was around noon and the court was taking a brief recess. Suddenly, King saw the Mayor and other city officials called to a back room along with the city attorneys. Excited reporters were streaming in an out of the courtroom. King turned to the attorneys sitting next to him and said, “Something is wrong.” At that point, Rex Thomas, an Associated Press reporter, walked up to King and handed him a sheet of paper. “Read this,” he said. King opened the paper. It was a news flash.

The United States Supreme Court today affirmed a decision of a three-judge U.S. District Court in declaring Alabama’s state and local laws requiring segregation on buses unconstitutional. The Supreme Court acted without listening to any argument; it simply said ‘the motion to affirm is granted and the Judgment is affirmed.

The Montgomery bus boycott was over and because the City of Montgomery had been unwilling to compromise bus segregation was now illegal not just in Montgomery but throughout the South.[11] More importantly, advocates for civil rights had found their Gandhi in King.

[1] Quoted in Donnie Williams, The Thunder of Angels: The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the People who Broke the Back of Jim Crow, (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 2006), pp. 47-48.

[2] David Halberstam, The Fifties, (New York: Villard Books, 1993), pp. 541-542.

[3] Quoted in Donnie Williams, The Thunder of Angels: The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the People who Broke the Back of Jim Crow, (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 2006), p. 48

[4] Donnie Williams, The Thunder of Angels: The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the People who Broke the Back of Jim Crow, (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 2006), p. 51

[5] David Halberstam, The Fifties, (New York: Villard Books, 1993), p. 543.

[6] Donnie Williams, The Thunder of Angels: The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the People who Broke the Back of Jim Crow, (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 2006), p. 52.

[7] Donnie Williams, The Thunder of Angels: The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the People who Broke the Back of Jim Crow, (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 2006), p. 59.

[8] David Halberstam, The Fifties, (New York: Villard Books, 1993), pp. 547-548.

[9] Donnie Williams, The Thunder of Angels: The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the People who Broke the Back of Jim Crow, (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 2006), p. 60.

[10] William Manchester, The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972, (New York: Little Brown, 1973), p. 909.

[11] The following are excellent sources for additional information about the Montgomery boycott. Donnie Williams, The Thunder of Angels: The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the People who Broke the Back of Jim Crow, (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 2006),; David Halberstam, The Fifties, (New York: Villard Books, 1993), Chapter 36; Martin Luther King, Jr., Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), and Robert Mann, The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell and the Struggle of Civil Rights, (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1996), Chapter 8.

Unemployment and the 2012 election—Some predictions

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:15:00 +0000

Political analyst Charlie Cook says “The economy may not be as big a liability for President Obama on Election Day as many Republicans had assumed.” It depends, says Cook, on what the unemployment rate looks like in the fall.

Cook says:

The latest Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey of 56 top economists forecasts an 8.7 percent unemployment rate for calendar year 2012 and an 8.5 rate for the fourth quarter, when Election Day occurs.

My rule of thumb has been that if unemployment is near 9 percent on Election Day, President Obama would very likely lose. If it’s near 8 percent, he would likely win. But if it’s around 8.5 percent, the race would be a toss-up. Worthy of note, the Blue Chip survey was conducted on January 4-5, before the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the December unemployment numbers that dropped to 8.5 percent from an upwardly revised 8.7 percent in November. This means that the jobless rate has inched downward four months in a row, from 9.1 percent in August to 8.5 percent in December…

The 10 most pessimistic economists in the Blue Chip Indicators survey think that unemployment will average about 9 percent this year. That would present Obama with a steep uphill climb. Conversely, the 10 most optimistic analysts predict an 8 percent unemployment rate for the year. If that comes to pass, Obama might as well break out the champagne.

So, according to Cook, we should watch the unemployment numbers closely. If the current downward trend continues and unemployment is drifting toward 8% from the current 8.5%, then Obama will get four more years regardless of who the Republicans nominate. If the unemployment rate stays pretty much the same (around 8.5%), then the election will be a close one. If the trend reverses and we are looking at something close to 9% when voters go to the polls or unemployment is trending toward 9%, then Obama is toast.

Read Cook here:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/the-cook-report-still-a-millstone--20120112

Has Romney opened a 21 point lead in SC? Nope

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:11:00 +0000

Discount the Reuters poll showing Romney opening up a 21 point lead over Ron Paul and Rick Santorum in South Carolina (37% to 16% each for Paul and Santorum). The Reuters poll was a online poll, isn’t random and isn’t statistically significant.

We do have some recent REAL polls that tell a much different story.

	Date	Gingrich	Huntsman	Paul	Perry	Romney	Santorum
Public Policy Polling	1/11-13	24%	5%	15%	6%	29%	14%
Rasmuseen	1/12	21%	5%	16%	6%	28%	16%
American Research Group	1/11-12	25%	1%	20%	9%	29%	7%
Reuters/Ipsos	1/10-13	12%	3%	16%	6%	37%	16%

See the full results from these polls at these links:

Rasmussen

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2012_south_carolina_republican_primary

Public Policy

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/romney-leads-in-sc-paul-gaining.html

American Research Group

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/sc/

Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/14/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSTRE80D0U420120114?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Gingrich: True Republicans don't speak French

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:59:00 +0000

Newt has a new ad out accusing Romney of speaking French. Yep, that's what I said. Seems REAL Republicans don't speak French. Watch here or go to the link below:

Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyFaWhygzjQ

New Poll: Bad news for Republicans

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:47:00 +0000

Results of a new national poll by Democracy Corps contain mostly good news for Democrats and Obama and bad news for Republicans and Romney.

According to the Democracy Corps poll, Democrats are now winning on a generic Congressional ballot primarily as a result of a 9-point shift away from Republicans and toward Democrats among Independents since October and 19-point shift since August.

Two-thirds of voters now say they disapprove of the job Republicans are doing in Congress. Additionally, Republicans have now lost any advantage they had on the issue of who could best handle the economy.

Obama still trails Romney among independents but he has closed the gap to just 3 points, within the margin of error for this poll.

Obama’s favorable rating remains strong at 50% while only 31% of voters and 27% of independent voters view Romney favorably.

Finally, according to the Democracy Corps poll, Romney’s chances of beating Obama would be significantly damaged should Ron Paul decided to run as a third-party candidate. Paul would take 18% of the vote. Most of that (12%) would come from Romney supporters.

Read the poll here: http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2012/01/presidential-primary-contest-and-pre-christmas-showdown-put-republicans-at-risk/

Five ways Obama can win

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:36:00 +0000

Obama needs 270 electoral votes to win. In this video, Obama’s campaign manager Jim Messina discusses five of some 40 pathways to victory the Obama team has identified. Interesting. If the video doesn’t play, click on the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7Y-Q9ZY5Ao

Election experts predict Obama will win

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:42:00 +0000

PollyVote recently surveyed 15 experts on U.S. presidential elections from a variety of colleges and universities asking them to predict the likely outcome of the 2012 election. Twelve of the 15 experts predicted that Obama would win a narrow victory. Forecasts of Obama’s vote ranged from a high of 52% to a low of 48%. The average forecast was that Obama would get 50.7% of the vote.

This is the third presidential election in which PollyVote has conducted such a survey. In 2004 and 2008, the expert panel came closer to forecasting the actual vote than other forecasters this early in the race.

Read the results here: http://pollyvote.forecastingprinciples.com//

No Recess appointments during Senate RECESS

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:43:00 +0000

Republican U.S. Congressman Diane Black of Tennessee (Yes, she calls herself “Congressman”) has introduced a resolution disapproving of Obama’s recess appointments. In a press release, she says “These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test.” She goes on to complain that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) appointments “were jammed through by the president before the Senate even had the chance to consider the appointees. Their names were only put forward on December 15th, a mere two days before the Senate recessed for the holiday."

So, let’s see. CongressMAN Black thinks the president making a RECESS appointment during a time when the Senate is RECESSED is an affront to the Constitution.”

I'm always amazed at Republican illogic.

http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-introduces-resolution-disapproving-obama%E2%80%99s-recent-presidential-appointments

Will it end in South Carolina?

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:43:00 +0000

Pundits and even some of the Republican candidates are now saying if Romney wins South Carolina, he will probably win the nomination.

Romney is 10 points ahead of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in South Carolina and but is downplaying expectations. David Hawkings at CQ Roll Call says Gingrich and/or Santorum may have a chance of closing the gap but it may be their last chance to derail the Romney train. He writes:

Both are much closer to the sort of cultural conservatives that South Carolinians tend to favor. (It’s really tough to see where Jon Huntsman takes his “ticket to ride” or how Ron Paul plays against type.) And neither the ex-Speaker nor the ex-senator (nor the super PACs that are promoting them, nor Rick Perry, who’s making his last stand in the state) has unleashed the full, multimillion-dollar measure of their TV attacks on the front-runner. If their highly unusual (for a Republican campaign) collective argument about the sins of private equity firm greed develops staying power, and if one of the candidates can claim the lion’s share of voters who turn against Bain Capital’s practice of bust-it-up capitalism, then there is still one final chance for the “corporate raider” Romney juggernaut to be derailed and a consensus conservative alternative to be crowned.

However, says Hawkings, if neither Gingrich nor Santorum are successful then Romney may be unstoppable. Hawkings points out that Gingrich has as much as conceded that SC is a must win for an non-Romney. He told MSNBC this morning that ““If Romney can win South Carolina, He’s probably going to be the nominee.” Republican South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said much the same predicting that Romney will be successful in convincing South Carolina Republicans that he has the best chance of beating Obama and creating jobs.

Read more here:

http://corporate.cqrollcall.com/content/4/en/CQ_Roll_Call_Daily_Briefing

and here

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/newt-gingrich-releases-ad-accusing-mitt-romney-flip-flopping-abortion-south-carolina-article-1.1004549#ixzz1jAl3smL6

Republican lies about the economy exposed

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:58:00 +0000

If you listen to Republicans—and you are almost forced to do so—you’ll hear a lot of true garbage about the U.S. economy. According to almost any Republican, the nation faces a real and immediate deficit crisis. If something isn’t done to reign in runaway Obama/Democrat spending on give-away entitlement programs, then the U.S. is going to become another Greece. Well, it is a lot of Republican hooey.

Are we facing an immediate debt/deficit crisis that requires severe cuts in budgets? NO. Alan Blinder of Princeton and former Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve pointed out at a recent American Economic Association annual meeting in Chicago that the U.S. Government “can borrow short term at negative real interest rates, and long-term at about zero. The world is paying us to hold their money.” Binder says, “That is anything but a debt crisis.” Binder adds that the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) budget deficit projections over the next decade are about 3.6 percent of GDP, which is not much to get agitated about. In fact, the CBO wrote:

Under current law, CBO projects, budget deficits will drop markedly over the next few years—to $1.1 trillion in 2012, $704 billion in 2013, and $533 billion in 2014. Relative to the size of the economy, those deficits represent 7.0 percent of GDP in 2012, 4.3 percent in 2013, and 3.1 percent in 2014. From 2015 through 2021, the deficits in the baseline projections range from 2.9 percent to 3.4 percent of GDP. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12039

In respect to the U.S. ending up like Greece, Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C., says, “to say that the U.S. is ‘going to end up like Greece’ is one of the dumbest things that anyone…can say.“ He asks, “Have you ever heard of the U.S. dollar, the world’s key reserve currency? The United States is not going to end up like Greece any sooner than it will end up like Haiti or Burkina Faso. A country that can pay its foreign public debt in its own currency and runs its own central bank does not end up like Greece. In fact, even Japan is not going to end up like Greece, and Japan has a gross public debt of about 220 percent of its GDP, more than twice the size of ours and vastly larger – again relative to its economy -- than that of Greece. And the yen is nowhere near the dollar in its importance as an international reserve currency. But the Japanese government is still borrowing at just 1 percent interest rates for its 10-year bonds.”

Let me add this. The amount of debt a country has is normally expressed as a % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). During WWII the U.S. ran up a deficit of 120% of GDP and suffered no serious consequences, in fact the depression ended and the post-war economy boomed. Most economists say a country can run long term deficits of around 60% of GDP with no problem but there is no firm rule. In 2011, Gross Federal Debt reached 102.6% of GDP. That sounds huge and it is what Republicans yell about. But, there are two kinds of federal debt: (1) Debt held by the public--what the federal government owes Americans and foreigners who have purchased federal bonds, and (2) Debt held by government accounts--that's debt one part of government owes another part of government, for example what the treasury owes Social Security for SS trust funds invested in government bonds. Debt held by the public is the debt we really need to worry about. It reached 72% of GDP in 2011 and is projected to go to 75% of so in the next few years. The rest of the debt 30% of GDP is debt held by government accounts, in other words debt the federal government owes itself. 72% public debt is high but not the highest it has been. Public debt reached 108.7% of GDP in 1946. It then dropped dramatically, reaching 51% in 10 years and just 18% in 1974. See http://national priorities.org/resources/federal-budget-101/peoples-guide/

Binder and Weisbrot both note that the real long-term problem for the U.S. isn’t runaway spending, but health care costs. Binder notes that he doesn’t mean increased health care cost due to the aging population but increased health care costs due to the rising costs of health care. Weisbot says “you could take any country with a life expectancy greater than ours – including the other high-income countries – and put their per capita health care costs into our budget, and the long-term budget deficit would turn into a surplus… The United States pays about twice as much per person for health care as other high-income countries – and still leaves 50 million people uninsured. This is a result of a dysfunctional health care system that has had health care prices rising much faster than those of other high-income countries for decades. What the budget hawks are basically telling us is that we must assume that insurance and pharmaceutical companies will have a veto over the provisions of health care reform for decades to come. And that therefore we must find other ways to make up for these excessive costs, including cutting Social Security and other government spending, and pushing us into higher rates of poverty and inequality than we already have. “

Weisbrot concludes with the observation that all of this “crap about deficits and the debt” is just something Republicans use to block stimulus measures that could help speed the recovery. So, why would Republicans do that?

I’ve said it before. The Republican strategy to win Congress and the White House in 2012 is based ENTIRELY on blaming Obama and the Democrats for high unemployment and a crippled economy. Republicans will do anything, no matter how much hurt it causes middle-class Americans and working people, to keep unemployment high and the economic recovery anemic. It is politics, pure, cynical, heartless politics. And, we shouldn’t let them get away with it.

Read more on the Binder and Weisbrot comments here: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/economists-may-contribute-to-a-lost-decade-for-america

Thank you Newt

noreply@blogger.com (The Attack Democrat) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:00:00 +0000

You won't hear me say this very often, in fact, I don't think I have ever said it before nor do I expect to say it again, but "Thank you, Newt or, at least, you Newt supporters." The pro-Newt SuperPac Winning Our Future has released a video about Mitt Romney. If Romney becomes the Republican nominee, all the Democrats need to do is get this film and run it over and over and Romney is toast. Thank you Newt. Watch. Enjoy.

If you can't see the video, go here: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/newt-goes-full-occupy-wall-street-against-romney.php