Today's edition of quick hits:
* President Obama campaigned in New Hampshire today, putting a positive spin on the disappointing job numbers. He also urged his audience to pressure Congress on economic measures.
* The Eurozone is never simple: "In the long euro crisis, there is often a sobering morning-after whenever there appears to be a major breakthrough. And so it went again Friday."
* Gitmo: "Using strong words, a federal judge has rejected the Obama administration's efforts to change the rules under which Guantanamo Bay detainees are represented by lawyers."
* President Obama reflected today on former President Bill Clinton's convention speech. "President Clinton made the case in the way that only he can," Obama told supporters in New Hampshire. "Somebody e-mailed me after the speech and said, 'you need to appoint him Secretary of Explaining Stuff.'"
* It wasn't close to prime time, but Rep. John Lewis' (D-Ga.) speech to the Democratic convention, and his condemnation of Republican voter-suppression efforts, is well worth your time.
* If Ann Romney wants to play a role addressing policy issues as a campaign surrogate, she can't just ignore questions about women's health policy because she finds them politically inconvenient.
* Unacceptable: "A sexual assault victim who was groped by an off-duty police officer is demanding an apology from an Arizona judge who during a sentencing hearing for the defendant told her: 'If you wouldn't have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you.'"
* O'Reilly needs to get out more: "Fox's Bill O'Reilly dismissed the sustained Republican attack on women's rights. While criticizing Caroline Kennedy's speech at the Democratic National Convention, O'Reilly said: 'I don't see any women's rights under assault at all. I don't see it.'"
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Leave a Comment:
BillO didn't see any woman's rights under assault when this happened either.
LOL! Perfect, Steve! Thank you!
He is vile.
I understand Clinton hit on Fluke. Amazingly that's not part of the war on women.
Our resident troll has returned. Ignore him.
Shooter,
You really are a worm sometimes!!!
Just because they had a few words backstage???? Are you frigging kidding me??? Isn't Sandra Fluke supposed to talk to men - or is it that Bill Clinton isn't supposed to talk to women???
Psst - men and women CAN be friends without anything sexual being involved or implied! You should try it sometime!! Might open your world!!
Steve - thank you for bring that up!! Obviously O'Reilly has some "skin" in the game!!
Once, you're going to have to live with the fact that Clinton can't help himself. The colossal hypocrisy of Fluke whining about contraception, while the convention goes wild over a serial adulterer, impeached perjurer, accused rapist, and another guy that casually leaves a dead girl in his car, is boggling.
Fluke knew she was getting hit on, and protested. But I suppose it's a good thing she can afford contraception. Clinton could have caught her in a weak moment, and you know how those lefty ladies love Bubba.
LOL!
Blanks shooting nothing but blanks yet again!
LOL!!!!
Shooter you are also an accused rapist. Why are you pointing fingers at other people and ignoring the fact that they apply to you too?
Weak. Got a victim? Clinton does. Juanita Broderick.
How "facts" work in ShooterLand:
Thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers=conspiracy to mislead public about the facts for mysterious, but malevolent, ends.
Some mean spirited bully tweets some #NotIntendedAsAFactualStatement drab of the mean girl vitriol that conservatives call "humor"=incontrovertible truth.
Shooter seems not to understand the concept of the term accused. No rape ever took place. It was a baseless allegation. There was no victim. By this logic when I accused you, Shooter, of raping me this therefore had the same amount of merit. The claim is not true, but I made the accusation. You insist on adding these labels as if they are further insults. Saying that an adulterer is therefore anti-woman (even though that's not how adultery works). Saying that because someone was accused of something (that they were later cleared of when the claim was found to have no substantive basis) therefore they are bad is not only horrifically unconstitutional, but also means you're judging person on the basis of something that never happened (by your own admission). This means it's not just Democratic spin when they say you're railing against an invisible enemy: you are openly admitting TO railing against an invisible enemy. And, again, Clinton never murdered anyone. This is again a baseless accusation that you throw out because it helps to conform to your conspiracy theory notions. If you want to play that game then Romney is a murderer since he ran into someone while drunk and left them to die. Of course that's the accusation, which has never been proven, but why let facts stop us? Oh that's right I forget you never report anything that's untrue, right? So even though accusations aren't a basis for criticisms and this would be HORRIFIC hypocrisy on your part, it's still true? Good to know. Lastly he didn't hit on Fluke, he talked to Fluke. But, when you're just accusing people of baseless things why not.
Shooter also robbed an elderly woman before killing her pet dog. Then he went across the street and cut a baby out of a woman's stomach before sucking it's innards out and walking away. Or so the accusation goes. Remember the next time you address Shooter to hold him to this standard.
Remember also that by your own admission anything you say about Democrats can also be applied to Republicans. So I am assuming this means that Republicans are also serial adulterers, accused rapists, people who leave dead people in their car, etc. Good to know.
Hanging by your own petard must be fun.
"...O'Reilly said: 'I don't see any women's rights under assault at all. I don't see it.'"
Of course you don't, Bill. That's because you're a pinhead!
Well, Bill's getting older. His eyesight isn't what it once was. His political acumen was never what it could have been. And his intelligence has never been what he thinks it is.
Ahh but he does see a war on Christmas and a war against Christians. Delusions are selective?
mpguy:
Yea, I suppose Bill is getting older. In fact we all are. You are too. However, I would say Bill's eyesight, his perception, and his thinking are still clearer than that of any leader the GOP has sent to the office since Eisenhower.
And we love him for it. And you hate that.
In other news, Romney heartily endorsed Rep. Steve King today, saying he wants to work with him and needs him in Washington. Taegan Goddard referred to this on FB as "inexplicable." I think it makes perfect sense: a couple of weeks ago, King argued against a bill to establish tougher penalties for dogfighting. King and Romney are joined by their mutual support for the abuse of dogs.
KWQC TV6: Do you believe that employer-provided health insurance should be required to cover birth control?
Ann Romney: I love you women!!!!
But boy does Billo see an attack on Christmas!!!
"A sexual assault victim who was groped by an off-duty police officer is demanding an apology from an Arizona judge who during a sentencing hearing for the defendant told her: 'If you wouldn't have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you.'"
This story is so disturbing. Sadly, but not surprisingly, this Arizona judge was appointed by none other than Jan Brewer.
"If you wouldn't have been there that night, ....'"
After the judge apologizes to the survivor for insensitivity, he needs to apologize to everyone else for his grammar.
What's worse is the judge was female.
Unfortunately the judge is a woman! That makes it even more disgusting.
Of course as has already been pointed out here, this is Arizona....
Female body, piggish male mind.
"What's worse is the judge was female."
The collaborationist mentality is far more common than many people would like to believe.
Democratic efforts at convention to modify party platform reveal Obama's intention to destroy the mid east peace process
http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/palestinians-democrats-failure-to-recognize-our-claim-to-jerusalem-will-destroy-the-peace-process-1.463245
"On Wednesday, convention Democrats restored language in the party platform saying Jerusalem "is and will remain the capital of Israel." A day earlier, the language had been removed from the platform, prompting Republicans to question U.S. President Barack Obama's support for Israel.
The language is at odds with U.S. policy calling for the status of Jerusalem to be resolved through negotiations.
Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments was approved despite the fact that many delegates objected.
The platform now included what advisers said was Obama's personal views on Jerusalem. Administration officials and DNC sources made a special effort to stress that President Obama was personally involved in restoring the 2008 platform language mentioning Jerusalem as a capital of Israel.
The idea behind the original omission of Jerusalem was to make the platform reflect the actual policy of the administration toward Jerusalem, similar to the one held by the George W. Bush administration -that its status will be defined during the final status issues negotiations.”
What does this suggest? -That our president is an agent of AIPAC and Zionists. Obama is placing the interests of Israel ABOVE U.S. national interests and ABOVE international law. We didn’t vote for this.
It further suggests that as long as Obama remains president, Israel will NEVER be forced to stop illegal Settlement construction or to negotiate in good faith a peace agreement with the Palestinians that honors all previous agreements, international law, the Geneva Conventions, and produces a final border with two states for two peoples living in peace and security.
WORSE, Obama’s ongoing efforts to OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENTS OF EVERY ARAB STATE in the mid east suggests a secret neocon agenda to create democratic Arab states surrounding Israel where Palestinian refugees could find refuge after being forcibly driven out of occupied territory.
In fact, Israel has been using “soft power” to do the same thing for over 30 years. All the Apartheid policies implemented by Israel in occupied territory are designed to motivate Palestinians to leave their land. Meanwhile, President Obama is using soft power and diplomacy (and occasional direct military action) to overthrow the governments of Arab states surrounding Israel. Hey people, can you add these things up? The underlying agenda is clear.
IF this is what ultimately results from Obama’s policies, it is a war crime of grand proportions and sweeping scope equivalent to Hitler’s Final Solution.
We must therefore be vigilant in efforts to ensure international law is honored by our own President. If there is to be any redeeming characteristic in American democracy, international law and Geneva Conventions must supercede the nationalist interests of AIPAC and Israel.
Don't know who you've been listening to, most of the commentary I heard pointed out that this was an example of the platform being amended so it contradicted the administration/candidate's position. . . .
If Obama was really a Zionist, Netanyahu wouldn't hate him so much.
Sally:
Actually, this is an example of the platform being initially amended (removal of text stipulating Jerusalem as capital of Israel) so that it MATCHED the historic position of the US Department of State and the UN.
Barack Obama subsequently had that text added back in, and he did it by overrulling a clear voice vote AGAINST it on the floor.
The logical position of the US Department of State is that Israel ~"will not buy the cow if we allow it to milk the cow for free". -In other words, the incentive that should properly motivate Israel to make a peace agreement is the possibility that AFTER the agreement, the USA and the rest of the world will recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel.
Currently the embassy of the USA and all other countries are in Tel Aviv. This is so because the area surrounding Jerusalem is "disputed territory", and will remain disputed territory until a peace agreement ends the conflict and all claims. In the original UN partition plan, Jerusalem was never given to Israel. Instead it was intended to be a "special international zone" administered by the UN, with equal access to all faiths and religions.
It may very well be that Jerusalem will become the recognized capital of Israel. I have no problem with that in the context of a final peace agreement resulting in a permanent border and two states. However, in that scenario, it becomes more likely that East Jerusalem (beyond the Green Line) will become Palestinian territory and shall be recognized as capital of Palestine. The problem is Zionists perceive this as an unacceptable violation of God's will. (That's the whole Jewish birthright argument)."
If Obama was really a Zionist, Netanyahu wouldn't hate him so much."
That's what someone wants you to believe. Obama is identifiable based on how he has acted. And his actions at the UN are pretty clear.
Since it was the right that had the hissy fit that prompted the amendment and since I'm familiar with your views, I take it that this is all about: "Whatever they do or say is wrong no matter what"
You can try if you like to twist what I have said. Still, I think my position is clear and speaks for itself.
Read it again: The membership of the democratic party removed the Jerusalem text from the platform statement. That revision made the platform comport to stipulations of the Road Map Peace Agreement. Obama overruled them (and the Road Map) and put the text back in.
I think that's pretty clear. Obama is a prostitute.
By the way, I think you're going to have to agree with me, as you also said in another section of this thread:
"I thought that, in a democracy, it was the voter who decided what the issues in the election were, not the candidate..."
See above. Democratic party members (all voting) amended text of the party platform to remove Jerusalem statement. Obama overrulled them and put it back in.
Please explain how you rationalize these conflicting positions. Is it a Jewish double standard?
Cynical but, if Rmoney/Rayn gets in, once they proceed with their wrecking ball, just like the Merkel arborists, pruning until the tree begins to die, the rapid double dip will motivate the GOP to provide infrastructure programs to staunch the bleeding, then take credit for their stimulus.
This has been their plan all along, they simply want to be the heroes, cynical but true.
Kiev,Go back to your panic room, quick! WTF? Seriously strange.
Actually, I think it is very analytical and rational. You know what they say, -if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Romney On Omitting U.S. Troops From RNC Speech: ‘You Talk About Things You Think Are Important’
Note too that when he says he wants a strong military that the underlying message is that it's all about what they can do for him and nothing about what he can do for them.
The #1 reason I supported Hillary over Obama during the primaries is that I knew Hillary understood that it was POINTLESS to try to work with FAR RIGHT republicans to get things fixed. The ONLY reason they would EVER sit down with you at the table would be to try to get your head on a platter. Obama has been excellent on policy, but really foolish on politics. They want your HEAD, Barack, nothing else!
Have to say, I find your point moot for two reasons, 1) Hillary did "sit down" with the far right even during the primary, and 2) I'm not in the camp that blames the Prez for trying his best early on to work through GOP bad behavior.
Here's a piece on Hillary meeting with far right newspaper publisher Richard Mellon Scaife in March 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/us/politics/31clinton.html
That said, I admire both Clinton and Obama and take it they are both well aware of another "old saw" of playing the game, "politics makes strange bedfellows."
From the Gitmo story:
The Obama administration has sought to impose a new requirement that detainees' attorneys sign a "memorandum of understanding" in order to meet with their clients. Six detainees challenged the new requirement, which covers those who no longer have an active or pending habeas petition.
The MOU, Lamberth noted, strips counsel of their “need to know” designations, and explicitly denies counsel access to all classified documents or information which counsel had “previously obtained or created” in pursuit of a detainee’s habeas petition. Counsel can obtain access to their own classified work product only if they can justify their need for such information.
"At its heart," Lamberth wrote, "this case is about whether the Executive or the Court is charged with protecting habeas petitioners’ right to access their counsel."
Sorry, folks, but this is bull@!$%#. I'm voting for him, but it's hard to get too fired up when his DoJ is pulling this crap.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/06/166866/judge-sides-with-gitmo-detainees.html#storylink=cpy
Obama should tie his comments on weak job numbers to the Republicans' obstruction. He could say something like, "We'd like to be creating more jobs. Just think how much better we would be doing had the Republicans supported the American Jobs Act and rebuilding of our infrastructure."
"Fox's Bill O'Reilly dismissed the sustained Republican attack on women's rights. While criticizing Caroline Kennedy's speech at the Democratic National Convention, O'Reilly said: 'I don't see any women's rights under assault at all. I don't see it.'"
Which is why Al Franken nicknamed him "O'Lielly"
Can someone help me please with two postings I found on the MSNBC web page?
This one says:
Romney: No Democrat said America is better off
By NBC's Garrett Haake
"WEST LEBANON, NH -- Mitt Romney emerged from debate rehearsals in Vermont today to pick up some pizzas, and to deliver his own analysis of the first night of the Democratic National Convention"
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/05/13686765-romney-no-democrat-said-america-is-better-off?lite#
This one says:
By NBC's Garrett Haake
CONCORD, N.H. -- Count GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney among those not planning to tune in for President Obama's nomination acceptance speech tonight.
Romney told reporters today he has not been watching the Democratic convention, and didn't plan to start tonight
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/06/13710039-romney-says-he-doesnt-plan-to-watch-obamas-speech?lite#
Both articles are by Garrett Haake. My question is, was Romney watching or not?
Well, as Sam said in Hit the Road: "Who knows? More importantly, who cares?" Romney says whatever he thinks will help him out the most in the moment. Consistency across time doesn't seem to be a consideration. He's kind of like Schroedinger's Cat when still unobserved. I guess that's why he prefers to keep his real beliefs and intentions a secret. If we were to be allowed a peek inside the box, Romney as a set of many possibilities must collapse into a single reality, and then where would he be?
I'm asking why Romney has been allowed to get away with the omission of African Americans and Native Americans as part of his 'target audience' during his acceptance speech. Referring to the Republican audience as, '(and I'm paraphrasing) comprised of people whose ancestors passed through Ellis Island driven by the hope of a better life,' is a shunning of those who were stolen and those stolen from. Are we cool with the fact that he never ever referenced the heritage of the dozen in his audience whose ancestors didn't 'sign the proverbial guest book' at NY Harbor? Just trippin. . .That should have been fodder for the Democrats' Convention speeches. But. . . It's never too late, Rachel, Lisa, Ed. . .
On the Euro crisis, I like the idea of Germany, Finland, the sound economies, exiting the Euro and establishing a Northern Europe Monetary Union (NEMU).
A European version of OFF THE CLIFF!
This is a little thing, but re: confetti vs balloons, speaking for the latex-sensitive/allergic, confetti is much less threatening. Just watching the video of Andrea Mitchell amid the balloons, my throat started to itch!
Confetti looked just as delightful, plus you can still see what's going on (security).
I thought that, in a democracy, it was the voter who decided what the issues in the election were, not the candidate or the candidate's wife.
*** Video: New claims of US torture reopens possibility of accountability ***
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/48949307#48949307&__utma=5875948.301671640.1347080717.1347080717.1347080717.1&__utmb=5875948.2.10.1347080717&__utmc=5875948&__utmx=-&__utmz=5875948.1347080717.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=5875948.|8=Earned%20By=cable%7Cmsnbc%20tv%7Crachel%20maddow%20show%7Crachel%20maddow%20show=1^12=Landing%20Content=Original=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=maddowblog.msnbc.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Original=1&__utmk=16512306
So where' the comment section on this new outrage? I've been convinced Obama was a republican poser for a while, but THIS ought to prove it for the rest of you.
From the video: During the last day of the republican convention, Obama's justice dept announced that the last two cases involving torture, -cases that were specifically held out because they resulted in death, -were going to be quietly swept under the rug with no procecution. In other words, Obama has decided that not only will he protect people who justified and implemented torture against POWs and war detainees, -but that he will also protect those same people even in cases where their decision to torture caused the death of a detainee.
Obama is now coddling and protecting torturers and murderors in service of the interests of the republican party. And he is doing so even though a military autopsy has ruled these deaths to be homicide. He is doing this at OUR EXPENSE.
Sickening, ain't it?
So this underlines the wonderful choice we have for a leader: -A choice between a republican poser who protects tortureors and murderors, and another republican who would allow more of the same.
If these are my options, I think I'll just shoot myself. If there is a Hell, Barack Obama will share space there with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and he will deserve it.
To put it another way, if a president determines that he believes torture is necessary to protect the citizens of this country, he can implement torture. HOWEVER, there MUST be a full accounting for that crime. There MUST be a heavy price paid. THIS is the cost of freedom. If no one is ever held accountable for such acts, the decision to implement torture becomes routine. That is where Obama stands on this issue, and his position flies in the face of everything Americans believe their country stands for.
God help us and our troops the day these chickens come home to roost.
Obama is the best republican president we've had since Eisenhower. He is also a pretty damn good democrat president. He is light years better than romney for the next four years as president. I would vote for Sanders or Nader without hesitation if there weren't so many bigots in this country.
Take Clint Eastwood for example, an uptight righty whitey angry at Obama for not keeping his promises. Clint claims he's a patriot while he and his ilk blocked everything the elected president tried to do. Those promises Obama did manage to get past they now want to rescind. Those promises were once republican promises.. You hypocritical azzholes (repubs) want a hypocritical azzhole theocracy.
Luz:
"He is also a pretty damn good democrat president."
OK, I'll bite. Name an elected democrat president that you believe Obama is better than, and specify your criteria for that determination.
"You hypocritical azzholes (repubs) want a hypocritical azzhole theocracy."
I think if you will look deep enough, you will realize the republicans aren't running like they intend to win. They have chosen to run on the crazy lunatic fringe, and early promises they have made, like criminalization of all abortion, -practically ensures that they cannot win.
But the truth is if they know Obama is doing their dirty work, then it's logical that they secretly want him to finish the job.
Look, the USA has the greatest military force in the world. We have trained and studied how to dominate and overthrow any government of any country. And short of war and bombs, we have also studied how to undermine and manipulate other governments so as to control them to our advantage. This is psyops and CIA stuff. My point is there's no reason that we should assume these diciplines cannot be used against our own government and our own voters for the advantage of corporate interests and the establishment. My opinion is one way or the other, these things have something to do with the ascension of Barak Obama to the presidency.
So it is acceptable to grope a woman in Arizona since simply by being there she has implied consent? Hmmm, nahhhh I don't think the cheap thrill would be worth moving there.
I knew Arizona was a little strange but sheesh!
By the way do we really want Bill O'Reilly to get out more? I realize that the old padded cell treatment is no answer but...
Somehow this story got buried in the news, maybe because we were distracted by the DNC, but deserves attention in Hypocrisy Watch:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169757/exclusive-paul-ryan-quietly-requested-obamacare-cash
Judging by the stuff that came out about him getting Stim $$, this episode about taking ACA $ was probably not an isolated incident either.