Hmm... link to an ABC news report, but...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/wireStory/host-romney-event-convicted-drug-dealer-16997820

Bermudez told the Miami New Times that the Secret Service vetted everything about him when the Romney campaign asked to use his fresh fruit and vegetable stand and that they knew about his criminal record.

"Here in Miami there are a lot people with money who have had problems with the law," Bermudez told the New Times. "Thankfully, we all have the opportunity in this country to re-enter society when we've done something wrong."

...

As a convicted felon, Bermudez wouldn't be eligible to vote in Florida unless the governor and the Cabinet restore his rights.

We can argue/discuss whether people who do their jail time have a right to reenter and contribute to society.

Still, money doesn't care about morality; just as along as it's being made and spent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-death-squads-bain_n_1710133.html

When Romney struggled to raise funds from other traditional sources, he and his partners started thinking outside the box. Bain executive Harry Strachan suggested that Romney meet with a group of Central American oligarchs who were looking for new investment vehicles as turmoil engulfed their region.

Romney was worried that the oligarchs might be tied to "illegal drug money, right-wing death squads, or left-wing terrorism," Strachan later told a Boston Globe reporter, as quoted in the 2012 book "The Real Romney." But, pressed for capital, Romney pushed his concerns aside and flew to Miami in mid-1984 to meet with the Salvadorans at a local bank.

It was a lucrative trip. The Central Americans provided roughly $9 million -- 40 percent -- of Bain Capital's initial outside funding, the Los Angeles Times reported recently. And they became valued clients.

...

While they were on the lookout for investments in the United States, members of some of these prominent families -- including the Salaverria, Poma, de Sola and Dueñas clans -- were also at the time financing, either directly or through political parties, death squads in El Salvador. The ruling classes were deploying the death squads to beat back left-wing guerrillas and reformers during El Salvador's civil war.

You beat me to it, I was just going to post the link to the article but here it is anyway:

http://news.yahoo.com/host-romney-event-convicted-drug-dealer-224445860.html

'Tis all good. The more who know, the better.

#3

The thing that pulled us out of the nose-dive was the ARRA (stimulus). Was watching Morning Joe - they had someone on talking about the ARRA. I think the book is "The New New Deal" - something like that.

Would Romney have had the vision and guts to make the same call?

Romney's budget and the policies the Republicans have wanted are Austerity.

You only have to look at Europe to see how well Austerity works.

Yes I watched it to and Scarborough was strangely absent during the interview.Seem's he does'nt want to listen to anything the Pres. has done right.

Seriously?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#48654749 wasn't enough for you?

Jared Bernstein was also on with Karen Finney earlier in the day.

Are you also going to rail against corporate media again? Because you actually acknowledge that 2 MSNBC talkers satisfied your need for correct info.

And really, where do you get your information that isn't incorporated? Space rocks? Bigfoot?

And you still should answer my question about whether the info she reports is invalid because of her views.

. . You aren't helping Maddow, you are further alienating her. You're a true Maddowite and it's just what you folks do. Gobama!

Jared Bernstein didn't address what I am addressing. He echoed Maddow's point that Ryan wants to keep the same "cuts" that Obamacare institutes. The point is that a large % of the "cuts" aren't cuts. They are a desubsidization of Medicare Advantage, not Medicare. They're also some projected real savings. They aren't cuts to Medicare of 740 billion as Republicans are claiming. Are you affiliated with MSNBC or NBC, or their owners, or in some other way, or are you a self appointed attack bot?

I'm referring here to Bernstein's appearance on last evenings Maddow show. He just followed Maddow's lead, which reinforced her point made on "Meet The Press." She hasn't corrected the GOP's newest big lie that 740 billion was stripped from Medicare due to Obamacare. In 2 appearances last weekend and on last night's Maddow program, she let the latest GOP big lie stand. Perhaps the best question is how long Maddow will let the latest big Republican lie of a 740 billion desubsidization of Medicare because of Obamacare ..... stand uncorrected in Maddowville. She rules her kingdom, along with her rulers, and her teleprompter copy writers. Maybe she won't correct the big new GOP lie. Maybe she'll just let it stand. It is a fair question to pose as to why she wouldn't immediately correct the newest big GOP lie, imo. It's her call. Gobama 2012! Democrats rock! Repubs. are troglodytes, generally speaking.

The idea that we're debating whether or not Maddow has sufficiently clarified the nature of these "cuts" (or spending limitations) mirrors the conflicting discussion elsewhere.

Here's PoliticsUSA ("Real Liberal Politics - No corporate money. No Masters.") saying Maddow killed that Medicare lie during Meet The Press :

http://www.politicususa.com/rachel-maddow-kills-romneyryan-medicare-lie-dead-tracks.html

Yet, here's Newsbusters (on the other end of the political spectrum) saying she got destroyed by Rich Lowry:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/12/national-reviews-rich-lowry-destroys-msnbcs-rachel-maddow-meet-press

I concede to you that this was not her finest appearance.

And this DailyKos post supports you:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/13/1119539/-Maddow-screwed-up-Just-say-you-support-cuts-in-Medicare

as does FactCheck.org (at the time the Medicare "cuts" were previously assessed as $500B:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/democrats-end-medicare-whopper-again/

As we've said several times now, the law calls for cuts in the future growth of Medicare spending over 10 years — totaling about $500 billion. That's about a 7 percent reduction in growth. That's not the same as slashing the current Medicare budget, which is the impression the ad leaves. Also, the law says that current benefits can't be reduced, and it adds some coverage, like free preventive care and increased prescription drug coverage.

and Politifact (gasp!), who analyzed this 2 years ago:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/20/60-plus-association/medicare-cuts-health-care-law-will-hurt-seniors-sa/

It's important to note that the law does not take $500 billion out of the current Medicare budget. Rather, the bill attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in future spending over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase -- the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Medicare spending will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009.

...

Some of the savings are for relatively minor programs, such as $36 billion for increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries and $12 billion for administrative changes. The law directs a new national board to identify $15.5 billion in savings, but the board -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- is prohibited from proposing anything that would ration care or reduce or modify benefits.

More significantly, there's also $136 billion in projected savings that would come from changes to the Medicare Advantage program. About 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan.

Does Jared Bernstein think he clarified the nature of the Medicare "cuts"? He believes so. You can determine if "reduced spending limitations" is semantically equivalent to "cuts", but more importantly, whether the money saved is spent appropriately:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/paul-ryan-medicare-cut_b_1776031.html

A classic, for example, is the one I talked about with Rachel Maddow last night: the claim that President Obama is "destroying Medicare" by reducing its growth rate to the tune of $700 billion in the Affordable Care Act.

Rep. Ryan has precisely the same cut in his budget. The difference is what they do with the savings. As I noted on Rachel, the ACA uses those savings to cover the uninsured, along with these other services, noted by Jon Cohn:

And yes, Rich Lowry does have his own take on the discussion:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313773/medicare-rachel-maddow-cant-handle-truth-rich-lowry

Ultimately, I agree with you that Maddow and her show hasn't adequately clarified a complex situation that has gone on for 2 years now. I'm waiting on some really cool Ezra Klein charts and graphs to help illustrate the debate (he's on Hardball discussing it with Chris Matthews at the moment).

But, where you continue making incredible leaps in logic about Rachel, the undercover-non-liberal, and the corporate media subverting the Liberal/Democratic message, is where you're wearing your tin-foil hat. At worst, her Meet The Press made her look fallible, under-prepared, unable to discuss her personal politics, and/or the number crunching was over her head. Who knows, maybe Sunday mornings are not her best time. But a corporate conspiratist? You get the point for seeking further clarification; but more than that requires more proof.

Watching her not answering Lowry's questions was like me asking you if Maddow's political views (whatever they are) invalidate her reporting: Awkward!

I'm an actual Democrat. You aren't apparently. Maddow went Benedict Arnold on Democrats in 2010. She said it was her duty to ride herd on the President, as she bashed and smashed and diced Obama based on her pass or fail, A+ or F- grading system of utter perfection or utter failure scale. . She said she was a progressive. She isn't. She says she's a liberal now. She says she isn't a Democrat. She isn't. Maddow now exists in her own universe. That's fine. She tries hard to tell the factual truth. That's basic as far as I'm concerned. I expect truthfulness as a base line. Maddow has been disingenuous regarding her politics. I seems she doesn't even know where she exists on the political scale. She's an outlier. As a Democrat I'll just continue to ride herd on Maddow in my own little corner of the universe. Maddow taught me well. But, if she gets through 2012 without going Benedict Arnold on Democrats again, I'll wipe the slate clean. I know Maddow isn't a closet conservative, although she has conservative viewpoints in her political portfolio. I say she's a corporate liberal because she's a "liberal" who smashes around Dems for sport, as evidenced in 2010, and since. . Corporate liberals smash Obama from the left and corporate conservatives smash Obama from the right and corporate America sings it's victory song. You should read HP's Sunday media opinionation by Jason Linkins if you think I'm way out in space, I'm not. A ton of folks think the media is a mess. As I posted earlier and you thought was goofy, the truth is that only 10% of Americans respect political media ... 10%. Maddow helped convince me back in 2010 that even MSNBC is corporately manipulated in the interests of Wall Street and corporate America. Wall Street and corporate America pay the salaries of the pundits, generally speaking. At MSNBC, they have a couple of corporate libs. but Maddow can't pretend she's a Democrat or a Progressive anymore...... Now my curiosity leads me to ask you; Are you a Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent, unaffiliated, conservative, liberal? Are you in some way affiliated with MSNBC or NBC or it's owners or someone or some group or business or interest who is?

[I used to be a huge Maddow fan by the way}...To add a few points; It is also true to an extent that Maddow's psychological difficulties, revealed by herself in "Rolling Stone," have impact on her viewpoints. You can't disconnect the two. Maddow is ok when viewed in truthful perspective which is revelatory of her distinct lack of perfection. :] Maddow is a perfect study in imperfection, like everybody else. She really needs to learn this truth. Then she can hopefully reverse to an extent her psychological difficulties, and learn to view people as perfectly imperfect. It's apparently a tough lesson for some who turn their frustrations and anger inward which leads to depression and perhaps hyper criticality. I think Maddow's a work in progress. I also think she may never truly be satisfied with Democracy, which is also "a perfect study in imperfection." ©

Gobama 2012!

Finally, finally, FINALLY!

A post that, at last, is personal enough to indicate motivations, and with enough substance that I can work with! You've made much progress today, in that I can finally start to understand your perspectives. And from that milestone, we can all move forward from there instead of repeating the same points and questions over and over (hopefully).

So, let's go back to where things turned for you against Rachel. Sometime in 2010? Did it have to do with the Obama's tax compromise, where almost every Democrat/Liberal/Progressive criticized him for giving up to much to the Republicans without getting anything back in return? I remember that; boy, was I disappointed in him for backing down. Hopefully in future posts, you'll link to the actual event(s) that caused you to turn on her, especially the "A+ F- grading scale". So, was that your fallout point, or was it something else?

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/40560139#40560139

Obama risks compromising the presidency (Dec. 8, 2010)

Maddow wasn't the only one criticizing Obama for his compromises. Remember Keith Olbermann? Man, I miss the guy, and wish he came back to TV somewhere; his Special Comments segments were epic. Here's his criticism on Obama compromising:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/countdown/40559453#40559453

Olbermann: Obama turned his back on his base (Dec. 8, 2010) (if you watch only 1 video, watch this)

Do you remember Obama asking us to hold him accountable? (March 18, 2009)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/Town-Hall-in-Costa-Mesa-CA

(24:20) So there's some very specific standards by which I think you should hold me accountable and measure my success. And if I don't deliver on those things four years from now, then I think you will be answering the question of whether I run for re-election or not, because ultimately I'm answerable to you -- I'm your employee. Okay?

Well, we did. We have to hold our politicians to the highest standards, and to the highest ideals. This is why Romney can never get a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive's vote: he's a base businessman out to win at any cost without regard to the safety and welfare of society's minorities. Obama was voted in because of Hope and Change. But as the years progressed, we saw the cracks and damaged goods.

Even when we realized his biggest campaign contributers were big businesses that would pull hard on him as lobbying groups, we voted for him, hoping he'd transcend those politics.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate: $42,047,073

So let's examine what appears to be the grudge you hold against Maddow.

Years ago, we saw that Obama cited Maddow. Here's his address to Netroots Nation in 2010, where he uses clips from Maddow's show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so-Uuooz-Zo

President Obama Addresses Netroots Nation 2010 (July 23, 2010)

And, just before the 2010 tax compromise criticisms, Maddow reported on the accomplishments made during the 1st 2 years of Obama's administration:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/39959392#39959392 (Nov. 02, 2010)

Then, just after the 2010 tax compromise criticisms, Maddow reported Obama had accomplished 85% of his First Term Agenda in 2 years:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/40774380#40774380

Yes, Obama did (Dec. 22, 2010)

85% is far more generous than the percentage given by Politifact's Obamameter:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Of 508 promises (as of today):

Promise Kept: 190
Compromise: 71
Promise Broken: 81
Stalled: 50
In the Works: 114
Not yet rated: 2

About a year later after the 2010 criticisms from the media, Obama invited the Progressive media to... coffee. (Dec. 19, 2011)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/potus-has-coffee-with-progressive-media-stars/

An all-star list of progressive and liberal media folks came to the White House today to chat with President Obama over coffee in the Roosevelt Room.

...

Those there included the Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein and Greg Sargent, MSNBC anchors Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Hayes, the Nation’s editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, the New York Times‘ Frank Bruni, and stars of the interwebs Arianna Huffington, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress and Joy Reid of The Reid Report.

So far, I'm seeing politicians being held accountable by the media reporting on what politicians are doing. If politicians (Obama) and media (Maddow) can co-exist, why can't you?

Maybe it has to do with what you perceive as the role as news media. Do you not agree that holding Obama accountable is the job of news media? Or should they be playing to partisan reporting as Fox News does? Is MSNBC, and in particular, Rachel Maddow, supposed to be a cheerleading squad of the Democratic Party? That "reporting" should show Obama can do no wrong? Are we not supposed to hold Obama accountable anymore?

In order the report "the truth", in order to maintain the highest integrity, news media needs to be outside the partisanship of politics. This immediately eliminates Fox "News", who wear their anti-Obama agenda on their sleeves. It does leave plenty of other news sources, including MSNBC, which some mistakenly think is the equidistant counterpoint to Fox News.

So, you pay the highest compliment to Maddow when you say she isn't a progressive, or liberal, or democrat. If she doesn't know where she exists on the political scale, then more power to her if her news investigations reflect her explorations. If she's an outlier, then let her stay that way, so that we can be more confident that her news reports are outside the political party tagging that helps contribute to the dissatisfaction of the "news". If her "condition" contributes to her being an outsider, if her imperfections guide her in finding answers, then let her stay a "work in progress", something best suited for someone with a natural inquisitive nature.

Independent: That's where real news needs to be.

As for me, my opinions on "the issues" align best as a Democrat, so I'm registered Democrat. Government is not to be feared, I need to trust the officials I elect, and the size of government is less important than making sure it's effective and efficient. I'm Liberal as I know all people are created equal, given the same inalienable rights to a good quality of life, and the General Welfare must be Promoted. And I'm Progressive as the struggle must be made to uphold equality for all. To that end, the media must seek transparency.

Luckily, I live in a Democratic stronghold state, in a Democratic stronghold city. It makes being who I am easier.

And none of that blindly prevents me from holding the President to the highest standards, and criticizing the President when he does something wrong. Nor should it stop MSNBC. Nor Rachel. Nor you. Right?

With respect, please drop the whole teacher thing. You're not my teacher, and I'm not your student. I didn't sign up for your symposium. Gobama!

Actually, it's more like, counselor - patient.

You're exhibiting peculiar trust issues. And spending an unusual amount of negative time on someone you don't trust, instead of positive time for someone you do trust.

Like a dependency, or a outlet for your frustrations. But I'm sure we'll get to that in later days.

Do you have a diagnosed psychological or psychiatric disorder?

Why do so many Maddowites literally drip with imperiousness?

You are toxic.

Are you affiliated with MSNBC or NBC in some way or manner....? Can you answer?

Oh, that's easy: No affiliation!