Tag Archives: democratic

IBD Op-Ed Wonders Where Social Security/Medicare Trustees’ Report Is; Rest of Media Doesn’t

Posted on July 13, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Once again, it’s clear that reading editorials and op-eds at publications like the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily becomes a requirement to be truly informed when a Democratic administration in power. On July 6 , Peter Ferrara at IBD noted that the annual report from the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare system is long overdue, and wondered why: Are Overdue Reports Concealing ObamaCare Impact On Medicare? Every year, the Annual Report of the Social Security Board of Trustees comes out between mid-April and mid-May. Now it’s July, and there’s no sign of this year’s report. What is the Obama administration hiding? The annual report includes detailed information about Social Security and its financing over the next 75 years, produced by the Office of the Actuary of the Social Security Administration. The Congressional Budget Office reported last week in its Long Term Budget Outlook that Social Security was already running a deficit this year. According to last year’s Social Security Trustees Report, that was not supposed to happen until 2015, with the trust fund to run out completely by 2037. With the disastrous Obama economy, the great Social Security surplus that started in the Reagan administration is gone completely. Every year, the federal government has been raiding the Social Security trust funds to take that annual surplus and spend it on the rest of the federal government’s runaway spending, leaving the trust funds only with IOUs backed by nothing but politicians’ promise to pay it back when it’s needed. Now even that annual surplus is gone. How soon will the trust funds run out completely now? … (But) The implications for Social Security aren’t what the Obama administration is hiding by delaying the annual trustees reports. Those annual reports also include information regarding Medicare over the next 75 years. What the administration is trying to hide are sweeping draconian cuts to Medicare resulting from the ObamaCare legislation, which the annual report will document. The administration is trying to delay the report until mid-August, when it’s hoping the country will be on vacation and won’t notice. Or maybe the delay is because the White House is trying to bludgeon the chief actuaries for Medicare and Social Security into fudging the numbers. The Social Security “IOUs backed by nothing but politicians’ promise to pay it back when it’s needed” are from a government that itself has well over $10 trillion dollars in other debt, before counting Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and a host of other off-the-books liabilities. Then there are the additional tens of trillions in actuarial liabilities. Ferrara didn’t note that the administration announced a delay until June 30 back on April 5 , “so that the new report can reflect the impact of the recently passed health care overhaul.” But they’re now almost two weeks late. What are they waiting for? A really, really busy news day? A Friday night midsummer doc dump? Meanwhile, no one in the rest of the press appears to be the least bit curious. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Go here to read the rest:
IBD Op-Ed Wonders Where Social Security/Medicare Trustees’ Report Is; Rest of Media Doesn’t

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Touts Negative Poll Numbers for GOP, Spins for Obama

Posted on July 13, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday spun a new ABC News/Washington Post poll , emphasizing problems for the Republican Party over dour news for Barack Obama. The co-host ignored a finding that likely voters want the GOP to take control of Congress by a margin of 56 to 41. He did, however, repeat the lower number of registered voters who prefer the Republicans, 51 percent. Stephanopoulos quizzed former McCain strategist Nicolle Wallace and Democrat James Carville on problems for the GOP: “[Voters] don’t necessarily want Republicans…On the economy, voters, 42 to 34 still trust Democrats over Republicans on the economy.” What did Stephanopoulos leave out? The same poll found that 40 percent of likely voters trust Republicans, compared to 39 percent for the Democrats. But, the former Democratic operative persisted, ” So, there’s still, Nicolle, no- not a lot of confidence in the Republican Party. ” Later, he prompted Wallace, “Is there anything else, right now, that Republicans can do, Nicolle, now, to address that number, that lack of confidence?” It seems likely that if this poll were about President Bush, Stephanopoulos would be much more likely to emphasize the negatives, such as the fact that 90 percent of Americans think the economy is in bad shape. The poll’s data can be found here . A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:06am EDT on July 13, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re going to turn now that ABC News/Washington Post poll. You know, the White House, for the first time over the weekend, admitted that Democrats could lose the control of Congress in November. And this poll shows why. Starting out with this frustration index, which we first showed you last month. That tries to capture how people feel about government, the economy, Congress and the President. Back in June, it was at 67 percent, a very high level. Right now in July, still stuck at 67 percent. We haven’t seen numbers that high since the past two big change elections of the last 25 years. 1992, when President Clinton took office, 2008, when President Obama took office. And it could have a direct impact on the congressional elections this fall. Another key number in the poll, we asked people who do you want to control Congress in November? Only 43 percent said they wanted to support Democrats to support [sic] President Obama’s policies.  51 percent said they wanted to give Congress to the Republicans, as a check on President Obama’s policies. And this is all rooted in concern over the economy. 90 percent of the country right now thinks the economy’s in bad shape. And President Obama’s approval ratings on the economy are dropping. Down to 43 percent. That’s down seven points in one month. 54 percent now disapprove of the job that President Obama is doing on the economy. Now, his overall approval ratings are holding up about 50 percent.  That’s a little bit down. But, they’re being held up because his numbers on commander in chief, are a little higher. But, most of this is bad news for the Democrats. Let me bring in our strategists, James Carville for the Democrats, Nicolle Wallace, for the Republicans. And, James, Robert Gibbs over the weekend, the White House press secretary, did say they’re looking at similar numbers. He said that Democrats could lose control of the Congress. All the intensity is on the Republican side. JAMES CARVILLE: You know, and Robert and I have had our problems in the past. And he went to Auburn, so, therefore, he’s is a little limited . But, saying that, this was brilliant. This is a time to say- STEPHANOPOULOS: To tell the truth? CARVILLE: Look- to say, you’re not casting- you’re not just casting a protest vote here. These guys will actually take charge. And if you want this drug companies putting the faulty drugs out, that’s fine. If you want BP, if you want Wall Street, these are the consequences of your vote. And I thought that was smart of Robert to do that. And I think Democrats- STEPHANOPOULOS: Not to sugar-coat. CARVILLE: Not to sugar-coat it. Every Democratic consultant is telling me they’re coming out of a focus group and saying, “Yeah, but they’re not going to do that if they go in there.” Yeah, focus group here in Kentucky or Nevada, you say, “Yeah, they’re crazy. But if they get to Washington, they won’t do all the other stuff. I want to vote against a Democrats to send a message.” At a point, you have to say, no. “You’re actually going to be voting for a policy here.” NICOLLE WALLACE: Well, the truth is, 51 percent of Americans, as you just pointed out, want Republicans in control because they want to put the brakes on this agenda. I think it confirms what people long suspected, which is that while some people still like Obama personally, I think that’s where the approval numbers come from, they want desperately now to put the brakes on his agenda. STEPHANOPOULOS: They don’t necessarily want Republicans . Another key number in the poll, we asked people who do you trust more, Democrats or Republicans on key issues? And let’s show that: On the economy, voters, 42 to 34 still trust Democrats over Republicans on the economy. On who is going to make the right decisions for the country’s future, same thing, 32, to 26. So, there’s still, Nicolle, no- not a lot of confidence in the Republican Party. WALLACE: Well, and that’s the needle in the haystack in this otherwise very grim assessment of voter sentiment. And, certainly, that is what, when they pull themselves away from the bars this morning , the Democrats will be waving that statistic around. But, I think, you know, they’re also going to point to the analogy of Reagan. But, what Reagan did when his numbers were down, was he crafted an agenda that appealed to independent voters who were running, not walking away, from Obama and his agenda. CARVILLE: I think that the key word that 51 percent is a protest vote. This is not a protest vote. This may be a vote for a policy and policy change. It’s much easier to say, I’m going to vote for somebody I don’t like because I want to protest someone else I don’t like. WALLACE: Well, how do you think Obama won? I mean, you know, Obama ran as a protest vote candidate for President. CARVILLE: I understand that people knew he was going to win. And they knew the policy he was running. My point is, right now, congressionally, people are saying “I just want to send the Democrats a message. And Republicans won’t be able to do anything of the things they say.” To some extent, you have to remind them there could be a policy involved in this. STEPHANOPOULOS: Is there anything else, right now, that Republicans can do, Nicolle, now, to address that number, that lack of confidence? WALLACE: Well, I think Republicans have to say laser-focused on what your poll shows is largest group of self-identified independents that most polls have seen. And I think that group is looking for common sense. They are looking for lower taxes. They’re very wary about an expanded role, size and cost of the federal government. And they’re worried about the deficit. I think that’s the jam Obama finds himself in. To grow the economy, most measures expand the deficit. STEPHANOPOULOS: You said Robert Gibbs was brilliant. What more should Democrats do to keep the House? CARVILLE: To keep the House? Well, we have a three-prong strategy to keep the House. It’s called the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. [Laughs] WALLACE: We tried that. STEPHANOPOULOS: You think that it’s impossible? CARVILLE: I think to keep the House- no. I think we can. Look, it’s possible to keep the House. But I think first, that to remind people that there’s consequences to this election. I think also, honestly, they need a few good months of decent job numbers and sort of make the case. And I felt the White House on this, they never say they have a strategy. There’s a plan in place. It may not be working as fast as you want. The Republicans are blocking a lot of it. But this is what we’re doing. And if they get a sense, they could do better than they are currently doing in this poll.

Here is the original post:
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Touts Negative Poll Numbers for GOP, Spins for Obama

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Japanese Voters Reject Ruling Party and Doubling ‘VAT Tax’; AP Calls It a ‘Sales Tax,’ Ignores U.S. Implications

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

An outraged electorate has just handed Japan’s ruling party its hat in elections for half of the seats in the upper house of that country’s parliament in a direct reversal of election results from a year ago. Opposition parties made major gains. The results constitute a resounding rejection of a massive value-added tax increase proposed by a guy whose immediate predecessor of the same party sounded an awful lot like the U.S. President Barack Obama when he led his party to a historic victory a year ago. But, as will be shown later, you wouldn’t know that from reading the Associated Press’s coverage of Sunday’s returns. But first, a bit of background: The 2010 version of Naoto Kan (pictured at top right in an AP photo) is round two of an attempt by the country’s Democratic Party (no direct relation that I know of, but philosophically they’re nearly clones) to “remake” the island nation. If that sounds depressingly familiar, it should. The parallels of Kan’s same-party predecessor’s victory to Barack Obama’s 2008 electoral win are eerie, as this August 2009 election night report from Eric Talmadge the Associated Press will demonstrate (bolds are mine): Japan opposition wins landslide victory Vote seen as a barometer of frustrations over high unemployment, falling exports Japan’s opposition swept to a historic victory in elections Sunday, crushing the ruling conservative party that has run the country for most of the postwar era and assuming the daunting task of pulling the economy out of its worst slump since World War II. A grim-looking Prime Minister Taro Aso conceded defeat just a couple hours after polls had closed, suggesting he would quit as president of the Liberal Democratic Party, which has ruled Japan for all but 11 months since 1955. “The results are very severe,” Aso said. “There has been a deep dissatisfaction with our party.” Unemployment and deflation – and an aging, shrinking population – have left families fearful of what the future holds. Fed up with the LDP, voters turned overwhelmingly to the opposition Democratic Party of Japan, which ran a populist-leaning platform with plans for cash handouts to families with children and expanding the social safety net. … The Democrats’ plan to give families 26,000 yen, or $275 (U.S.), a month per child through junior high is meant to ease parenting costs and encourage more women to have babies. Japan’s population of 127.6 million peaked in 2006, and is expected to fall below 100 million by the middle of the century. The Democrats are also proposing toll-free highways, free high schools, income support for farmers, monthly allowances for job seekers in training, a higher minimum wage and tax cuts. The estimated bill comes to 16.8 trillion yen ($179 billion) if fully implemented starting in fiscal year 2013 – and critics say that will only further bloat Japan’s already massive public debt. Adjusted for relative population size, the stated $179 billion amount would be the equivalent of about $435 billion in the U.S. That may not seem like much compared to the Obama and the Democrats’ $800 billion-plus “stimulus” of last year, but keep in mind that Japan spent the better part of the 1990s trying to make government stimulus work with little success. Also note that Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), as the author of the Lost Decade’s stimulus, has hardly been deserving of the “conservative” label the AP’s Talmadge applied to it. Of course, after Japan’s Democrats came to power, they had to deal with the annoying question of how to close the obvious budget deficits they were building. Their answer, as has all too often been the case with U.S. Democrats, was to raise taxes, despite the tax-cut pledge cited in Talmadge’s AP report. In a Monday, July 12 story , the AP’s Jay Alabaster gave readers many of the details on how that idea was received by voters, but left out a really, really important one: Japan braces for gridlock after ruling party loss Japan’s ruling party faced the prospect of political gridlock Monday after an election setback that could undermine its attempts to reduce a ballooning budget deficit and revive growth in the world’s second-largest economy. Half of the 242 seats in the upper house of parliament were up for grabs Sunday. The ruling Democratic Party of Japan won only 44 seats – far below its stated goal of 54 – while opposition parties made major gains. That leaves the Democrats and their tiny coalition partner with 110 seats, well below their majority of 122 before the vote. The conservative Liberal Democratic Party won 51 seats, bringing its total to 84. … the results are a dramatic contrast to the Democrats’ landslide victory just a year ago, when they seized control of parliament and ended the rival Liberal Democrats nearly unbroken 55-year rule. Losing the majority in the upper house will make it more difficult for the Democrats to move ahead on their agenda, which includes cutting wasteful spending, making government more open and creating a solid social security system for a rapidly aging and shrinking population. … I n office just a month, Kan has warned that Japan’s finances could face a Greece-like meltdown if it doesn’t cut back on soaring debt – twice the country’s GDP – and suggested raising the sales tax as a solution. But voters, already suffering from the economic downturn, rejected that idea. … Kan acknowledged defeat early Monday morning, saying he failed to fully explain his proposal to raise the sales tax from 5 percent to as much as 10 percent in coming years. … Kan, a former finance minister with roots in grass-roots activism, enjoyed support ratings of more than 60 percent when he took office in early June. “Sales tax”? What is this “sales tax”? It turns out that Alabaster was really referring to a de facto value-added tax, as shown here in this description of Japan’s tax structure: Japan Consumption Tax The tax is similar to value added tax and is, in fact, imposed on most sales and services provided in Japan and on imports. A taxpayer may offset the consumption tax paid on expenses against the tax he has to pay on his income. Consumption tax is 5%. Companies whose sales per year are less than 10 million yen are tax exempt. Imagine that. Yes Virginia, the “consumption tax” is effectively a VAT tax, as it is imposed on “consumption” by both individuals and companies. Every time “consumption” occurs, i.e., at every stage of production and distribution, the tax kicks in. The 10 million yen exemption is the U.S. equivalent of about $114,000, meaning that only the very small businesses are exempt. It seems that the AP and Mr. Alabaster didn’t want to give their U.S. audience the impression that voters elsewhere have rejected a steep increase in VAT taxes. Why, accurate and responsible reporting might have made American readers more resistant to allowing this dangerous idea to get started. Apparently, Alabaster and the AP want to see a VAT tax come to pass in the U.S. so badly that they are willing to blatantly misrepresent events overseas in the name of that cause. Beyond the self-evident deception just described, if what has just transpired in Japan’s elections had taken place at the expense of a conservative government trying to cut taxes while a conservative or Republican president occupying the Oval Office was trying to do the same thing, we would never have heard the end of it. As it is, you can virtually take it to the bank that the establishment press will fail to identify the obvious comparison between what Japanese voters have rejected to what the Obama administration both is doing (letting the Bush tax cuts expire, an action I like to refer to as “repealing the tax system that grew the economy for almost six years”), and wants to do more of, including the VAT tax. Raising taxes in a debt-drenched nation during a flat or allegedly recovering economy, in addition to being economically dumb, is an electoral loser. What part of “no” don’t these people understand? Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Original post:
Japanese Voters Reject Ruling Party and Doubling ‘VAT Tax’; AP Calls It a ‘Sales Tax,’ Ignores U.S. Implications

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

The New Containment Cap on BP’s Oil Well Appears to Be in Place | But Will It Work? | Underwater Photo

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

PART ONE… http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/12/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN… Containment cap on BP well appears to be in place By the CNN Wire Staff July 12, 2010 7:56 p.m. EDT An underwater camera captures efforts to put a new sealing cap on the breached well. STORY HIGHLIGHTS * NEW: BP appears to have placed a new containment cap on well in Gulf * Sen. Landrieu calls new deepwater drilling ban “economic disaster for Gulf Coast” * Ship Helix Producer begins recovering oil from crippled well New Orleans, Louisiana (CNN) — BP appears to have placed a new containment cap on its well in the Gulf of Mexico that's been leaking oil since an explosion and fire April 20. BP hopes the new cap will be able to completely contain the gushing oil, but tests are still needed to determine its effectiveness. Earlier Monday, the U.S. Interior Department said Monday it was issuing a new moratorium order in a second effort to block deepwater oil and natural gas projects. The new moratorium is to “protect communities, coasts, and wildlife” while oil and gas companies implement safety measures to reduce the risks of blowouts and oil spills associated with deepwater drilling, the government said. The ban will be in effect through November 30, 2010, or until Interior Secretary Ken Salazar determines that deepwater drilling operations can proceed safely. “More than eighty days into the BP oil spill, a pause on deepwater drilling is essential and appropriate to protect communities, coasts, and wildlife from the risks that deepwater drilling currently pose,” Salazar said in a statement. “I am basing my decision on evidence that grows every day of the industry's inability in the deepwater to contain a catastrophic blowout, respond to an oil spill, and to operate safely.” He added, “I remain open to modifying the new deepwater drilling suspensions based on new information.” But Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana called the moratorium “unnecessary, ill-conceived and a second economic disaster for the Gulf Coast.” She spoke before a presidential commission, tasked with reviewing the response to the oil spill and the priorities going forward. Landrieu called the BP oil spill the “exception instead of the rule” and said the deepwater drilling moratorium will kill jobs. The National Oil Spill Commission is holding meetings in New Orleans Monday and Tuesday. Shallow water drilling activities can continue to move forward, under the Interior Department's order, if operators comply with all safety and environmental requirements. The department said that's because they don't present the same type or level of risks that deepwater drilling operations can, it said. A previous six-month ban issued in the wake of the Gulf oil disaster was thrown out by a federal judge in New Orleans. Last week, a federal appeals panel rejected the government's request to overturn the lower court judge's decision. Like the initial drilling ban, the new moratorium probably also will face stiff opposition from commercial interests in the Gulf region. Michael Hecht, president and chief executive officer of the economic development group Greater New Orleans Inc., told the the National Oil Spill Commission, “Economically speaking, the BP oil spill is really a tale of two impacts: it's the impact of the oil spill itself and the impact from the moratorium on deepwater drilling.” The commission is a presidential panel tasked with investigating the Gulf oil gusher and making recommendations about the future of offshore drilling, What's next New containment cap that has a better fit appears to have been placed over the well. BP and U.S. officials will conduct a “well integrity test” to determine the pressure inside the well. If it works, oil will stop flowing and oil collection via Q4000 and Helix Producer will cease. BP will then close in on the perforated pipe. This process, which is still a temporary measure, might take up to 48 hours. The first relief well BP plans to use to shut down the well is 5 feet away from the main well and 30 feet above the hoped-for intersection point. The ban would prevent further deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico until officials determine what went wrong in the April 20 explosion and fire at an oil rig that led to oil gushing into the ocean 5,000 feet below the surface. A new sealing cap could cover the breached well as early as Monday, the man in charge of the federal response team told CNN's “American Morning.” Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said Monday that once the cap is placed on the well, scientists will be able to gauge the pressure inside the well, then determine whether the cap is holding the oil in or if crews will need to continue siphoning up oil. Crews were going through final checks Monday afternoon before installing the cap. Once it's installed, the next critical step is making sure there's no hydrate buildup, according to BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles. He said testing the well's integrity could begin Tuesday, with a monitoring period that could take anywhere from six hours to two days. While robots replace the old cap, crude is leaking out. Scientists estimate that 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil are spewing daily from BP's breached well. But now, more of that gushing oil is being collected, Suttles added. He said the oil-gathering ship, the Helix Producer, began recovering oil from the ruptured well Monday. He said it should “ramp up to full capacity” in several days after two setbacks Sunday delayed its implementation. CONTINUED… added by: EthicalVegan

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Man In The Middle Attack Explained

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

First, a quick definition, a man in the middle (MitM) attack is an attack where the communication which is exchanged between two users is surreptitiously monitored and possibly modified by a third, unauthorized, party… https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/5208-Man-In-The-Middle-Attack-Explained.h… added by: Paisano1

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Maddow: Extending Unemployment Benefits ‘Most Stimulative Thing You Can Do’

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Channeling her inner Nancy Pelosi, Rachel Maddow on Sunday actually said extending unemployment benefits is “the most stimulative thing you can do” to help the ailing economy. Appearing on the panel discussion of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Maddow boldly presented a liberal view of economics that only the current House Speaker would be proud of. “I think that most Americans also, though, understand the basic arithmetic that when you’re talking about pushing tax cuts that do mostly benefit the wealthy and you’re simultaneously talking about getting tough on the deficit, you’re talking about a world in which math doesn’t work the way most people think it works.” Indeed, for moments before she falsely stated that Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. But Maddow’s best remark Sunday had to be, “If you really want a stimulus, do what we — what’s proven to work in stimulus, which is things like extending unemployment benefits…It’s the most stimulative thing you can do” (video follows with transcript and commentary): RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Well, you end, you end up with the situation which again you’re back to choice vs. referendum because Republicans, like great strategists like Mr. Gillespie, can argue about how it’s all about spending, it’s all about debt. But it’s not just talking about the past to say, “When Republicans have had the reins, this is what they’ve done: two wars not paid for, prescription drug benefit not paid for, two tax cuts that mostly benefited the rich not paid for.” They put all that stuff on the deficit, $1.3 trillion sitting there as–in a deficit when Obama took over, after the previous Democratic president had handed him a surplus. If you talk about–if Republicans want to run as this fiscally responsible party, it’s neat, but it’s novel. It’s not how they’ve actually governed. DAVID GREGORY, HOST: And, David, you know, more on that argument, though. I spoke to senior Republicans this week in the party who said, “Look, sometimes we are afraid that we do take the majority back because are we, as Republicans, in a position to offer a policy for how to grow the economy, to offer real policies to create jobs?” There’s a lot of fear out there that, in fact, they don’t have great alternatives at the moment to be able to do that. DAVID BROOKS, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, I, I actually agree with that. I’m a little scared myself. You know, you look at what happened in Britain, the Conservative party took over after a long period out of power. They, they have a real austerity program. They’re really cutting spending, putting the country, which was much worse debt shape than us, on a long-term path to some sort of fiscal sanity. I’m not sure the Republicans are ready there, so I’m a little nervous about that. But the question people are going to ask us is, “What did President Obama offer, and are we satisfied with that?” And they’re not getting there. And to me the big picture is that if Harry Hopkins, the great liberal from FDR’s administration, came back and said, “I’m going to create a perfect liberal moment. We’re going to have a big financial crisis caused by Wall Street, sort of; we’re going to have the biggest natural disaster in American history caused by an oil company; we’re going to have a very talented Democratic president; we’re going to give him some money to spend to create a lot of programs.” And after all that, it’s still not a liberal moment, it’s a conservative moment, that makes me think liberalism isn’t quite going to sell in this country at any moment. If it’s not selling now, it’ll never sell. And I think… MR. GREGORY: But doesn’t that assume that this is a conservative moment? Do you assume that? ED GILLESPIE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Oh, I think, I think there’s a great opportunity for conservative policies, and I think the public is open to hearing from us on that. And I just disagree with David. Look, in New Jersey and Virginia, we have two Republican governors just been elected, one in a purple state, Virginia, one in a deep blue state, or at least royal blue, New Jersey, who are acting on what they said they would do, they’re governing as they campaigned. In New Jersey, Governor Christie is trying to change the tailspin, turn things around in New Jersey, taking on the government employee unions there. In Virginia, Bob McDonnell as governor eliminated a $4.2 billion deficit, the largest in the history of the Commonwealth of Virginia. We will govern as we said we would. And I think, you know, Harold just pointed to these rising capital gains taxes and dividend taxes. You can call them tax increases on the, on the wealthy. I think most will say it’s tax increases on investment at a time when we need to be creating jobs. They’re going to kick in January 1, 2011. The first thing Republicans will do is say, “No. We’re going to keep them in place for a while until we can get the economy growing again.” And I think most Americans reject the notion that spending equals jobs. They think spending equals temporary government jobs. MS. MADDOW: I think that, I think that most Americans also, though, understand the basic arithmetic that when you’re talking about pushing tax cuts that do mostly benefit the wealthy and you’re simultaneously talking about getting tough on the deficit, you’re talking about a world in which math doesn’t work the way most people think it works. If you’re going to talk about tax cuts–I mean, Harold, you, as a Democrat, proposed some very significant tax cuts when you were thinking about running for Senate in, in New York, a huge corporate tax cut, a big payroll tax holiday, and then said simultaneously, “And we got to get serious about the deficit.” HAROLD FORD, FORMER DEMOCRAT REPRESENTATIVE FROM TENNESSEE: Well, Rachel, in all fairness, the payroll tax… MS. MADDOW: Tax cuts hurt the deficit. REP. FORD: Right. But the payroll tax cut–in order to, in order to pay down the debt, you got to do two things. You got to get your spending in order and you got to grow. When Bill Clinton was in office, the real advantage we had was that the economy grew. They made–they took–they made some tough choices around spending. I was in Congress for a good part of that. But at the same time, we had this IT explosion and growth in the country, which created millions of jobs. My only point is, if you cut the payroll tax for small businesses, you keep money in those communities. If you really want a stimulus, cut the payroll tax at a hardware store, cut the payroll tax at a sundry, cut the payroll tax at a… MS. MADDOW: If you really want, if you really want a stimulus, do what we–what’s proven to work in stimulus, which is things like extending unemployment benefits, which is something that Republicans are completely blocking. REP. FORD: Which I… MR. GREGORY: But let me, let me… MS. MADDOW: It’s the most stimulative thing you can do. Yep. She really reiterated one of the most inane statements ever uttered by a House Speaker in American history: Does Maddow actually BELIEVE that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, or was she just mimicking Pelosi and repeating Democrat talking points? Before you answer, consider the absurdity in her other comment concerning Obama inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit.  After all, on March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget which authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying “Yes.” When the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it. This means the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with “Yeas” coming from current President then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State then Sen. Hillary Clinton. As such, when Maddow says, “They put all that stuff on the deficit, $1.3 trillion sitting there as — in a deficit when Obama took over,” the “They” were Democrats INCLUDING Obama.   How is this possibly something he inherited when his Party ramrodded the original budget through Congress with virtually no Republican approval — save Bush’s signature, of course — and the highest members of the current Administration — including the president himself!!! — supported it when they were either in the Senate or the House? Sadly, Maddow’s math doesn’t incorporate this inconvenient truth. But that’s just the beginning, for on October 1, 2008, Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted in favor of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program designed to prevent teetering financial institutions from completely destroying the economy. Couldn’t Obama only disavow responsibility for this if he had voted no along with the other 25 Senators disapproving the measure? And what about the $787 billion stimulus bill that passed in February 2009 with just three Republican votes? Wouldn’t Obama only be blameless if he vetoed it and was later overridden? Of course, he didn’t, and, instead signed it into law on February 17. Nor did he veto the $410 billion of additional spending Congress sent to his desk three weeks later. Add it all up, and Obama approved every penny spent in fiscal 2009 either via his votes in the Senate or his signature as President. That Maddow has the gall on national television to blame this on Republicans is the height of hypocrisy. But what are you going to expect from a woman that believes unemployment benefits stimulate the economy? 

Continue reading here:
Maddow: Extending Unemployment Benefits ‘Most Stimulative Thing You Can Do’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Kurtz Mimics Olbermann, Cherry Picks Limbaugh to Make Him Look Racist

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Howard Kurtz on Sunday used a Keith Olbermann tactic of selectively editing and cherry picking from a Rush Limbaugh radio transcript to make the conservative talk show host look racist. In a “Reliable Sources” segment dealing with the embattled Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, Kurtz played a highly-edited clip of statements Limbaugh made Tuesday about this issue. Unfortunately, just as MSNBC’s Olbermann did on his “Countdown” program, Kurtz never told his viewers that Limbaugh was referring specifically to comments that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker made on last Sunday’s “This Week” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Now, Rush Limbaugh also loves to stir controversy by design. And this week, he talked about the president and made a bit of news. Let’s take a listen. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: That’s exactly the same thing you could say about Obama. He wouldn’t have been voted president if he weren’t black. Somebody asked me over the weekend why does somebody earn a lot of money, have a lot of money? I said because he’s black. If Obama weren’t black, he’d be a tour guide in Honolulu or he’d be teaching Saul Alinsky constitutional law or lecturing on it in Chicago. (END AUDIO CLIP) KURTZ: Of course here we are talking about Rush. But did you find those comments to be more than just the usual Limbaugh rhetoric? ROGER SIMON, POLITICO: You mean did I find them to be racist and repugnant? Yes, I found them to be racist and repugnant. KURTZ: Why racist? Can’t a case be made just on part of this that if Obama was a white freshman senator, he wouldn’t have beaten Hillary for the nomination? SIMON: I think anyone who beat Hillary for the nomination had something going for him besides race. And let’s be fair. His race was not going for him. We only said that after he won. He had to win in states where there was almost no black population. If he had lost in Iowa, the first Democratic contest, he would have been through. There are no black people in Iowa. He convinced white people that he really was an agent of change. KURTZ: That’s a good point. Is it, Howard? Let me bring up a better one, like why you didn’t include the context of what Limbaugh said Tuesday. As NewsBusters reported Wednesday, here’s what came IMMEDIATELY BEFORE what Kurtz played for Simon and his viewers: RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST: Cynthia Tucker, ABC’s This Week, Sunday, roundtable, they discussed Michael Steele. And, by the way, this woman is the editorial director of the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, and she has been for a long, long time. “Cynthia you once called Michael Steele an affirmative action hire gone bad.” By the way, she can say this because she’s African-American. Here’s what she said. CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Michael Steele is a self-aggrandizing gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black. Of course the irony is that he never would have been voted in as chairman of the Republican Party were he not black. LIMBAUGH: Same with Obama. TUCKER: It is very ironic since the Republican — LIMBAUGH: Stop the tape a second. Didn’t you think that was relevant, Howie? Wasn’t it an important piece of information that Limbaugh was specifically talking about what Tucker said concerning Steele and how one could make the same case for Obama? Apparently not, for Kurtz never said one word about what Tucker said last Sunday, nor did he ask his guest if he felt THAT was racist? I wonder why.  To remind readers, this is what Limbaugh was referring to:   JAKE TAPPER, HOST: Cynthia, you once called, let me underline “You” once called Michael Steele an affirmative action hire gone bad. What’s your take on this? CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Well, Michael Steele is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black. Of course, the irony is that he never would have been voted in as Chairman of the Republican Party were he not black. Let’s remember how the Party wound up with Michael Steele. In November 2008, the Party was devastated that the Democrats had elected the nation’s first black president while the Republican Party was stuck with being seen as largely the party of aging white people, with good reason. A party that was hostile to people of color, especially blacks and Latinos. So the Party needed a new face, preferably a face of color, and they didn’t have very many officials to choose from. So, they came up with Michael Steele. And it is very ironic since the Republicans have been so critical of affirmative action, to watch them stuck with their affirmative action hire that they dare not get rid of because that would generate even more controversy.  Unfortunately, Kurtz didn’t think that was relevant. Sadly, this is EXACTLY what Olbermann did on Tuesday thereby making Kurtz on this occasion no better than one of the most despicable people in television news today. As readers are aware, I have a lot of respect for Kurtz, but this was NOT a banner moment for him — not by a long shot.

Originally posted here:
Kurtz Mimics Olbermann, Cherry Picks Limbaugh to Make Him Look Racist

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Rand Paul To America’s Poor: You Don’t Have It So Bad

Posted on July 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Don't fret, American poor people! Turns out you're living better than “the rest of the world,” according to Kentucky Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul. Responding to an attack from Democratic nominee Jack Conway at a candidate forum yesterday, Paul tried to defend his past statement that the president criticizing BP is “un-American.” Paul launched into a spirited defense of “the engine of capitalism,” and worried that assaults on it — like the criticisms of BP from Conway and his Democratic friends — could lead to a “day of reckoning” in the U.S., and perhaps a Depression. This somehow led to a lesson Paul said Kentuckians should hold dear: Sure there are “problems” with the way America deals with the poor, but when they think about it, poor folks should thank goodness they're not stuck in one of those other horrible countries. “The poor in our country are enormously better off than the rest of the world,” Paul said. “Doesn't mean we can't do better, but we have to acknowledge and be proud of our system of capitalism, be proud of our American way.” How'd he get there? Paul told a little story about the Cold War to set up his argument that the poor have it pretty good in America when you really stop to think about it: One of the important lessons that came out of the Cold War — and this is an important description that I don't think comes up enough — the Cold War was won by America because the engine of capitalism defeated the engine of socialism. The Soviets used to show a propaganda film — they wanted to show how horrible America was and how our poor were doing so poorly. They filmed a building in the poor section of New York with some broken windows and they said, 'Oh this is how the poor in America lives.' But it backfired on them because the Soviet citizens looked at that video closely and they saw flickering color television sets in all those windows. So, the takeway: Don't worry, freezing poor people with broken windows. At least you've got color TV. added by: TimALoftis

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Keith Olbermann Calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to Resign

Posted on July 8, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Keith Olbermann on Wednesday called for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign. His complaint? Thomas’s wife Virginia runs a political organization called Liberty Central which at this point has not revealed who its donors are.  “She is a living, breathing, appearance of a conflict of interest,” whined Olbermann during Wednesday’s “Countdown.” “Either she must reveal the names of her donors and everyone employed by, affiliated with or donating to or donated to by Liberty Central, or Justice Thomas must resign from the Supreme Court” (video follows with transcript and commentary): Then there is Washington, D.C. Tea Partier Virginia “Ginny” Thomas. She has the usual stuff, a blind hatred of the president, paranoid use of the word tyranny, endorsing knee jerk candidates, her own little group of Neanderthals called Liberty Central. It’s more financially successful than most. “Politico” now reports she has only two donors, one for 50 grand and one for a whopping 500 grand. But otherwise, Mrs. Thomas’ story is the usual reactionary tripe. It is her right to be wrong and we must protect it. Virginia “Ginny” Thomas is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. This probably is really, really obvious. The wife of a Supreme Court justice is soliciting donations to a political organization. The donors are anonymous and one paid her half a million bucks. Even if she tried not to, she cannot help but stand out from a crowd of yelping Tea Partiers because of her husband‘s name and position. She is a living, breathing, appearance of a conflict of interest. The remedies are just as obvious. Either she must reveal the names of her donors and everyone employed by, affiliated with or donating to or donated to by Liberty Central, or Justice Thomas must resign from the Supreme Court. Otherwise, every verdict he renders will have to be assumed to be the result of influence peddling, and whatever effectiveness he has on the court will be reduced to a pathetic joke.   Before we get to the heart of the matter, isn’t it marvelous how a cable news anchor shows such disrespect to the wife of a Supreme Court justice?  “She has the usual stuff, a blind hatred of the president, paranoid use of the word tyranny, endorsing knee jerk candidates, her own little group of Neanderthals called Liberty Central…But otherwise, Mrs. Thomas’ story is the usual reactionary tripe.” Is this REALLY what the wife of a Supreme Court justice deserves just because she has different political beliefs than a television personality?  As to the substance of Olbermann’s complaint, every verdict Thomas renders will have to be assumed to be the result of influence peddling? Not just the ones that might actually involve donors to his wife’s organization? That seems absurdly sweeping even for the typically absurdly sweeping “Countdown” host. Sadly, if he and his staff had done the slightest bit of research, they would have uncovered what the Los Angeles Times reported  concerning this matter on March 14: “I think the American public expects the justices to be out of politics,” said University of Texas law school professor Lucas A. “Scot” Powe, a court historian. He said the expectations for spouses are far less clear. “I really don’t know because we’ve never seen it,” Powe said. Under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage. As in her appearance at the panel discussion, the website does not mention Clarence Thomas. The judicial code of conduct does require judges to separate themselves from their spouses’ political activity. As a result, Marjorie Rendell, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has stayed away from political events, campaign rallies and debates in Pennsylvania. Her husband discussed such issues in his first campaign for governor. Since then, Judge Rendell has sought the opinion of the judiciary’s Committee on Codes of Conduct when a case presents a possible conflict of interest involving her husband’s political office, she said. And what about this specific situation? Law professor Gillers said that Justice Thomas, too, should be on alert for possible conflicts, particularly those involving donors to his wife’s nonprofit. “There is opportunity for mischief if a company with a case before the court, or which it wants the court to accept, makes a substantial contribution to Liberty Central in the interim,” he said. Justice Thomas would be required to be aware of such contributions, Gillers said, adding that he believes Thomas should then disclose those facts and allow parties in the case to argue for recusal. But it would be up to Justice Thomas to decide whether to recuse himself. As such, despite Olbermann’s blathering, the only potential conflict here would be if the Supreme Court heard a case involving a donor to Liberty Central. At that point, there are procedures in place to deal with it. After all, in the many centuries we’ve had a Supreme Court, this isn’t the first time a justice’s spouse was involved in politics. If Olbermann and his staff had actually read the entire piece  he referred to in this report, he may have been far better informed on this subject: Neither a Liberty Central official, nor a Supreme Court spokeswoman would say whether the group would disclose the names of its donors to the Supreme Court legal office or to Thomas’s husband so he can avoid ruling on cases in which a major Liberty Central donor is a party. “Liberty Central has been run past the Supreme Court ethics office and they found that the organization meets all ethics standards,” [policy director and general counsel Sarah] Field said. “As she has throughout her 30-year history in the policy community, Ginni will address any potential conflicts on a case-by-case basis.” As Ginni Thomas has begun to emerge as a high-profile political player in her own right, friends and allies say has bristled at the focus on her husband, and questions about whether her involvement with Liberty Central could compromise his impartiality. The Thomases last faced conflict questions in 2000 when Ginni Thomas, then working for the conservative Heritage Foundation, solicited resumes for potential transition team members for George W. Bush, while Justice Thomas was part of the court majority that sided with Bush over Democratic rival Al Gore in the historic case of Bush v. Gore. In fact, this is certainly not the first time Thomas has been politically active: “In my experience working with her, people usually didn’t know (she was married to Clarence Thomas), because she doesn’t wear it on her sleeve,” said Kibbe, who worked with Thomas at the right-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce while her husband was a federal appeals court judge rumored to be on then-President George H.W. Bush’s shortlist for the Supreme Court. After the Chamber, Ginni Thomas, who has a law degree, went on to work for the Labor Department under the Bush administration and later for then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a Texas Republican who now chairs Kibbe’s group, as well as the Heritage Foundation, a pillar of the Washington conservative establishment. That was followed by the job as a Washington coordinator for Hillsdale College. Thomas, who declined to be interviewed for this story and has mostly limited her media interaction to conservative outlets, explained to the Washington Examiner last month that she decided to start Liberty Central because she “realized I needed to get closer to the front lines, that there was a more short-term crisis – and that unless we have a big impact in November and again in 2012, we wouldn’t recognize the country we’re living in.” She also explained to the Examiner, “My favorite times are when people who have worked for me for over 10 years come to understand only later that I am the wife of Justice Thomas.” Taking this a step further: Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told POLITICO that “Mrs. Thomas had reviewed her involvement (in Liberty Central) with the Supreme Court legal office.” But Arberg would not say whether Clarence Thomas had participated in the discussion, nor whether Liberty Central had agreed to reveal its donors to him or the court’s legal office. As such, the Court’s legal office is quite aware of the situation making Olbermann’s call for Thomas to step down if Virginia doesn’t disclose her donors quite absurd. Alas, that’s par for the course for MSNBC’s prime time clown who predictably makes hyperbolic fulminations without facts to support them. His hero Edward R. Murrow must be so proud. 

The rest is here:
Keith Olbermann Calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to Resign

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CNN Again Omits Pro-Illegal Immigration Stance of ‘Public Defender’

Posted on July 7, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Wednesday’s Newsroom, CNN’s Tony Harris omitted the pro-illegal immigration activism of guest Isabel Garcia, just as his colleague Suzanne Malveaux did more than two months earlier . Harris twice referred to Garcia as merely the “deputy public defender in Pima County, Arizona,” and didn’t mention her involvement in the beating and decapitation of a pinata effigy of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The anchor brought on the activist, as well as Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of the state newly-passed anti-illegal immigration law, for two segments starting 10 minutes into the 11 am Eastern hour. After asking Senator Pearce’s position on the federal government’s new lawsuit against the enforcement of his law, Harris turned to the public defender: “Isabel, you’ve been patient. Weigh in here.” Garcia (her pro-illegal immigration organization, Coalición de Derechos Humanos, whose website features a logo incorporating the southwestern states into Mexico, was identified on-screen as the “Human Rights Coalition”) immediately went on the offense against Pearce, playing the race/ethnicity card against the Republican politician: GARCIA: This is not about protecting anybody from Arizona. (Pearce laughs) In fact, if Mr. Pearce were responsible, he would, in fact, want to protect us and protect our values in this country. Clearly, this is a supremacy issue. I mean, it’s preposterous that he argued that the federal government doesn’t have the exclusive jurisdiction on this very complicated area of law. Certainly, Arizona cannot simply regulate immigration- and he is trying to regulate immigration. As much as he tries to hide it over and over, he knows full well that they have created a new offense of not having your documents with you. And the issue of racial profiling, that he can just wipe it away so easy- well, it’s because you’re a white person, Mr. Pearce . PEARCE: Oh, what an idiot. GARCIA: You don’t have any qualms about racial profiling at all . You should be concerned about our liberties in this country. You should be concerned about the facts. The facts are that immigrants are an absolute plus to our economy- always have been. That’s why we have 11 million undocumented people here, not because we’re giving give-outs, like you’re saying. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. Immigrants contribute much more than they ever take out in health care, in educational costs, in anything. You look at any credible study, Mr. Pearce- which you should, because you’re an elected official- you should have a real body of evidence before you start talking and endanger our entire community and endanger our country. The state senator didn’t get a chance to reply to Garcia’s racially-charged accusation because the anchor then broke for commercials. After the break, Harris asked Pearce, “You acknowledge that it, at some point, becomes a federal issue, and we’re here because the government hasn’t done enough in this area. And I’m curious, are you as angry at Congress- all of Congress- for not enacting new immigration legislation- and that is Republicans, Democrats and independents?” Once Pearce answered, Harris asked Garcia a similar question, but one from the left: “We’ve got a list of 11 Republican senators who voted for immigration reform in 2006 who aren’t doing much in the way of leadership on this issue at all right now….But Democratic leadership on this issue isn’t moving it forward as well. Do you have any anger right now for Speaker Pelosi, Senate Leader Reid? This was supposed to be the year for comprehensive immigration reform .” Near the end of her reply, the pro-illegal immigration activist proffered a conspiracy theory on the issue: GARCIA: Well, really, the responsibility lays not only in all the people you have mentioned, but in previous administrations, from Clinton, to the Bush administration, to the present Obama administration- is their inability to articulate the truth to the American public that we have caused the situation . Mr. Pearce talks about people not following the laws. Let me tell you, Mexicans, specifically, and other immigrants, have followed the rules. You know what the rules have been for 100 years? Come into the country in an unauthorized fashion so you can build our country. Do you really think we’ve got 11 million people that are benefitting so profusely from give-outs? Absolutely not. We depend on these 11 million people to feed us, to clothe us, to house us, and Mr. Pearce should be thanking them rather than demonizing them, because Arizona was selected by the federal government. It was no accident. This is not occurring because the federal government has not acted. It’s the opposite . HARRIS: Okay. Got you. GARCIA: It’s because they funneled everybody through Arizona to elect the likes of Mr. Pearce – HARRIS: Oh my. GARCIA: In order to become a laboratory for everything that’s anti-immigrant . One might be inclined to add Garcia’s out-there theory to the likes of 9/11 “trutherism” and “birtherism,” and all Harris had to say in response was “oh my”? Neither Harris, nor Malveaux during the April 23, 2010 interview, brought up the activist’s participation in a 2008 protest where the pinata effigy of Sheriff Arpaio was beaten and decapitated and where she carried the figure’s head down the street. Only CNN anchor Anderson Cooper fairly questioned the “public defender” on the incident during an October 2009 segment where she appeared with Arpaio .

See the article here:
CNN Again Omits Pro-Illegal Immigration Stance of ‘Public Defender’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,