Whatever it is about Newt Gingrich, South Carolina seems to love him. Gene Robinson of the Washington Post last night on our show:
I mean, what is it about Newt? It's the anger. It's the fact he is in everybody's face and Republican voters here are looking for somebody to be in Barack Obama's face the way Newt Gingrich is.
And the way Mitt Romney struggles to be, you know, that little episode today, you know, going straight to North Korea. I mean, you don't go straight to North Korea when you're trying to argue economics with Occupy Wall Street. And so, it's part Mitt Romney. . . . You have to kind of look at all of this, $370,000, not a lot of money, Cayman Islands, gee, you know, who is this guy, and is he really going to have our interests at heart?
Our pal Steve Benen looks at the huge cheers Mr. Gingrich got in the debate last night and suggests:
Conservative voters hate the media, so Gingrich exploits that hatred. Conservative voters don't like feeling defensive about race and policy, so Gingrich tells them why they shouldn't. His debate performances are like dopamine for the right-wing soul.
It seems to be working. Mr. Gingrich now leads, narrowly, almost across the board. The vote's tomorrow.
Leave a Comment:
Romney is the most arrogant and privileged character imaginable. Romney is a man that made hundreds of millions of dollars in bankrupting companies and laying off American workers for profit, shuttled most of his fortune to offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands in an un-American scheme to avoid taxes we all pay, and then has the temerity to thumb his nose at the press and the voters when they ask to see his tax returns like every pother candidate. This has made Romney uniquely unqualified to be commander in chief. He is a disgrace. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
why doesn't he release his tax info, because if he did theres something he doesn't want us to see that would make people see he is a job killer and not a saint like he wants us to believe, it will be too late to do anything after he gets the nomination ,wake up and look at the roses people there are some very large thorns on them!
Seems I've heard something like this before somewhere?
There's a lot of interesting information on Newt's 2010 return. However, full disclosure would include a release of the 1120-S forms (for his LLCs, etc.) that show the calculations of his small business earnings (the bulk of his taxable income).
I'd love to see the total earnings and the underlying data regarding expenses.
Most of those in the media wouldn't be able to make head nor tail of it. (Though David Cay Johnston would probably have a field day with the data.) However, some of us would probably have some interesting questions about those numbers.
I'm w/ RobDon on this one: we need to leave specious reasoning by the wayside. Saying he doesn't release his tax return for some nefarious reason brings us to the same conspiracy style conclusions that the right have been lobbing towards Obama for not releasing his college transcript.
Mitt Robme doesn't want to release income tax returns because some clever soul is going to find something illegal.
Just like what happened to Newt Gingrich when he had to pay a $300,000 ethics fine so he could avoid federal prison.
People need to keep up the pressure until the documents are released to eliminate the risk of the GOP nominating a criminal that would say/do anything to get elected.
This just in.... South Carolina renames itself "Texas East"...
To quote that great orator Wilson---"you lie"
Actually it should read:
"Welcome to South Carolina, yet another backward, bible thumping bunch of
hypocrits, we just ack Genteel about it!!"
It's a great day!
Romney says Pres Obama does'nt understand how the economy works.Pres Obama knows it works for people like Romney (1%)but not the rest of us.
I saw part of the debate last night, and Gingrich said after Santorum said that Gingrich would have difficulty debating Obama on health care because Gingrich advocated for the individual mandate for ten years and the individual mandate is at the core of what is wrong with Obamacare (I paraphrase but this is close to what Santorum said). Gingrich saic that he has a good debate response - he will say that whereas he, Gigrich, realizes Gringich realizes he was mistaken, Obama does not realize Obama is mistaken. To large applause. This proves that Gingrich is a lying hypocrital sociopath and will do anything for money and say anything to win a debate. I'll give him the laugh line and perhaps the debate, but I feel sorry for any country that has Gingrich as president.
why is it important not to ask about the grenches wifes suggestion about him wanting an open marriage ,it is news,he has brought out everything about every conservative he could find and he is supposed to be untouchable,same old story do as I say not as I do.this guy is the biggest joke to come out of washington ever!I think it is very important to know the answers,he said Obama has been the worst food stamp president ever,he is right because right wing policies put more people out of work during the Bush adm that any president since Hoover did it and he was a right winger also ,aren't we glad someone who gave a dam(Obama) about people was there to take care of those who were so adversly effected by right wing idiots
Note that he attacked and never really did answer the question---but then he DID answer the question, didn't he? There are rules for the Grinch and there are rules for the rest of us!
It all points to the fact that RoMONEY is unelectable yet the TeaGOP is ultimately stuck with him.
well be careful what you pray for because you just might get it and find it is not exactly what you wanted,,,it serves them right
In ignoring a topical debate question about his serial marital infidelity, and turning it into an attack on the media - to the uproarious glee of the GOP audience - Newt "Family Values" Gingrich once again demonstrates his mastery of the Jedi Mind Trick against those with short memories and no respect for history.
he sure knows how to play to that crowd like a base fiddle. he`s got the dog whistle down, the red meat with enough racist over tones as a nice topping.
plays well with in that minority crowd but will not play nationally. as he does not have debating skills just talking points and radical ideas.
True. But, sadly, debating skills are not necessarily relevant. Showmanship is. Harken back to "There you go again." Those four words led to two terms in the White House. Hell, even Rick Perry got a standing O (in the Reagan Library, coincidently) over nothing more than being the Governor of the state that executes the most prisoners. He didn't even have to open his mouth.
Colbert: Mitt’s Iowa Win, Loss A ‘Classic Romney Flip-Flop’
LMAO Outstanding.
All y'all: Newt Gingrich's self righteous blame/scold of "the media" last night is a speech pattern familiar to all Southerners who listen to televangelists and/or attend certain charismatic churches. It is the same sort of verbal onslaught one always receives here when one has the temerity to call the Tea Party out for such hypocrisy as racism or sexism...one has the tables turned and is blamed for the very sin which one is trying to expunge. There is NO logic to it; don't look for any. Newt is going to win tomorrow...and probably win all the other Southern primaries.
That ought to frighten any not-so-very-much-in-love-with-Romney Republicans north of the Mason-Dixon line right over into his camp. In a way, Newt is doing Mitt a very big favor.
carolina lady I am afraid you are right,his brags about leaving a surplus and the stockmarket rise during his term as speaker,I rember him fighting Clinton and Clinton is getting bragging rightsfor all those things and he is trying to steal Clintons thunder,he is worse than a snake in the wood pile!
It's funny to hear people say the founders didn't intend for the government to control all aspects of the economy and personal liberty. These are the same people advocating for allowing that control to go to the market, or rather the corporations. Thomas Jefferson actually specifically warned in a letter that one of the biggest threats to our new democracy was the corporation many of which were taking shape and control in England, and he urged that we should not allow corporation's to exist or take hold in this country at all cost.
The right wing is afraid of the media as well of releasing their financial record's because they keep their supporters constantly off step so they won't realize how they are taking this country apart like Romney did to companies when he ran Bain. One of the ways they do this is by keeping them in this constant state of fear and hatred towards their fellow citizens. It's a common methodology the military practices to instill the same in troops towards any enemy to keep them willing to fight.
The truth is, the right wing wants to dismantle social security (a program that has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus and that is absolutely fine for at least 25 years), medicare, medicade because just like healthcare and pensions they want to force people to buy them on the market so that they can make huge profits. But the private American healthcare/insurance system is the most expensive in the world with one of the least benefits. Similarly look at our infrastructure/banking/financial/childcare etc. they're hugely expensive with many times horrible if any results.
The right loves to claim the market (corporations) will police themselves and always do the right thing as long as we remove all the rules (deregulation). But not a single person on either side can show a single example ever of when that was true. On the other hand we can give literally hundreds of examples of when regulated capitalism or government controlled programs (like healthcare), have been incredibly successful not only economically but as far as delivery of service goes. This is why Republicans do not want people to watch liberal, high information media and why they do not want the population to be decent, amiable, neighbors and discuss the facts calmly.
If I remember rightly, nothing happened economically until after Gringrich was removed. Then his own party didn't even invite him back into the fold when Bush Jr. arrived. Funny how his own party ostracized him but are now falling all over themselves to get him nominated. I wonder if they'll fall all over themselves to impeach him if he actually wins and proposes to his fifth wife in the oval office? I wonder if God has sent a special memo to Lucifer "He's all yours bro. Have fun!"
I was surprised at Romney's counter comment when asked about the Marriott corporation donating a large sum to Romney's superpac. He responded that it was "Bill Marriott" not the corporation that made the donation.
I thought superpacs were supposed to be separate and not coordinating. If that's true, how does he know the details of the donation?
Jon and Colbert have been going over this on their show about what is and isn't considered coordination between a campaign and a SuperPac. It is completely A-OK for the SuperPac to tell the campaign who donated to them and in what amounts, what the SuperPac will be airing in it's ads and when, and how much they will be spending on those ads.
Yes that's right ladies and gentlemen: Citizens United is even more evil than you imagined.
Marriott is now infamous for kicking out liberal protestors while allowing right wing protestors to do whatever. They've even kicked out paying customers who they found out were liberal protestors. The obnoxious thing like many of these corporations is how they scrub the internet of negative references regarding their actions. Not a hard thing to do but still obnoxious.
Hey, TRMS, I hope you have a lot of video of Newt talking about Lewinsky, for when you cover his righteous indignation at that first question last night.
Digby offers this link as a starting point.
Mr Benen, It was folks like Newt who helped twist what may have been a justifiable recoil from the excesses of wildly successful "dirty laundry" style reporting into a "hatred" of the "liberal media." Most of these "conservative voters" are the people I grew up with in the New South (yes, attending West Georgia) and we were taught about the Fourth Estate and just hated to see people's privacy invaded. The our "good friends" then destroyed our dads' union (PATCO strike 1981), deregullated the airlines, (nuff said) and is in the process of dismantling the public school system that made us. Why oh, why we would be so gullible and rat like- a la the Pied Piper, I cannot fathom. When I heard the cheers go up after Newt invoked the "liberal media" I wanted to cry. I work in the media and three of the four employees that would be id-ed as liberal keep their traps shut- most of the well meaning intellegent young people there are as conservative as Archie Bunker.
I appreciate Mr Robinson's remarks, and thanks RMS for the forum.
Dear gawd the world gets a look at my state.
Look here now, we are a gracious polite people.Sure we get stupid during elections or as I refer to it-the silly season but we eat grits and shrimp---together. As to being racist I offer up the following facts-African Americans brought okra to our land and we do love Okra, then there is the fact that what passes for southern cooking also passes for soul food.
In truth these folks are almost as friendly as Californians or even Nevadans(and no tip required). As to their politics they inherit them.
The GOP race seems to be down to Romney and Gingrich. The reason why is totally lost on me.
Romney will say whatever he thinks will get him the nomination. He is the ultimate flip-flopper. When Huckabee asked if he would support the Personhood Amendment, he said yes. If he had been asked the same question while he was Governor of Mass, he would have laughed at the idea. He was pro-choice; now he’s against it. He supported healthcare for Mass residents. Now he’s against healthcare for the entire country. And now we know he shelters millions of dollars in the Cayman Islands. His campaign says he’s not using the Caymans as a tax haven. OH PLEASE.
As for Gingrich, I detest that ARROGANT HYPOCRITICAL BLOWHARD. I think he’s loathsome. Anything else I might say about Gingrich is profane.
True.
Sanitarium's bestiality remarks kind of make me want to ask why that topic is so important for him.
Paul introduced pro-drugs and pro-prostitution legislation, so you don't even need to ask that kind of question.
Hard to believe the GOP would nominate either one.
"Sing to the fallen eagle
Helicopters fly
Chase him 'round the mountains
Chase him 'til he dies" (Stephen Stills)
Anger is what most of the Republicans and Tea Party are all about. They don't have plans or ideas, but they have a lot of anger. Gingrich and Fox have mastered the art of provoking that anger. This is the politics of distraction and allows people's attention to be diverted from the real substantive issues.
"They don't have plans or ideas, but they have a lot of anger.", what nonsense...most of last night's debate was about Newt's 'Grandiose' Plans for the Nation, just ask Rick Santorum?
What a hypocrite you are, you act like seditious progressive democrats are well behaved and adroit at all times when in fact they are the ones that cause mayhem in the streets of America and undermine our republican form of government.
Newt is the conservative answer to 'William Wallace', he is willingly to get in the face of the seditious progressive democrat and the lame stream media that supports them. That is why we support Newt....and when Newt meets Obama in the arena of the presidential debates, Obama will finally be exposed for the failed socialist he really is.
LOL thanks again for the early morning laugh with my coffee your jokes go well with a nice jelly fill donut.
maybe if you run fast enough you can jump though the hole on a rolling donut.
Seditious is when people fly the Confederate flag and there seems to be a lot of that in red states.
@Mike Paganucci - "Seditious is when people fly the Confederate flag and there seems to be a lot of that in red states.", I actually agree with you! The Confederate Flag (especially the 'Stars and Bars') is a display of open sedition against our Union and should be banned from all public institutions.
But when progressive democrats advance socialism thru democracy without going thru the Article V. Amendment Process that is also SEDITION against our republican form of government.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that states capitalism shall be the economic system in the US. Keep going Dug because you keep digging yourself into a hole.
@Dug FmJamul - "the lame stream media"? LOL, from Palin's mouth to your ears!
@Mike Paganucci -- What hole? The Constitution is a limited document, it limits the federal government to enumerated powers. What is not enumerated is given back to the people and the states. If a state owns the means of production, distribution and services, and if political power is exercised by the state in the guise of a community, what limits this political power from restricting individual liberty and the free market?
The 'hole' in your argument that socialism is just an economic system. It is a fallacy to describe 'socialism' as just 'economics' when in reality socialistic principles must be implemented thru the force of the government first before any economic principles can be carried out.
Socialism in all of its forms is in directed conflict to a limited government with enumerated powers. The Founders clearly did not want a centralized government controlling all aspects of the economy and personal liberty, just the opposite. And when progressive democrats undermine the 'text' of the constitution to advance socialism thru democracy without going thru the Amendment Process they are indeed installing a new type of government without 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and 3/4 of the State Legislators approving of such principles.
Socialism is not in direct conflict with limited government. It is a question of degree. From the time the colonies were settled to present day there has been socialism in this country. The colonies were collectives and to a certain degree the Mennonites and Amish practice a limited form of socialism. If you studied history you would know those facts.
The Founders did want a centralized government which is why they abandoned the Articles of Confederation because the central government was too weak. Second, the Constitution gives Congress the express power to regulate Interstate Commerce. There is barely any commerce today that is not interstate. The purpose of the Constitution was to empower the central government in certain aspects, while constricting the powers over individual rights. Before you even talk about the 10th Amendment, you should note that Republicans keep talking about outlawing gay marriage. The requirements for marriage have always been a state matter. Strict construction by conservatives is the supermarket kind; they like to pick and choose when it should be applied.
@Mike Paganucci -- I specifically said, "The Founders clearly did not want a centralized government controlling all aspects of the economy and personal liberty, just the opposite.". The whole purpose of creating a Union was to centralize the States for Defense and the General Welfare while safeguarding individual liberty and the free flow of goods and services across state lines, socialism restricts the free market and personal liberty with increasing the federal government powers over lives, this is in directed conflict of the Founders intentions. You can't agree with this because it goes against your political dogma, but it is precisely why democrats should never have control of the federal government. We have come to this moment in time, not because the nation has come closer to Republicanism, instead we are on the brink of failure because we have followed the false doctrines of progressivism and the living constitution. Only a return to our 'Republican' fundamentals will save this nation for destruction, if continue on Obama's course of secular socialism we are DOOM to failure.
When the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 adjourned from writing the Constitution, a woman was waiting at the door. She asked delegate Benjamin Franklin what they wrought, and he said a constitution for “a republic, if you can keep it.”
The only way to keep our Republic is support Republicanism and abandon phoney baloney democracy.
Dug you need to research the difference between the Articles and the US Constitution. And again the inability to recognize contradictions w/in your own sentences:
Truly amazing.
I wonder Dug: what is it, exactly, that you think a democracy is?
Also, while we're at it, why don't you describe what socialism is in your eyes and what President Obama has done that is "socialist" versus that of any other POTUS in history? The premise of your argument is that he has done something to fundamentally change us, using democracy o.O, and therefore we must abolish the portions of our constitution that encourage democracy o.O in order to uphold the portions that maintain a republic, because somehow this will return us to the original intention of the document you've advocated changing o.O. I would assume, therefore, that this means PBO has done something so fundamentally egregious as to warrant such a reactionary view.
"Dug FmJamul-5019740 I specifically said, "The Founders clearly did not want a centralized government controlling all aspects of the economy and personal liberty, just the opposite."
The only part of that statement that is correct is about personal liberty. The Founders granted Congress exclusive control over interstate commerce. That says nothing about a little or a lot of control or that capitalism is our economic system. You keep reasserting the point that the Founders did not want the Federal government to control the economy, but the words of the Constitution directly contradict that assertion.
Nice thread.
People rarely realize is that GOP policies are MORE socialist than Democrat policies.
About $1 trillion of US national debt directly involves enforcement and punishment for non-violent victimless crime.
Laws that criminalized non-violent victimless crime create an "entitlement" to punish people that commit moral crimes identified in the Bible.
Moral incarceration and race incarceration are big with the GOP.
About half of all federal and state prisoners committed crimes that harmed nobody. About 15 million people have difficulty finding work because employers refuse to hire people with criminal records that create zero risk for employment.
The bulk of this problem is due to inadequate literacy due to declining public education caused by extracting money from schools to fund morality law enforcement.
Few realize this is the kind of thing that collapsed the Roman empire.
Just because something is popular does not make it a good idea.
dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Dug FmJamul needs to learn political science and not just repeat slogans he does not understand.
"seditious progressive democrats... in fact they are the ones that cause mayhem in the streets of America and undermine our republican form of government" It's a right-wing smear to call street hooligans "liberals/progressives/Democrats". The statement also exhibits Dug's ignorance of basic English. No wonder he falls for that lie.
"in reality socialistic principles must be implemented thru the force of the government" Really? Prove it! You need no government at all to pursue socialist economics. Look up "social anarchy" and learn economics and political science.
"The Founders clearly did not want a centralized government controlling all aspects of the economy and personal liberty" ALL aspects? Get a life and stop chasing red herrings thrown out by Fox News.
You may like my video about Newt's three marriages at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQSsMRe6BJE
There are chickens in it. Everybody loves chickens!
It also ends with a splash of Santorum!
Newt doesn't like to be the one picked on...he can be quite the crybaby when the tables are turned. So if his strength is what attracts Obama-haters, his tantrums and pleads for mercy should be pointed out more.
typical wimpy bully all bark no bite, stand up to him and he becomes the coward he is. kind of like the others running for the head of the Greed Over Patriotism Party.
newt probally was a bullie and needs to be put in his place I would like to buy him for his real worth and sell him for his imagined worth Hell I would be the richest man in this wordl!
There has got to be some real uncouth Politicians, just seeing how much money they make. Seeing how Romney is a needie little spoiled rich boy that will do anything to gain more power and wealth along with that arrogant attitude and let’s do everything in a quiet room, I am not surprised. Care to say the rest of them are just as worthless. It is so obvious how they do nothing but spin lies too much to get what they want. No wonder our economy and the world’s is so messed up. And the thought to have more of those worthless bozos in the white house is something I wouldn’t want to deal with anymore, it is high time we get some good Politicians and not some worthless dead beat Republicans.
amen sir!
I betcha 10 grand he won’t get it
Unfortunately, (expletive deleted) are people too, or
should I keep my "Mitt’s" off that buggery of an idea?
How do I describe thee, Newt? Megalomaniac, sociopath, narcissist, piece of work?
If you have ever known one you recognize one.
You recognize that there is no limit to how low this person will go to destroy anyone who opposes them.
you recognize there is no lie or deceit this person will not engage in.
You realize that the bigger the lie, the louder or more aggressive the offense to cover that lie, these people do not play defense, when they are threatened, they attack.
Newt despises everyone. He despises his supporters as much as he does his opponents.
He's the most disingenuous, smarmy politician you'll ever meet, and he doesn't care on whit about it. He'll leave nothing but destruction in his wake.
Politically speaking, if Gingrich bloodies his way to the nomination it will be interesting to see how many and how fast 'values voter' Republicans change their tune on integrity and family values; which evangelicals learn to lose their gag reflex and swallow , as they talk about forgiveness; which racists and anti immigration hardliners will support him even when he chases the Latino vote with promises of a path to citizenship.
I think the majority of Republicans will have no problem dancing to Newt's madness because all Republicans want is a fight, a dirty, bloody fight. They want to punch Barack Obama, and want to punch him hard. IF Newt will do that for them, they could care less about anything else. They will ignore his pomposity, his delusions, his nastiness, his lies, his vendettas, his political whoring.
That's the GOP in 2012.
Well said many!!
FRI JAN 20, 2012 AT 08:15 AM PST
Why does Mitt Romney think releasing his tax returns would be a 'nice little present' for Democrats?+*
byJed Lewison
so Mitt just why would it be a present, and by releasing them all at one time not also be a present. LOL swagging here but thinking he has to do some heavy rewrites, that the IRS might want to look at.
In the past Presidential election years all the candidates released them in April of the election year. Then Senator Obama released his in late March - everyone else in the last 2 elections did it in April. And, it is voluntary - not that it matters. I do like it when a candidate does release them though.
Gov. Romney has been running for President for a loooooong time (not really a plus). Do you not think he is smart enough to make sure his tax returns do not show anything other than legal/appropriate activity?
The real reason for the delay is that no matter what the returns say, the Left and news media will focus on one thing and one thing only, his income. Be it earned or investments, the talk will be he makes millions and millions so he has no idea what "common folk" struggle with.
Releasing part now and the rest later would allow two complete rounds of that coverage, one during the primary that he is trying to win. It is both strategic and logical to wait.
ALTHOUGH, there may be such a crescendo now he may have to either release it in two stages OR finish last years return NOW and release it all now. The latter is my prediction.
Whether he makes millions and millions is not a good indicator of whether or not he relates to the average American family. I get annoyed when the media implies as much. The majority of our elected representatives are millionaires...although I suppose you could argue that our Congress is fundamentally out of touch w/ Americans...in which case I have no rebuttal since I would genuinely agree w/ that logic ;-). I just don't believe that income in and of itself is an indicator of whether or not someone can enact positive legislation. If we want to know what he thinks the average American earns in income I would say simply put him on the spot. My assumption is the majority of our elected representatives do not know what the average American earns in a year and they will probably give an amount that is grossly higher than that of what most Americans make. You could also ask your questions in such a way as to make the candidate justify- w/ evidence- how he is concluding it will help. Doing so to both PBO and Romney or Gingrich (whoever gets the nomination) I think would actually be positive and it certainly would be better of our media.
I agree mouzer. If he reads the stats of average income, one would think - erroneously - that everybody in the US makes at least 43,000/year (or whatever the "average" wage/salary is for the year). I have to work 2 years to gross that one years "average" or 3 years to net that "average". I don't envy romney his millions, and how I feel about how he got his millions is beside the point. Setting aside the right/wrong judgement allows me to look at the facts: as a businessman, he did business the way his world does business - calculating organized bare-bones efficiency. This approach may be good as a business model, for it is in a very controlled atmosphere. But will this approach work for an entire populace? At the moment, all I hear him talking about is how to stimulate business with tax cuts and removing regulations. All talk about what is good for the world he knows - business. I have not heard anything from him that shows he has an understanding of We the People, or has an empathy with us, which tells me his contact with people that actually makes a business a business - people who work at the jobs - is nil or possibly close to nil. I believe that overseeing the running of a country is part business sense - decisions do need to be made - and part empathy for the people that the decision will affect or not - and just not in the immediate sense, but in the long-term generational sense. An attribute that Romney has yet to unviel.
Argh meant to say how their policy changes would help...meaning how they would help the average citizen. We have a nasty tendency of just allowing our politicians to go out and claim X will work w/o demanding that they prove that it will work or for whom it will work. The point I was trying to get at is that whether or not Romney (or any other candidate) is a good candidate for America should be based in how his policy propositions will affect the average citizen. If he openly admits he doesn't know what the average citizen is (income wise, at least) or how that average citizen lives (just because the majority make 40ishk a year does not mean they have oodles of cash lying around to do whatever they'd like).
@Jontara yeah that is exactly what I'm saying. All the talk is oriented on coddling the egos of hypothetical business owners as if companies have some sort of disorder that, if not properly treated, will cause the implosion of the nation. I am not at all convinced this is the case. What I hear the conversation being oriented towards is business, business, business. I hear very little on how it's good for you and I the non-millionaires. I don't give a damn what Romney makes or what Obama makes in a year other than I would like that they make it by providing a service or product and not by betting against a companies failure or firing people...but the actual dollar amount I could care less about. What I care about is how policy X as proposed by politician A will affect me, my family, and my friends. That should be the focus of our media imho.
I think "relates" is not accurate-enough a word. Can a millionaire really understand the experience of a family living in poverty? Not unless that millionaire once lived that life. Can a millionaire have the empathy to identify with the impoverished and act out of genuine desire for their well-being? Definitely. FDR was born to money; so was Dubya. Vast difference in character!
I'm sorta disagreeing, but not quite. ;)
Careful- I have a tendency to find argumentative women attractive. Very bad pathway to go down =P
The point is not how much people or corporations are making. The point is that these people have now and have had over the especially the last 30 years much more influence over the political and judicial process. As a result the middle and lower class have seen their wages stagnate, while their benefits, both pensions and healthcare overall have disappeared and/or become extraordinarily expensive while providing poorer and poorer service.
At the same time the super rich have used their power to pass legislation giving them tax breaks to ship jobs and factories over seas, tax loopholes for themselves, tax breaks for themselves, and all the while increasing their wages and benefits. They've also changed our economy into a financial economy where they make money purely by investing and manipulating the market which creates nothing especially jobs.
In other words they have used their power to game the system in every way they could have leaving America and the American citizen dead and dying. This is why people are having such harsh feelings towards the very wealthy many of whom, maybe not even the majority but certainly many of whom have betrayed the majority of 'the people.'
We had a saying when I was a cadet, 'There are two types of leaders, those whose men will follow him into fire and those whose men will push him into the fire.'
The Mouzer may recall the CBS 60 Minutes report on how that is done. Politicians have insider knowledge that they use for personal gain.
They are all corrupt, every one. Better to flush them all away and have no government at all, only the rule of law enforced by public trusts funded by taxes like it is right now except no government criminal class to serve the rich by robbing the public.
Newt’s Jobs Plan
After carefully listening to Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina debates, I realized what his jobs plan might be, and I imagined this:
Newt Gingrich’s jobs plan was unveiled this week in South Carolina. As one of the first things he’ll do upon entering the oval office in January 2013, is institute his “Plan To Accentuate Trade Incentives Over Negative Systems.”
This plan, called PLANTATIONS for short, would transport all urban and rural food stamp beneficiaries to large mega-farms and super-factories, where they would be provided housing and full employment, growing the food and making the products we need to compete in the world market place.
“This would help us with our unemployment AND our trade deficit at the same time!” said Mr. Gingrich. When asked about possible resistance to the plan, he remarked, “Anyone against this plan hasn’t read American History. The Founding Fathers knew the value housing and employing a vast workforce for the common good, especially in the southern colonies. We’ve gotten away from workable solutions to our problems. I’m just taking a page from the Founding Fathers playbook. Now, I expect some resistance from the food stamp recipients themselves, but that’s only because they have no history of work. They have no concept of the value of a paycheck. This plan will show them a new way to live their lives and serve their country. It’s very exciting!”
Imagined by Patrick Nagel.
Yes, especially all the white reciepients would really balk at having to do such menial labor. But they do seem to be the ones appluading the loudest for food stamp termination.
Post this on Colbert's web site.
Please!
SOUTH CAROLINA: Gingrich Leads Romney By Two Wives
That's cute. (No sarcasm, really, it made me chuckle...see Republicans do have a sense of humor.)
Also by one (at least partial) tax return.
After a public blow-up in the opening minutes of a South Carolina debate between the GOP presidential contenders in which Newt Gingrich challenged a moderator for bringing up his life of unfaithfulness behind closed doors, many political pundits and those among the general public at large are questioning Gingrich's credentials as a presdential candidate. In the wake of his ex-wife's TV interview on Nightline, where she claimed that after 18 years of marriage Newt came to her with a divorce request, as well as having the AUDACITY to ask that their marriage be an open one so that he could "have his cake and eat it too," regarding his mistress, some are wondering if this ind of greedy, untrue, backstabbing, conniving behavior maes Newt fit to run for President of the United States.
Secondly, it was also brought up that Newt was having these extramarital affairs while leading impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton, following Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, which spread like wild fire and was made public, jeopardizing Clinton's presidency.
Seriously. Talk about the pot (in Newt's case, the humungous pressure cooker) calling the kettle black! I haven't been a Gingrich supporter since Day 1. Heck, I even agree with his stance at the South Carolina debate that his personal life had no place at the presidential discussion, but on the other hand, what kind of votes does he intend to acquire with such a malicious, hurtful personal life he's got on his red hands? Newt needs to drop out of the race NOW, plain and simple. He already appears arrogant on-screen, he plays dirty to get ahead in his political career, and now that hisa multiple marriages and affairs are out on the table, he's dunzo!
The American people should aspire to look up to the President, which means he has to have some sort of moral code instilled in him. Newt is a pompous jer that cheats to win, digs up any offense his opponents have and uses it to his advantage (like so many representin' the "Grand Old Party"), and defines African-Americans in disrespectful ways, like infamously calling Obama "the food stamp President," for example.
There is NO way Newt has a chance against Obama this November. Whilethe other major candidates might be lying through their teeth about what they're going to do or have active imaginations about what can actually be done in their party, Newt is openly a vile, sinister caricature of what a President should NOT be. He's deceptive, ridiculously rude (look up that picture of him pinching an old lady's nose while shaing hands with people in S.C) and he has ulterior motives that ultimately put him on the bench concerning this campaign.
I can promise you: if Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman, or (especially) that self-righteous, cherry-picking Christian extremist carcass-in-a-suit Rick Santorum somehow scratch and claw their way into the Oval Office, I will LEAVE the United States of America!