Rep. Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), House Democratic Leader
Steve Kornacki, co-host of “The Cycle” on MSNBC and senior writer for Salon.com
Here's an awesome, new-to-me tune guaranteed to rev up your Wednesday evening.
And here's executive producer Bill Wolff, with a look at what's to come:





Is there a way to check the Diebold machines while the votes are being counted? They just seem so mysterious after many years of the good ol' voting booth. And I agree with others that the complaining about the polls being wrong from the Right are just too transparent. How can we have poll watchers when the hardware is so opaque? Thanks from a BIG fan.
If they are in Southeast red states, I hope someone will check them . All have elected Republican Governors and Republican senators. Most of Rommey's 47% moochers live there 41% in GA, most in Miss. I do not believe poor people/seniors/disabled/veterans who need entitlements like food stamps, medicare, medicaid, veteran programs. vote against there own pocketbooks.
Someone needs to mail them sheets on 2011 Ryan's budget, Rommey video 5/14/12/ their members votes, refer them to c-span,
If we don't have better management of the money we have there will be NO money for those who need it because NO ONE will be making it! Do you understand where the government gets their money? From those who generate money and pay taxes. We have a situation where businesses are stagnant and people don't have jobs. Without those two things (among others) the gov is not generating revenue! So be careful of what you wish for, there might not be money for anyone if we keep going down the road we are going.
"Burn Rubber" = pure Au. Keep the funk coming, Julia!
What @chemgirl said.
Could you cover what is happening in Spain and Greece at the moment? There is only so much in electoral politics that is relevant.
Pelosi? Yeehaw now we are talking. This is going to be good.
The legislation will be so completely mindblowing if Patty and Nancy are running congress in January.
Heh heh. We may have some decent oversight over those drone attacks too, and speaking of which, it seems to me that Rachel's incisive remarks last night slipped by almost completely without notice. Not to slight Bob Hebert, but no we don't want two parties and the drone oversight issue shows why. Two is simply not enough. Even if the GOP was filed with moderates, you would still get you near zero GOP advocacy for greater oversight over the increasingly imperial powers of the presidency. It's why we need decent electorale reform that would allow third parties to thrive without creating the spoiler effect. Eg- preferential voting. The US has a much more diverse population, and it is time our party structure was able to represent that diversity of perspective.
Anyway, it takes commentators with the balls... um... er ovaries? - anyway- with the integrity to call your own people out when they are dead wrong on a policy. That's why Rachel is such a treasure. Good for you, Fluffy.
Did you see this one?
Drone strikes in Pakistan have killed many civilians, study says
The strikes have not made the U.S. safer, researchers from Stanford and New York University say in the report 'Living Under Drones.'
Yes, they were reported on BBC America a few days ago. Coverage of the US activities in Afghanistan are better covered in Europe that in the US.
The place I start is the lack of oversight is unambiguously wrong. It is clearly against the intent and letter of law in the War Powers act that the President is able to wage war in several countries with so little congressional oversight that intelligence experts like Richard Clarke call it a sham.
As for our macho activities with al Quaeda, I think we made our point. There is no identifiable end point for the war on Terror- and I would have thought that the Obama of 2007 would have gotten around to defining it by now. He has not, and so the extraordinary powers of the President have continued to grow. This is not healthy in any democracy. I know the President has good intentions about protecting Americans, but I believe he needs to turn course and embrace the wisdom of his mother as far superior to that of his stepfather.
As for destructive self criticism, you and I are old enough to have seen how successful Dem party can be at self annihilation. On the other hand. we are seeing the opposite extreme. With the true Left effectively silenced, conservatives really has no understanding how centrist this President truly is.
They have nothing to compare it to.
Me, I don't think I am particularly radical but I think:
Such policies doesn't make me a socialist, but it does make me a strong believer in government intervention in the economy.
Sorry for the multiple errors of tense. And the run on sentences.
Crank the gas as high as you want, but let me deduct what I pay (in gas) to go to work each day on my taxes. Or give me a Volt (I hear they ain't selling too well).
Here's the trouble with your simple message.
It is simple minded.
Freedom from government does not mean you will be free from the the laws of nature. Freedom from gubmint does not mean freedom from the unbridled corporate power that is robbing the middle class blind.
Did it ever occur to you to compare the explosive growth of GDP wealth to the decline of middle class wealth? Whose hands are in your pockets? Do you think it is taxation that is causing the middle class to be a vanishing dream? Get a fricking clue. Follow the money.
Reagan said Gubmint was the problem. Really? What happened when Wall Street had the Gubmint regulators out of the way in 2008. How free did you feel when your 401K's value evaporated overnight and you were suddenly underwater in your house's value? You think Gubmint took your money? How quickly you are distracted by the opinion meisters on Fox news and the AM radio dial.
Listen to what the CEO of Exxon says about the US. He admits that the US interests are not Exxon's interests. Really, he doesn't care and frankly he isn't supposed to. His job is to extract as much wealth from you as possible. Overlay the GDP growth chart on top of middle class income. Their campaign against the defenders of middle class has been remarkably lucrative for them.
So while you are trying to negotiate a second mortgage on your underwater home, enjoy the new dustbowl in the Red States. If your home is in Florida, it may literally be underwater in a few decades. Maybe the GOP can figure out a way to blame that on Muslims rather than CO2 increases or the Koch brothers.
Just stop thinking, roll up the windows on that Humvee and crank up the Michael Savage.
John, re your bullet points:
Oddly, many on the left oppose large desert solar projects because of environmental concerns, especially the impact on desert tortoises and other endangered creatures, and because of desecration of Indian burial grounds. Also, there are concerns about government giveaways, both in terms of large present subsidies and future rate hikes, to benefit private corporations who will sell the electricity for profit to quasi-public utilities. I'm not as green as some, so I don't mind the environmental concerns as much as I mind the corporate giveaway ones.
On the other side of the coin, or at least the political aisle, there are those who are concerned that limits on CO2 emissions will be a competitive disadvantage for the USA versus the BRIC's and other emerging economies who happily spew unregulated crap into the atmosphere. It is hard for me to argue with this position. That said, as the world supply of fossil fuels dwindles, as it inevitably must, the price of those fuels will go up, providing additional incentive and pressure to extract them, no matter how much havoc this extraction wreaks on the immediate surrounding environment. It won't be a pretty picture, and anyone who fails to see this is fooling himself.
Since wages are already a deductible business expense, it should be comparatively easy to restructure corporate taxes as you suggest. This is especially true since corporate tax rates are the lowest they've been in the post-war (WWII) era.
and re your last message, also check out
Neal Gabler / Disincentivizing greed, wherein he suggest that low tax rates provide a distorting incentive to financial excess.
Some "environmental" protests have very little to do with love of the environment. It has to do with thinly disguised NIMBY opposition. Initiatives people are 100% for until it is in their back yard. Everyone here in Hawaii is for natural energy like wind until it comes to the wind turbines and solar farms they would actually have to look at. Opposing them means they defacto support of continued reliance on the Fuel oil and coal burning plants because they are safely hidden at the far corner of Oahu. I am not ready to go as far as Stuart Brand. I don't think we need to save the planet with Nukes. Like you, I appreciate the impact to the deserts but let's get a grip. Global climate change will mean the destruction of thousands of ecosystems supporting endangered species.
Personally, I favor quasi public utilities running the electricity generation. The Enron experience in the california electricity fiasco should have taught us all we need to know about privatizing this vital service. I personally am not religious about wind versus PV versus solar thermal. Whichever is cheapest, build it at a massive scale, and beef up an national grid to move the surplus electricity so that broadly distributed intermittent sources effectively provide base load power for North America. In decades, we can look at link ups to South American and European grids and even further out- a global grid.
That's the Jobs program we need- not the crappy potholes projects Obama frittered the Stimulus away on. It's also not "make work". This is national scale work for quite a few decades that will benefit citizens for several generations.
I don't buy the peak oil argument. As should be painfully clear by now, technology can get us to huge untapped reserves. When the price gets high enough to make the extraction a viable commercial venture, the oil companies know where to go.
New Zealand didn't wait for bilateral agreements. They legislated their CO2 cutting programs unilaterally. Our doing the right thing does not have to be contingent on others doing the same.
If we are concerned about other countries having a competitive advantage, there is a WTO argument to make that products made in countries that go over their CO2 targets should have a corresponding surcharge to cover the projected cost of the global calamity caused by climate change. If you add up compensation for the tens if not hundreds of millions of deaths, the loss of the heavily populated major delta regions of the world, the cost of relocations and dikes.... It is a staggering price tag that would make a significant duty.
THAT might get India and China's attention.
Did you all see Palm Beach Post 9/26/12, Florida GOP fires firm hired to register voters for 1.3 million dollars was hired at request of RNC. Palm Beach Supervisor of elections flagged 106 of their applications and turned over to local prosecutors. Firm was Strategic Allied Consultants. Attorney General Holder, all state offices are held by Republicans and they are trying to prevent democrats from voting, I think you need to try to find out how many more applications from how many more RNC recommended firms are out there in Ohio, VA, PA, Co, Nev, etc.
Those Florida ballots make the best case possible for VBM (Vote By Mail) as we have here in Oregon and in most Washington state elections.
Until we have VBM in every state, Republicans will be continue to (to make a bad word play) push the envelope.
Rachel, yesterday NBC news published an article on a man with Asperger's Syndrome. One commenter posted that he/she thought Romney might have A's and possibly at least one son. The poster seemed to have some close knowledge of the family. Mitt has always been distant and rigid---even clumsy, full of gaffes, unaware of empathy and singularly focused. I realize no one should diagnose from a distance, but I thought this fits what we've seen of Romney and might be a very different take on him. I don't know how to find out more, but this fascinates me.
Mitt was raised in the household of a wealthy businessman/politician. He attended private, elite schools and was only allowed contact with people of his social circle until his missionary stint. This sort of isolationist upbringing could make it very difficult for a person to relate to others who are not so financially fortunate, making the transition from isolated contact to politician a challenge. Asperger Syndrome can involve a complex set of symptoms, and cannot effectively be diagnosed in 15-second soundbytes. Sometimes social awkwardness is just social awkwardness.
Be wary of people who "seem to have close knowledge of the family". They can lead people on a merry chase just to get attention, often with no truth involved.
Voters do not have time for armchair diagnoses. Having "a very different take on him" will not change Romney's views, attitudes, or level of competence.
I was watching your show on the flordia ballots and that they were ten pages long. Is it possible for thoes ballots be put on the Internet like two wks before the election that way the voters would have a chance to read the questions, and when its time to vote they will know how to answer each question with out trying to read the question for the first time. and it will save time. and move the lines along a little faster. thank you.
Rachel, please contact Jimmy Carter to oversee elections in the United States of A
merica! President Carter travels all over the world to assure people that their elections are fair. Now in America in states like Florida we need some oversight into the practices designed to eliminate voters from this upcoming election.
Shamefully un-America
I am so glad you had Nancy Pelosi on your show today. She was very informative. Her last comment discussing the topic"Is the country better off" was very informative. Her statement should been in an ad for President Obama!!!
@Hopie: From May 2012
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/11/1090734/-Mitt-Romney-does-NOT-have-Asperger-s-Syndrome
This comment is in reference to the lies that Romney has told against Obama or changes in his position that the campaign has had to correct and his refusal to acknowledge or retract them.....
Romney's behavior is disturbing on so many levels!!!! I am beginning to wonder if he has a serious personality disorder. He lies constantly and then seems surprised and annoyed if he is questioned about them. Hr seems to have lost touch with reality!!! (EX. I don't need to change the direction of my campaign because we are tied!!!!)
What is going on?? Does anyone know what personality disorder this is?? Compulsive lying? sociopath??
Check out Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He may well be a
textbook case.
Wow Molly!!!! He fits Narcissistic Personality Disorder exactly!!!!! That helps to explain his tantrum at the Univision Forum last week as well as many other episodes. Thanks for the information!
I have been watching MSNBC for a while and noticed that if you are not a Democrat please stay away. Independent minded people are not really on the shows. I think you need to rename your channel Obama Support Channel (OBS). Then when we tune in was will be getting what we expect.
People used to watching the Romney Support Channel (otherwise known as Faux News) are so used to seeing pro-Republican spin that the truth looks strange to them.
You might want to return to the channel that gives you what you really want: ratification of the views you already hold.
Rachel frequently invites Republican spokespersons onto the show. Most don't accept. When they do, she treats them with respect. Both Santorum and R Paul advisers were on the show during the primary season. Is that independent-minded enough?
Compare this with the rude treatment O'Reilly dishes out.
Thanks MPguy for your input. It is a fact that MSNBC and most of the persons with their own programs do invite REPS but voice a DEMS support attitude. Rachel and Ed both should be on Obama's reelection staff. Nuff said.
I am extremely concerned that there is rampant voter machine rigging going on and no one is paying any attention, much less doing anything about it.
"Go On" made a reference to Rachel Maddow the other night. It made me proud to watch your show and notice the resemblance.
I love watching msnbc because this is the only news show that i feel tells the truth in its reporting .
No - You only watch MSNBC because it matches your fuqcuped view of things. That's very sheepish, don't be a sheep.
Understand that the media-outlets (FOX/MSNBC)carry the water (narrative) for the various political parties. Totally paid for.
Watch equal parts of Fox/MSNBC....If one is pounding the @!$%# out of a topic, but the other is totally ignoring it, do some personal research, fact-check and form your own opinions.
Good luck.
Are you attempting to establish an equivalency between the rampant lies you hear on Fox and Friends or Hannity with ANY show on MSNBC? Please be specific.
As Rachel explained on the show last night, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has been going after Elizabeth Warren's (D) ethnic heritage very aggressively for months, but very recently, this line of attack took a deeply ugly turn.
That's probably because every authentically professional journalist KNOWS Liarwatha Warren is a FRUAD. Trumping up fraudulent "racist" charges against Brown only proves what a Fraud Maddow is and her little dweeb blog athors are.
Elizebeth Warren is NOT an American Indiian nor has she any substantial Cherokee blood in her heritage. Professional Genologists have proven that a FACT. She's a Liar, Liarwatha.
Posted by William A. Jacobson Sunday, September 16, 2012 at 11:41am
Spends 3,000 words trying to cover for her, but facts revealed destroy her claim to be Native American
309
334
The Boston Globe ran a massive 3,000 word lead article this morning trying to excuse away Elizabeth Warren’s claim during her professional career to be minority and a woman of color based on supposed Native American ancestry.
The story, which had the cooperation of the Warren campaign, comes just days before the first debate in Massachusetts’ Senate race. Clearly, the Warren campaign is worried after even Native Americans who are Democrats criticized Warren at the DNC in Charlotte, and is attempting to put its story out there through a friendly source.
The article is a masterpiece of distraction, weaving stories from people completely unrelated to Warren as to their own experiences with Native America family lore or growing up as Native American in the 1950′s and 1960′s with bits and pieces of Warren’s story. The end result is an attempt to paint Warren as a victim of circumstance and the times she grew up in, as a means of explaining away the many inconsistencies in her story.
Yet when one digs down into the actual facts in the Globe story, it actually is quite devastating to Warren, proving that contrary to her many recent accounts, Native American ancestry was not central to her life at any time prior to the mid-1980s when she claimed “Minority Law Teacher” status in a national law faculty directory.
Despite all the verbiage, the following facts emerge from the story:
1. Warren’s claim now is focused on a different family line than originally claimed.
When the story broke that Warren might be 1/32 Cherokee, it was based on supposed ancestry on Warren’s maternal grandmother’s side, the so-called Crawford line. That 1/32 claim was completely debunked, and the Globe had to issue a retraction, although Warren being 1/32 Cherokee lives on in pop culture.
The Globe focuses its examination on the maternal grandfather’s lineage, the so-called Reed line, and it is that family line which appears in the story to be the focus of Warren’s campaign.
Warren’s story has switched sides. Now it’s supposedly the Reed line which had the strong Native American connection.
Yet in its 3,000 words, the Globe never notes this switch, although to its credit the Globe did note that Warren’s family can’t keep its own story straight:
2. There is no genealogical proof that Warren has ANY Native American ancestry.
The image and text posted just below the headline to the Globe article are incredibly deceptive. The image purports to be of Warren’s maternal grandfather, and has next to it the text “Harry Reed was part Indian, say descendants.”
The key wording is “says descendants.” Because there actually is no evidence to support the claim, it’s just family lore, yet it is used to start off the story:
“Believed to be by some family members”? No other evidence is presented.
It is not until deep down in the story that the Globe notes that the person it quotes in the first sentence of the story has no proof:
Twila Barnes, the Cherokee genealogist whose group has documented Warren’s lack of Native American ancestry and who has been harassed by Warren supporters as a result, already has researched the ancestry of Harry Reed in great detail, and published those findings with extensive documentation weeks ago:,
The Globe also failed to note that Warren’s own adult nephew researched the Reed line, and in 2002 described claims of Native American ancestry as rumor.
The Globe did an incredibly shoddy job on the ancestry, failing to note not only that Warren’s story has changed, but also extensive evidence that there is no Native American ancestry, while building the story around what “descendants say.”
3. Lack of proof becomes proof.
Much of the Globe article is devoted to proving that not all Native Americans can document their ancestry, so lack of proof doesn’t mean much.
I won’t bore you with all the stories from people unrelated to Warren recited in the Globe article. But this is the heart of Warren’s defense on whether she actually has Native American ancestry, that because some real Native Americans can’t prove their ancestry, Warren not being able to prove her ancestry is proof she’s Native American.
Think about that. The complete absence of any documentary evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry becomes the proof for Warren having Native American ancestry.
4. Warren continues to hide evidence.
Warren still has not authorized the release of her employment files, and the Globe notes she will not authorize the release of tribal genealogical records or give details as to most of her supposed “family lore”:
5. Warren grossly exaggerated her family lore.
Here is where the Globe works really hard to obfuscate, but ultimately reveals facts demonstrating what I always have believed about Warren, that there were rumors (her nephew’s word) and some family stories, but that Warren grossly exaggerated those rumors and stories when it suited her professional purposes later in her career.
Here are some excerpts from the story:
The Globe does note that virtually none of her childhood classmates recalls her being Native American:
The Globe does quote one classmate, who presumably was identified to the Globe by Warren or her campaign, as follows (emphasis mine):
Note again the highlighted wording, back then Warren was claiming Cherokee lineage on her maternal grandmother’s side, now it’s supposed Delaware ancestry on her maternal grandfather’s side.
Getting back to classmates, the Globe could have noted that one such classmate who had no idea Warren claimed Native American ancestry was her debate partner, who has said he was “joined at the hip” with Warren for three years. Yet we are supposed to believe that because of the times Warren kept her ancestry a secret from everyone, yet it was so fundamental a part of who she was? This strains credulity.
6. Warren’s immediate family backs her up but only in a general way
For the first time the Warren campaign has made Warren’s brothers available and had them issue a statement of support. But look at the actual short statement and the interviews, and it is apparent that there is little there other than a general family lore.
Did any of her brothers claim to be Native American? Did any of them “check the box” based on these vague stories which lack any proof? The Globe doesn’t say.
The family account in the Globe story supports what never really was in doubt, that there were some family stories, but does not support the proposition that such stories justified Warren claiming minority status, as even the Globe admits:
(added) In fact, Harvard currently applies the standard two part test to claim to be Native American for employment purposes, proof of actual ancestry and proof of tribal affiliation or community recognition. Warren fails both parts of the test.
7. Warren never embraced her heritage except in a manner designed to help her professionally
Ultimately, Warren’s defense and the Globe story fall apart because of the timing of Warren’s use of her supposed ancestry in the mid-1980s in the law faculty directory (supposedly to meet other Native Americans), and then in reporting to U. Penn and Harvard Law Schools, and her appearance while auditioning for Harvard as a “Woman of Color in Legal Academia” in the Harvard Women’s Law Journal.
The Globe and Warren try to explain this away as a change in societal times, in which it finally became acceptable to disclose Native American ancestry.
That meme, of course, is nonsense. Assuming for the sake of argument there was an issue in the 1950s or 1960s, by the 1970s the American Indian movement was highly visible and affirmative action hiring in academia began to make it advantageous to claim minority status.
More important, there is nothing to suggest that Warren ever “began to embrace her heritage.” She never sought membership in a tribe, affiliated herself with any Native American groups on or off campus, never advocated for Native American causes or helped Native Americans in any way.
The only way that Warren embraced her heritage was in a very sneaky way meant to juice her appeal to prospective employers by putting her in the desirable employment categories of “minority” and “woman of color.” When she reached the top rung of the law professor ladder, a tenured professorship at Harvard Law School, Warren abandoned her tactical “embrace” of her Native American heritage.
When first confronted by the Boston Herald in late April, Warren claimed not to know why Harvard was touting her as a Native American hire. It was only later as others dug up facts as to the law faculty directory and her employment reporting that Warren’s story changed and being Native American became a fundamental part of who she was.
We don’t know if Warren gained an actual advantage from taking family rumors and stories and using them only for professional purposes. We do know that Warren tried to gain an advantage, and it is that attempt which the Globe article obscures.
Warren’s attempt to rig the system by attempting to gain an ethnic advantage she did not deserve is the real story, a story which hopefully will come out at the debates.
In the meantime, The Atlanta Braves made the NL Playoffs and will be filling a stadium full of fans doing the TOMAHAWK CHOP! Wooooooo OOooooooh, Woooooo,OOoooooooo
Hey! One of 'em looks Irish! hahahahahahahahahahahaha No bigots here though, RIGHT. Frauds and phoney's.
The Irish guy, That'd be my Step Father. A 75 year old lifelong Braves fan from Mass where the Braves originally played as the Boston Braves. A lifelong democrat who is voting for BROWN because Liarwatha is a LOSER!
Go Braves & GO SCOTT BROWN!
+258
-10
Good points. I pretty-much concluded to myself that she used the whole Cherokee-bit to get through the HR-EEOC screens and left it at that (yeah, the elite Libs do that to skirt the rules too). Whenever this crap-story comes on, I immediately change the channel. Typically, a food-network segment last about as long as one of these irrelevant rants do (and you may even eat better too!).
Democrat Senate Hopeful Warren Exposed As Complete Fraud
Wed, Sep 26 2012 00:00:00 EA12_ISSUES
Posted 09/25/2012 06:47 PM ET
Politics: Democrat Elizabeth Warren has framed her race in Massachusetts against Sen. Scott Brown around integrity and intellect, as if she's a cut above other pols. In fact, she's beneath even the sleaziest.
On top of fraudulently claiming minority Indian status without any documented ancestry, the Harvard law professor has now been busted practicing law in Massachusetts without a state license.
Worse, her client list includes the type of corporations that Ms. Populist has demonized on the campaign trail as greedy polluters and exploiters of the "little guy."
Turns out working-class champion Warren in 1995 hired herself out as a legal gun for LTV Steel to help the conglomerate fight thousands of retired coal miners who wanted more health and pension benefits, the Boston Herald says. She pocketed a cool $10,000 in the case. Records show in 2009 she also defended insurance giant Travelers against asbestos victims.
The hypocrisy is bad enough. But Warren represented her corporate Wall Street clients without a law license. This also comes as a surprise to the law firm of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, which listed her as "of counsel" in briefs filed on behalf of its corporate clients.
Asked about it on a Boston radio show, Warren admitted she's not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.
She's also written scholarly papers on health care and bankruptcy without showing her data, and crafted federal health and banking regulations without a brain. Warren is the intellectual architect of the massively unpopular Dodd-Frank Act and ObamaCare, both of which are dragging down the U.S. recovery.
She's been accused by several law professors of "repeated instances of scientific misconduct" in authoring papers that have provided the academic underpinnings for financial and health reforms. Peer reviews have dismissed her research as "deeply flawed."
Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
The Atlantic magazine, moreover, found a disturbing "pattern" of using bogus metrics to inflate the case for her leftist nostrums. Despite repeated requests, Warren has refused to provide the data she has used in her shabby research. In a word, she's a hack.
She's also a charlatan. In fact, in a new ad she doubles down on her oft-told lie that she's a Cherokee Indian, even while admitting she has zero proof. "As a kid, I never asked my mom for documentation when she talked about our Native American heritage," Warren explained. "What kid would?"
Sure, maybe a kid wouldn't, but an adult would, especially before checking a box saying she's a minority. Warren listed herself as an Indian minority in a national law directory used for faculty recruiting. Soon after, Harvard hired her and publicized her minority status.
LIARWATHA FAUXAHONTUS proven FRAUD. $320,00 salary at Harvard for teaching ONE Class. Occupy the Reservation! The definition of a "fraud" Elizebeth Warren. or Ms Maddow, take your pick.
Go SCOTT BROWN
WOW, I hear people talking about the media being one sided! I guess this is what they were talking about. I think I will stick to looking at the .gov pages for statistics on the economy, job creation etc, read my books and make my own mind up! What a bunch of SHEEP on here!! Wake up people.
I really appreciated the coverage of Brown's racist attacks on Warren. I was angry when I first heard Brown say in the debate that you can tell by looking at her that Warren is not Native American. I do not know if she is, you do not know if she is, she may not even know if she is but saying that ethnic background is detectable by sight and acting like a FL State Seminole fan at a Warren rally is simply offensive and those doing it should be called out again and again.
Check this out by the Jewish Council for Education and Research => http://www.wtfu2012.com Funny but very true!