Today's edition of quick hits:
* More good economic news: "U.S. consumer sentiment unexpectedly rose to its highest in five years in October in the latest in a string of encouraging signs from the economy that may boost President Barack Obama's re-election hopes next month."
* Pursuing justice for Malala Yousufzai: "Pakistani police have arrested a number of suspects in the case of a 14-year-old girl shot and wounded by the Taliban for promoting education for girls and criticizing the fundamentalist Islamic movement, officials said Friday."
* Bill Clinton isn't above a little car-elevator humor.
* The creator of the television series, "Friday Night Lights" really isn't happy about Mitt Romney using "Clear Eyes, Full Heart, Can't Lose" for his campaign.
* Wisconsin: "A former top aide to Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin pleaded guilty to one count of felony misconduct in public office in a deal with prosecutors Thursday, a week after Mr. Walker was subpoenaed to testify at the trial."
* A great piece on Romney's economic plan: "They say they have six independent studies -- six! -- that 'have confirmed the soundness of the Governor's tax plan,' and so I should stop whining. Let's take a tour of those studies and see how they measure up."
* The right doesn't want to hear this, but cutting PBS funding won't help the nation's fiscal health.
* Paul Krugman's latest is worth your time: "[I]f Mitt Romney wins the election, the G.O.P. will surely consider its economic ideas vindicated. In other words, politically good things may be about to happen to very bad ideas. And if that's how it plays out, the American people will pay the price."
* Once again, when things that are completely true are arbitrarily deemed "half true," there's a problem.
* Dear Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), writing on your hand before a debate really isn't a good idea.
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Leave a Comment:
http://www.indiegogo.com/BidensTransAm
Let's help Joe get his TransAm. It's all for a good cause.
I like it! Always been down for some good satire.
Politifact doesn't seem far off to me. He really was talking about the sudden drawdown, not ending the war. They are (slightly) different things, after all...
No?
Kind of depends on what Romney intends to do with the 30K troops, doesn't it?... Would he really ever end the war or just prolong our being there (which would attract more and more anger from the locals), esp if he intends to bring war to Iran and/or Syria too. He's planning a GIGANTIC increase in defense (war) spending. Just what do you think he plans to do with all that money???
Just wait. The Right-Wing-Whiners will come up with a conspiracy so they can call foul on the fact that our budget deficit is shrinking. And they love America ? Hmmmm. Kinda hard to believe that people who take joy in our country's economic struggles love America. Just more phoney crap. So why aren't you calling these scum bags ' bad sports ' Mrs. Romney ?
Obama / Biden / and a Democratic majority in 2012 !
Politifact has it half right, at least according to Politi-fecked!
Steve King is such a piece of... work.
So... he's intellectually defective enough to have to draw a "smiley face" on his finger to remind himself to smile, and he doesn't wash his hands "good"? Ewwww...
Remember that the next time this pol wants to shake your hand...
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
Or, as Rape-Public-CONs would say, "It's going the wrong way!"
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
In regard to Politifact:
I need to return all of my degrees in English. Apparently, they're worthless.
Oh. Well, OK then. As long as she was "warned".
Odd, the similarities, eh? As Lorr-2611132 pointed out in a comment to an earlier Maddow Blog entry today (if you missed it, a great comment, definitely worth a read), a right-wing Christian Rape-Public-CON candidate for the Arkansas state House also advocates that "disrespectul" children should be "put to death". I guess in some ways he's just following Willard's lead - he doesn't support abortion - except retroactively.
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
Why are the Teaparty/Taliban so afraid of women making decisions? Anybody? Mr. Ryan? Mrs. Romney? Either of the Grahams? Any of the Bushes? Mr. Akin? That person from Alaska with the book to sell, Mrs. what's-her-name-soccer-pittbull? Somebody?
Steve - I keep meaning to ask: What is Romney referring to when he says that he wants to "broaden the base" in terms of his tax policy? Doesn't that mean he plans to make some of the "takers" in the 47% (or Ryan's 30%) pay federal taxes?
New counter intuitve GOP theme of the day:
Biden scared off women voters, by strongly defending the things that women voters care the most about, health care, reproductive rights, Social Security and education spending.
Tomorrow’s theme will be Romney improves among Latinos voters, by promising more self-deportation
LOL . . . Like Alice Through The Looking Glass . . . Congressworm Pinocchio Ryan and Willard Robme AND all their Right-Wing weenie supporters live in an alternate universe . . . one where you can lie your arse off and not be called on it by your puppet master Right-Wing media over lords !
The numbers don't add up 50%+ of the population are either too stupid, lazy or immoral to make appropriate decisions about their own health care so need elderly white men to regulate them. 47% of us are gov.t dependent on gov't handouts. 30% of us are takers. 99% of us are prejudiced against the 1%. 98% of blacks, 70% of Hispanics are anti Romney. With so many of us biased, lazy immoral or stupid, who the hell is Romney's base?
This site is boring with all its facts and figures. I think I'll go to a right wing site where I hear they are really howling over the VP debate! Uh, then again they are a violent maniacal bunch and I would probably have to swear allegiance to Norquist first.
By the way I thought Rachel was through with politifact?
OK I am going to take a small piece of personal Internet space and go on a teeny tiny rant here...
That Romney called the US withdrawal "Tragic" shouldn't come as any kind of surprise to anyone but what I don't think anyone has kind of picked up on here is why he evidently thinks that...
Negotiations regarding the residual American forces in Iraq "fell apart, according to a Reuters report, "over a Pentagon demand that Iraq provide U.S. troops with immunity against prosecution in Iraq for any crimes committed there."
No wonder they "fell apart" those aren't terms any independent Government on the planet would agree to. That isn't a Status of Forces Agreement, those are terms for occupation!
So what Mr. Romney was whining about was evidently that having spent thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars of our national wealth to "Conquer" Iraq that we weren't forcing the Iraqi people to let us keep ten's of thousands of soldiers in "their" country with no threat of consequences from civil authorities.
When it comes to the job description of the President of the US I am pretty sure that somewhere on that list is "Chief Diplomat" and in that function the President not only has to worry about how we treat our friends and Ailis but our enemies as well. When you try and force another nation that you are supposedly trying to "Help" to essentially abandon a huge hunk of it's sovereignty it doesn't make you look real good out in the rest of the world and sooner or later no one will do business with you on anything anymore.
All of this points to and highlights one thing about Mr. Romney that pretty much everyone already knows. He has absolutely no grasp of modern geopolitics or of how to conduct diplomatic relations His entire stand on foreign policy comes down to "A noun, a verb, and Support Israel!"
Arrgh ok rant over
and before anyone says anything let me say that:
"Yes I know it was the Obama Administration trying to make the status of forces deal" and "No I don't think it was a good idea and we shouldn't have been trying to do it in the first place!"
Is it me that remembers or has everyone here forgotten that it was Bush as one of the last things he did in office was negociate and sign the status of forces agreement that Obama was obliged to fulfil. So if anyone failed to negotiate an agreement it was Bush not Obama. Here's a reminder.
http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/
Soldiers stuck in dangerous, tragic and confusing situations for an extended period of time may have lapses of judgment out of fear and anger. The politicians like the neocons and the profiteers have no excuse. Those in charge need to make tough, moral and honest assessments before committing people to death and destruction. Mitt is scarier than Palin. She was just ignorant. Mitt is selfish, callous and greedy. He does not reflect on how his behavior effects others and has no frame of reference for compassion for any but a select few. He could give all of his money away and still not have a generous spirit.
So even if the wealthiest were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit so why bother. But cut funding to PBS and our problems will be solved. It's kind of like they're going to do what they're going to do no matter what. You think?
Dr. Krugman is correct that the American voters need to be very careful about what they ask for since they may get it. Recently I've been feeling pessimistic about the future of our once great country and have been fantasizing over what happens with a republican takeover.
Any Democrats still left in office ought to take the position that the voters asked for R/R's program and they're going to get it. Pass all of the legislation that R/R have been talking about while at the same time telling Americans just what the results will be. Then let them stew in their own juice, and no whining.
The right doesn't want to hear this, but cutting PBS funding won't help the nation's fiscal health.
Figures you would miss the point. It is not about cutting funding to PBS, is it about not borrowing money we don't have.
drpaultyler: Certainly you understand that cutting a few million $ to PBS is meaningless. Today, the American public has hundreds of television stations to choose from, some of which are free to everyone, and some of which we must pay for (like ESPN). You, like me, may remember a day when there were only 4 national broadcasters....ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS. Those days are so very, very, long gone. With hundreds of available channels, how can you possibly espouse that it is somehow important that the public tax dollars continue to fund PBS? The time when public funding of television was necessary is long gone. It is now a commercial landscape, but there are plenty of TV stations that supply the same sort of feed that public TV long supplied. In short, times have changed, and we no longer need to fund PBS, much like we no longer go to Blockbuster or Hollywood Video for movie rentals.
You obviously haven't a clue as to what PBS is or what it does to serve and educate viewers.
Which again, is hardly surprising for a right wing troll.
Mike in GA
Donna is right, you OBVIOUSLY have never watched PBS - kind of explains a lot of things about you!
This may come as a BIG SURPRISE to you, but some of us like TV shows with CONTENT! Now, I know for you, all TV is is just something to numb your mind or to entertain - but there are actually some of us who think that there should be something of value coming from that big great box in the living room! Since CNN, FOX, ABC, ESPN, etc., won't give us that, we watch PBS which does!
And NO, those other stations DO NOT give us what PBS does - which is
1) A lack of commercials trying to warp our minds to buy things we don't need or to tell us how great all corporations are.
2) A lack of "political bias" towards corporations
3) A lack of idiot "shoot-em-ups" which glamorize violence
4) A lack of "big games" that do nothing for anyone but give them a chance to "trash talk" at the water-cooler in the morning - and for some people - make them think that they are "really into sports" when all they do is sit in their armchair, drink their beer, and watch other people making BIG BUCKS because their stupidity!
5) And then there is that education thing - which I know you decided you didn't need anymore the day you graduated from high school. I know this will also come as a big shock to you, but SOME of us think education is something you do all your life!!
Now GOD KNOWS, YOU don't think you should pay a penny of your tax dollars for ANYTHING for anybody else, because WE ALL KNOW, nobody has EVER done anything for YOU!!
Can someone let RM know Nathan Sproul is up to his "registrating" again...he changed the name of his operation to Issue Advocacy Partners...Why hes not in jail idk, but he sre as hell shouldnt be registering voters...Thank you!
Rachel, if the webiste that you are responsible for is going to talk up any possible discrepansies of a "former" top aide to a Wisconsin governor...no conviction....obviously no longer employed.....shouldn't we also be talking about the Rev. Jesse Jackson's son? Not sure if he counts as "former" or not. Do you really espouse guilt by party association? If so, bring it on.
LOL!!! Way to try to change the subject with a totally vague and conspiracy-laced right wing comment!
LOL!
I think that comes from "HOW TO BE A TROLL"' Lesson 1.
Urge everyone to check this USW site and watch this youtube video. "Romney's Bain Selling Out American Workers to China". I am unable to provide a link.
"The United Steelworkers (USW) today released a new video that exposes the truth about how Mitt Romney and Bain Capital are profiting by selling out American workers by shipping U.S. jobs to China."
I am surprised this is not getting the attention it deserves.
While the GOP is pushing their same old non-taxed money agenda, President Obama has proposed that the Bush cuts remain for people of all income levels up to their first earned 250K of income. This left the GOP with not much to offer the 98%, or the Romney Campaign not much to offer. Therefore, the Romney Campaign came up with their proposed 20% Income Tax Rate for the private sector (who currently pays a 22% rate on average after credits and tax returns - the average corporate rate is 17% after credits and returns).
After reviewing Mitt Romney’s half-released corporate tax plan, economists have said Mitt Romney’s 20% proposal cannot possibly be done while paying down the deficit without eliminating a percentage of tax credits from Middle Class taxpayers end tax amounts. A Romney Administration would somehow have to make up for 2% of the private sectors current 22% tax rate to run the government the way Republican Campaign has proposed.
Realize that while the government can tax taxable income at any lower rate, if the government takes away 2% of the private sector’s current 22% rate taxpayer’s credits and tax return amounts, the government would still be taxing taxpayers, in the end, at 22 %. If taxpayers do not get as much in tax returns under a Romney Administration, the government would, actually, be keeping more of taxpayer’s money and therefore taxing at a higher average rate than even our current 22% rate. The ethics of such a policy is an insult the National Republican agenda.
Our country does not need a President who would have the government treating the collective $3 trillion a year American Taxpayers as a corporate competitor, to keep secrets from, or to swindle, instead of as an equal partner.
Dear TRMS: Could you have you team put together a calendar of Romney quotes?
Let's say one would see on "Feb. 1st of 2012" Romney says something about a key position. Click on the date and a hyperlink appears to a video w/caption on who he speaking to with date/time stamp. Then, like a really fun game, click onto a different date and voila a different video with a different position! (yea, just note who he is talk to!)
We need such a calendar to go viral - I can't afford to donate money right now, but I could forward such a calendar to everyone I know....and we need a rallying call, like flip-flop, etch-a-sketch doesn't seem to be working...