Tag Archives: party

Brooks: ‘Tragedy’ If Republicans Reject More Government, Higher Taxes

If a RINO is a Republican In Name Only, let’s coin a new acronym for David Brooks: RINYTO: Republican In New York Times Only.  For only in the Gray Lady’s bailiwick could Brooks be considered much of a Republican. Take his current column in the Times.  Brooks warns Republicans on the verge of regaining power that it would be nothing short of a “tragedy” if they were to oppose . . . more government and higher taxes. Excerpt [emphasis added]: If the current Republican Party regards every new bit of government action as a step on the road to serfdom , then the party will be taking this long, mainstream American tradition and exiling it from the G.O.P. That will be a political tragedy. There are millions of voters who, while alarmed by the Democrats’ lavish spending, still look to government to play some positive role. They fled the G.O.P. after the government shutdown of 1995, and they would do so again. It would be a fiscal tragedy. Over the next decade there will have to be spending cuts and tax increases. If Republicans decide that even the smallest tax increases put us on the road to serfdom , then there will never be a deal, and the country will careen toward bankruptcy. Brooks apparently believes we don’t have enough government and that taxes are too low.  I’d say that makes him a Republican only in the rarefied air of 8th Ave. between 40th & 41st streets.

See the original post:
Brooks: ‘Tragedy’ If Republicans Reject More Government, Higher Taxes

Matthews Admits: Maybe I Was Smart Not to Run For Office This Year

Well you have to give Chris Matthews credit for admitting the obvious. On Monday’s Hardball, as he overlooked the bad environment for Democrats this midterm season, Matthews appeared grateful he didn’t make his much rumored run for Pennsylvania’s Senate seat, as he asked one of his guests: “Do you think it could be the year where guys…like me were smart not to make the run?” [ audio available here ] The admission came during a segment in which Matthews, the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza and local radio talk show host, Dan Gaffney of WGMD, were breaking down the prospects for Christine O’Donnell to upset Republican Mike Castle and go on to win the general election for the Deleware Senate seat with Gaffney explaining that it was a distinct possibility since there is “a lot of anti-establishment, anti-incumbent sentiment” in that state, calling that race “a crap-shoot.” This caused Matthews to wonder, if in fact, that attitude extended to Pennsylvania as he asked Gaffney the following question: Let me go to Gaffney, a fellow Irishman, while I’ve got you on the show, I’ve got to ask you this. Do you think it could be the year where guys like Beau Biden and guys like me were smart not to make the run? I’m looking at this situation. You cannot predict this year! It is a crap-shoot! And they’re so anti-establishment out there, that they recognize your name and they say, “I knew that name three months ago.” They don’t like you. Isn’t that true? The following exchanges were aired on the September 13 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball. The Republican primary in Delaware, the little state of Delaware, tomorrow could have big implications for the Republicans nationwide and their ability to take over the U.S. Senate, which is possible. Republican Mike Castle is fending off a tough challenge from Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell and polls show she’s in the race of his life, actually that’s a close, too close to call. … MATTHEWS: Joining me is Delaware radio talk show host Dan Gaffney and WashingtonPost.com managing editor Chris Cillizza. Dan, give me a sense do the voters of Delaware know how important this vote is tomorrow. That this could affect the, I guess you could call it the outside chance of the Republicans grabbing the Senate as well as the House, come November. DAN GAFFNEY: Yeah, I think many of them do, but some of my talk radio callers don’t care. They are more interested in winning the actual battle than the war and there’s such a wind of anti-Castle, you know there’s a wind of anti-Castle wind in the air and even when presented the fact that Castle has a better chance of beating the Democrats, many people don’t care. They want to vote him out any way. MATTHEWS: Boy that sounds like the Democratic left sometimes. That sounds like November Doesn’t Count. I grew up with it, it’s called NDC. Cillizza, you’re, you’re shaking your head positively. The one thing about a polarized electorate is it doesn’t care about practical electoral consequences. CHRIS CILLIZZA, WASHINGTON POST: Yep. MATTHEWS: By the way, I want to give a salute, if not a positive salute, a reality check to the far right. Bob Bennett was knocked off, the guy that beat him, Lee is going to win the general. Crist, Crist has been bumped out of his party but Rubio could well win that. He’s ahead in the polls down there. Specter was knocked out of his party, but Toomey is well ahead by about seven points in PA. And who am I missing? Murkowski. Well I gotta bet, what’s his name up there, Joe Miller is gonna win that, or if he gets in that thing clean, one on one. So you could argue that the Tea Parties have had a pretty good record of positioning themselves to win generals. Maybe not in Nevada, but other places. CILLIZZA: Chris, first of all, isn’t it amazing that we’re talking about Delaware? You’ve got the New Hampshire Senate race, you’ve got New York, you’ve got Wisconsin, we’re talking about Delaware. This is a state we never thought we would be talking about. Number two, that states you just listed: Alaska, Utah, those kind of states. The one thing that’s different, this is Delaware. This is a Democratic state. Mike Castle’s been elected for more than 40 years. He’s been the governor of the state. He’s been the at-large representative. This is not a state where whoever winds up being the Republican nominee, Utah, Alaska, has a big leg up in winning. Not sure if they’re gonna win, but that’s a big leg up. MATTHEWS: Okay let me give you, let me give you, let me give you some history, young fellow. Joe Biden, back in 1972, bumped out a guy who had won the House seat, and let’s go in here Dan, you’re the expert, had been a House member, a Senate member, for x many terms, and a governor, just like this guy Mike Castle. Joe Biden, at the age of 29, knocked him out of the seat and held it for what? 40 years. So isn’t it possible that Christine O’Donnell could be a senator for life. We don’t know. GAFFNEY: Well let me tell you, what my original opinion was that if she wins the primary tomorrow, we would say “Hello, Senator Coons.” That was my original opinion. MATTHEWS: Right. GAFFNEY: But now I’m starting to think that if she pulls it off tomorrow, if, that’s a big “if”, she could do anything. If she can beat Mike Castle in this state, she can do anything. MATTHEWS: What’s your state like these days? Is it as unhappy as the rest of the country and could it say, you know what if she isn’t quite prepared or maybe this other fellow Coons has more executive experience, the usual logic way we make decisions may not be in play this year, there’s so much anger. GAFFNEY: No it’s very emotional Chris. MATTHEWS: Yeah. GAFFNEY: It’s very emotional. There’s a lot of anti-establishment, anti-incumbent sentiment. The Tea Party movement is strong. There is a strong sentiment, especially in the southern part of the state. There are only three counties, the two lower counties, much more conservative, much more likely to go to Christine O’Donnell. The upper county, Newscastle, is urban, it’s the city of Wilmington. Much more likely to go toward Mike Castle. However, will he win enough in Newcastle to take the whole state? It’s a crap-shoot. All of my political pundit friends are saying the same thing to me, “I don’t know.” MATTHEWS: Well Let’s talk about the country. Chris go back, let’s pull back and look at the whole country. CILLIZZA: Sure. MATTHEWS: People watching now from California want to know this. It’s possible with Boxer in play, with Patty Murray in play, with Harry Reid in play, with Russ Feingold in play- CILLIZZA: Yep. MATTHEWS: That the Democrats could lose the Senate. It’s very possible, on a bad night, a what do you call it, a wave night, well you’re the expert, right? Delaware matters. CILLIZZA: Look I would say Delaware, you used the word in the intro Chris – shoe-in. And I thought to myself, that’s exactly right. We considered this like, I met Chris Coons, I like Chris Coons, I didn’t think Chris Coons was gonna beat Mike Castle. I agree that Christine O’Donnell, you never know what’s going to happen if she wins, but she’s not as strong a candidate as Mike Castle in the general election. Doesn’t mean she can’t win, but she’s not as strong a candidate. So if you take Delaware and move it into the “We don’t know” category. Now you’re looking at rather than winning two out of the three of Wisconsin, Washington and California, now you’re talking about winning all three. Is it possible? Yes it’s absolutely possible. MATTHEWS: Ha! I love it! CILLIZZA: Polling, polling in all three suggests it could happen, but it seems odd to me. I think Wisconsin, in order, I think Wisconsin, California, Washington, even the most sort of optimistic Republican strategists I talk to say, “Look we’d love to win two out of three of them that would make a great night.” But two out of three and losing Delaware that means they’re probably not in the majority. MATTHEWS: Okay there’s others than. I think you’re so smart. Let me go to Gaffney, a fellow Irishman, while I’ve got you on the show, I’ve got to ask you this. Do you think it could be the year where guys like Beau Biden and guys like me were smart not to make the run? I’m looking at this situation. You cannot predict this year! It is a crap-shoot! And they’re so anti-establishment out there, that they recognize your name and they say, “I knew that name three months ago.” They don’t like you. Isn’t that true? GAFFNEY: Well I think Beau Biden, yeah it is true. Beau Biden should have gotten in this year. I mean he, he probably is… MATTHEWS: Could he have beaten either of these candidates? Could have beaten Castle or beaten O’Donnell? GAFFNEY: Yes, I think he could have. Not that I would’ve supported him but I think he could. Yes. MATTHEWS: Really? GAFFNEY: Beau Biden? Absolutely.

Read more here:
Matthews Admits: Maybe I Was Smart Not to Run For Office This Year

2010 VMAs: Lady Gaga Scores, Taylor Swift And Kanye West Vent

Performances from Justin Bieber, Eminem/Rihanna and others also steal the show. By Gil Kaufman Lady Gaga at the 2010 VMAs Photo: Kevin Mazur/ WireImage With 13 nominations, there was no way Lady Gaga was going home empty-handed at Sunday night’s (September 12) MTV Video Music Awards . And when the international pop/fashion icon stepped up to accept her sixth award of the night, for Video of the Year, she did what she always does: broke off a piece for her legion of fans by teasing the name of her upcoming album. On a night when Kanye West seemingly came all the way back from music jail with yet another eye-popping performance that put most (or at least some) of last year’s stage-crashing antics to rest, Taylor Swift appeared to answer Kanye’s bum-rush with some lyrical barbs of her own, and everyone from Justin Bieber and B.o.B to Drake and Nicki Minaj made their VMA debuts. In the end, though, the night belonged to Mother Monster. Gaga got the night started early with a pre-show win for Best Dance Video for “Bad Romance” and Best Collaboration for “Telephone” with Beyonc

Lady Gaga Takes Best Female Video At VMAs

Singer’s ‘Bad Romance’ earlier nabbed Best Dance Music Video during pre-show. Lady Gaga wins Best Female Video at the 2010 VMAs Photo: Kevin Mazur/ WireImage It looks like that romance wasn’t so bad after all. Less than twenty minutes into the 2010 Music Video Awards , pop icon Lady Gaga — Queen of the Little Monsters — added another jewel to her feathered-mohawk crown, when voters tapped her “Bad Romance” as Best Female Video of the Year. “Thank you so much all my little monsters,” 24-year-old Gaga said after she took the mic from presenter Ellen DeGeneres. “It’s such a dream to be here tonight.” Gaga is nominated for no less than 13 Moonmen and she had already scored wins during the pre-show for Best Dance Music Video for “Bad Romance” and Best Collaboration Video for “Telephone,” her collabo with Beyonc

In Search Of: People Of Color

For more than a year now, the mainstream media has demonized the Tea Party as a group of white racists. On September 12, 2010, we set out to see for ourselves if the Tea Party is as “monochromatic” as most of the media has steadfastly claimed to this day.

Go here to read the rest:
In Search Of: People Of Color

NYT Tees Up DNC Talking Points With Ethically Questionable Piece on Boehner’s Lobbyist Ties

The New York Times’s lobbyist double standard lives on. Since Barack Obama became president, the paper has routinely overlooked the vast disconnect between his rhetoric on lobbying’s role on the political process – there really isn’t one, if you believe Barack – and his actions on the issue. But while the Gray Lady all but ignores Obama’s deep ties with lobbyists and the industry groups they represent, the paper has hammered Republicans for their ties to “special interests.” The latest such attempt is a hack job in Sunday’s New York Times. Reporter Eric Lipton claims that House Miniority Leader John Boehner “maintains especially tight ties with a circle of lobbyists and former aides representing some of the nation’s biggest businesses, including Goldman Sachs, Google, Citigroup, R. J. Reynolds, MillerCoors and UPS.” The story makes some serious allegations – the most damning of which was sourced to an anonymous lobbyist. Intriguingly, some of the same claims undergird an upcoming DNC ad blitz against Boehner. The Leader’s staff, meanwhile, claim they were not asked for comment before the story went to press. Byron York reported Saturday: Boehner spokesman Michael Steel says he received a fact-checking email from Times reporter Eric Lipton Friday evening asking if Boehner did in fact oppose the cap on greenhouse gases, the tax change for hedge fund executives, the debit card fee cap, and increased fees on oil and gas companies. “Yes, that is correct,” Steel responded to Lipton, adding “I can tell you why, if you care.” Steel says he received no further notes from Lipton. Steel says Boehner has long held those positions and does not hold them as a result of lobbying. Hours after the email exchange, the Times story was published online, with the statement from the lobbyist that he had “won” Boehner’s backing on those matters. After Boehner’s aides complained, the paragraph was changed to read, emphasis added: One lobbyist in the club — after lauding each staff member in Mr. Boehner’s office that he routinely calls to ask for help — ticked off the list of recent issues for which he had sought the lawmaker’s backing: combating fee increases for the oil industry, fighting a proposed cap on debit card fees, protecting tax breaks for hedge fund executives and opposing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Boehner’s office said these were positions he already agreed with. The statement that a lobbyist “won” Boehner’s backing was changed to one in which a lobbyist “sought” Boehner’s backing. That’s a rather critical change. The Times also added Boehner’s defense that these were long-held positions. To call Boehner’s aides angry at the account would be an understatement. “They were offered the opportunity to find out if this was true, and they chose to rely instead on the word of an anonymous lobbyist,” says spokesman Michael Steel. “They intentionally refused to get the information to prove that this allegation was false.” That allegation itself is pretty serious. But it would hardly be out of step for a paper that has previously sought to demonize Republicans’ relationships with lobbyists in either complete ignorance of or contradictory to the facts. Remember Vicki Iseman? The New York Times suggested in a February 2008 article that Iseman, then a lobbyist with Alcalde & Fay, had a romantic relationship with then-presidential candidate John McCain. Not a shred of evidence was offered to support the allegation, and the Times later printed a correction claiming it had no intention of making that suggestion. If making baseless accusations against Republicans and their relationships with lobbyists were not sordid enough, the Times has also made a habit of blindly accepting any claim made by President Obama regarding ethics and lobbying at simple face value. Here’s a sampling of Times headlines since 2008: On First Day, Obama Quickly Sets a New Tone Obama’s Transition Team Restricts Lobbyists’ Role Victory for Obama Over Military Lobby ‘All Kinds of Yelling’ Expected From Obama’s Lobbyist Crackdown Obama Returns Lobbyist’s Donations Obama Issues Sharp Call for Reforms on Wall Street White House, Lobbyists Still at Odds The President Orders Transparency The Times does occasionally run watered-down, statistic-ridden pieces such as “As Donors, Lobbyists Often Favor One Party” (since it’s not in the headline, I’ll bet you can guess which party). But neither the immeasurable hypocrisy of this administration’s rhetoric on “special interests” nor the administration’s ties to those special interests are explored in any detail. So when President Obama claimed that he had “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs” despite the 50 lobbyists he employed (and continues to employ) in policymaking jobs, the Times failed to note any disconnect. Instead, the paper ran a story claiming Obama’s new lobbyist rules would “revolutionize how lobbyists disclose their activities and contribute money to candidates for federal office.” Beyond simply ignoring the specific hypocrisies in Obama’s rhetoric, the Times has taken a see-no-evil approach to the president’s extensive ties to the largest industry groups, while trumpeting relationships between Republicans and “special interests.” The pattern was on full display this summer, when the Times had to be reminded that Obama received seven times as much in campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs as George W. Bush did from Enron. Yet while the Times had vaguely alleged some sort of unethical relationship between the defunct energy company and the Bush administration, it made no such suggestions concerning Goldman. Given its history, the Times’s approach to the Boehner story is, though underhanded, hardly shocking. The agenda in its coverage of lobbyists and lawmakers is quite clear. And given the Times’s clear willingness to toe the Democratic line on this issue, it’s worth pondering this interesting chain of events. Just this past week, President Obama began directing his ire towards congressional Republicans, and Boehner specifically. Mere days later, as Yid With Lid notes , the Times also took up that line of attack. Then, Sunday morning, as NewsBusters reported , White House press secretary Robert Gibbs tweeted a series of quotes from and laudatory remarks about the Times piece, from the official Twitter feed of the White House press office. The Times’s piece also plays pefectly into the DNC’s election strategy. In fact, it kicks off a week in which Democrats are hoping to paint Boehner, well, exactly as he is painted by the Times piece. A DNC official told Talking Points Memo : We are going to tell Americans exactly who he is: a special interest and lobbyist loving typical Washington politician who always puts the well heeled and well-to-do ahead of middle class families and small businesses and who would, if he became speaker, return the capitol to the anything goes, DeLay-Abramoff days and ways of doing business.  So the Times blasted Boehner in the Sunday paper with a line of attack taken up by President Obama last week and touted by the White House the morning of its publication, and teed up a week of Boehner-bashing by offering the laughable veil of objectivity to de facto Democratic talking points. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the mainstream media.

View post:
NYT Tees Up DNC Talking Points With Ethically Questionable Piece on Boehner’s Lobbyist Ties

After Ohio Gov. Strickland’s Unhinged Rant, Columbus Dispatch’s Hallett Begs, Fails to Get Help Watering It Down

Though its true nature was largely ignored by the local media at the event (noted on Tuesday at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), Ted Strickland’s unhinged Labor Day speech at the AFL-CIO’s annual picnic at Cincinnat’s Coney Island has, with the help of the Republican Governors Association (RGA), garnered quite a bit of statewide attention. During his rant , Strickland denounced the Republican Party as “overtaken by the zealots, by the extremists, by the radicals”; claimed that “they don’t seem to like Ohio very much, and quite frankly, they act as if they don’t like America very much,” in essence questioning their patriotism; and asked the audience to help him fight “the Tea Party radicals.” The fallout has apparently been so severe that ever-helpful veteran Columbus Dispatch reporter, senior editor, and columnist Joe Hallett felt compelled on Thursday to try to help the Governor walk it all back. In an exchange that can only be seen as Hallett begging for Strickland to give him something, anything to work with, Strickland wasn’t very helpful, bogusly played the “out of context” card, and in a very real sense doubled down on his disrespect for those who oppose him. He even went into a riff on how opponents (in context, “Republicans,” not just “some Republicans”) want to repeal the 14th amendment (huh?). The full 11:36 video of Strickland’s discussion with reporters  is here (originally posted at the Ohio Capital Blog ); the RGA’s 2:04 excerpt featuring Hallett  is here (HT RightOhio ). What follows is a transcript of the excerpt: Hallett: The Republicans are making much of the speech you gave in Cincinnati, basically saying you had a heartbeat moment, when in your speech you said that “Republicans don’t like Ohio very much, and they don’t like America very much.” Do you mean that? Strickland: Uh, yes, but you need to, you need to get the full context of what I said, Joe. I wasn’t talking about their patriotism. I went on to talk about why I was saying that. Um, um, they want to ch-, they want to change the country. They want to change Ohio. It has nothing to do with their love for the country or their love of Ohio. It has a lot to do with whether or not they like Ohio the way it is, or they like America the way it is. For someone to repeal the 14th Amendment, that’s a pretty basic thing, that’s a part of our country’s history, tradition, and, and, Constitution, um, processes. Uh, uh, Mary Taylor, uh, says that she has urged people to leave Ohio and move to Florida, uh uh, or Nevada, or to some other state. (Taylor is the GOP’s Lieutenant Governor candidate — Ed.) So, uh if, if you understand what I said within the context of, of what I was saying and how I was saying it, uh, it’s not what they’re trying to make it. So — Hallett: Well, you’ve got, you’ve got a lot of Republicans _____ in ____, they’re going to present this as, “Governor Strickland says, ‘You Republicans don’t like this country.'” Strickland: Here a-, here again Joe, I talked about the fact that moderate Republicans are being pushed out of their party, that the, that the leadership of the Republican Party now was comprised of people that I think are on the extreme right wing of that party. I was not talking about all Republicans. Th-They know that, and I-I hope you can, can just watch the, the total, uh, speech that I made rather than, uh, the particular snippet of it. Other items found in the longer video: Strickland considers GOP candidate John Kasich’s idea to gradually eliminate the state’s income tax to be “radical.” Well, how have Florida and Texas (both much larger states), as well as Tennessee, New Hampshire, and several other states without income taxes survived all these years? A Hallett softball — “You’ve seen the polls. They’re not looking good for you. Are you fearful of becoming a victim of a climate over which you have no control?” Oh, the humanity! Hallet apparently already has his Election Night column theme drafted. Try to imagine Hallett asking a similar question of a Republican trailing in the polls. I know; you can’t. Besides being justifiably outraged at the characterization of Tea Partiers, sensible conservatives in the Buckeye State are surely chuckling at Strickland’s description of Ohio’s Republican Party, which during May’s primary campaign spent large sums of money and put a great deal of effort into ensuring the defeat of Tea Party-backed statewide and Central Committee candidates in favor of its preferred go-along, get-along candidates and Central Committee incumbents. As to liking and loving Ohio and America — to specifically describe just one problem, “Ohio the way it is” has 10.3% unemployment . “America the way it is” is at 9.6% . Unless I’m missing something, nobody “likes” that (Ted, if you do, which could fairly be inferred from what you said — and would be if a Republican or conservative had said it — please let us know). One can love their state and their country and still not like high unemployment, out of control debt, a bloated public sector, high taxes, and a lousy business climate. Strickland campaigned in 2006 as the guy who would ” Turnaround Ohio .” Obviously, he has done no such thing. The clear majority of loyal, loving Buckeye Staters don’t like that, and at this point appear to want something different. The pathetically pleading Joe Hallett, who infamously wrote in May that Ted Strickland couldn’t possibly bear any responsibility for Ohio’s lost jobs (just as, Hallett noted, GOP gubernatorial candidate John Kasich can’t be blamed for the collapse of the economy, which happens to be true), had to come away from his rescue attempt disappointed. Sorry, Joe. This is who Ted Strickland is. You and the rest of Ohio’s establishment press mostly provided cover for him in 2006. Now that he has a record trying to actually run something bigger than his former congressional staff (which, by the way, he didn’t do vey well either), your job has become a lot tougher. Too bad, so sad. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Visit link:
After Ohio Gov. Strickland’s Unhinged Rant, Columbus Dispatch’s Hallett Begs, Fails to Get Help Watering It Down

NYT’s Herbert: Obama and Dems Created Mess But GOP Would Be Worse

You can’t swing a dead cat these days without hitting some pathetically liberal media member claiming that despite how bad things are now they’d get worse if Republicans won in November. Exhibit A: New York Times columnist Bob Herbert’s article Saturday. In it, he somewhat honestly told his readers about the misshaps of the President he personally helped get elected. Fair enough, but the conclusion – almost like a talking points memo from the very Party he unashamedly supports! – was that things would get a lot worse if Republicans took back Congress: People feel that the country is going to hell, that the system itself has broken down, and President Obama and the Democrats have been unable to assuage that awful feeling. The Democrats are in deep, deep trouble because they have not effectively addressed the overwhelming concern of working men and women: an economy that is too weak to provide the jobs they need to support themselves and their families. With the nation losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month in early-2009, the president and his allies in Congress could have rallied the citizenry to participate in the difficult work of nation-building here at home. He could have called on everyone to share in the sacrifices that needed to be made, and he could have demanded much more from the financial and corporate elites who were being bailed out with the people’s money. Makes sense, right? Just wait: The Democrats are facing an election debacle because they did not respond adequately to their constituents’ most dire needs. The thing that is really weird is that a strengthened G.O.P. will undoubtedly make matters so much worse. Really? The unemployment rate was 4.6 percent when the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. It’s now 9.6 percent. Over 7 million Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats took over Congress. 7 million! And shills like Herbert have the gall to claim conditions would worsen if Republicans were back in power. Hey Mr. Herbert: how about proving your point with actual data rather than inflammatory rhetoric? I know, I know – that would be too much like journalism for a shill like this.

Read the original:
NYT’s Herbert: Obama and Dems Created Mess But GOP Would Be Worse

Tony Blair Pelted With Eggs & Shoes at Book Signing

In Ireland, violent skirmishes broke out between protesters and police at the first public signing for Tony Blair's memoirs, with shoes and eggs hurled at the former prime minister. added by: The_Global_Report

Congressman Ron Paul Hints At 2012 Presidential Campaign

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has hinted that he is strongly considering another Presidential run in 2012. Paul, who previously ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 and under the Libertarian Party in 1988, told an interviewer that “It’s something I think about every single day,”. The Congressman’s comments came during an interview with his former House colleague, Bob Bauman, legal counsel for The Sovereign Society – an independent investment advisory group. Paul said it would “be a tough decision”, but that he believes the American people are ready to embrace a new political direction. The comments have not been picked by by mainstream media sources as of yet. The Congressman has previously downplayed rumors of another Presidential campaign, saying it is unlikely. However, following a string of successes in recent surveys and straw polls, including victory in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s (CPAC) presidential straw poll, it seems Paul is now reconsidering his earlier statements. The full Sovereign Society interview with Ron Paul can be heard here (registration required). Paul’s comments add weight to more recent rumblings that he may once again pick up the presidential campaign mantle in 2012. Earlier this year the Congressman’s wife, Carol, stated “If you would ask him now he would probably say ‘no’, but he did say…things are happening so quickly and fast in our country, if we’re at a crisis period and they need someone…with the knowledge he has…then he would do it.” Jesse Benton, Senior VP of Paul’s advocacy group Campaign for Liberty, has said of the prospective run: “If the decision had to be made today, it would be ‘no’, but he is considering it very strongly and there is a decent likelihood that he will. A lot of it depends on things going on in his personal life and also what’s going on in the country.” At the height of Paul’s 2008 campaign, dubbed the Ron Paul Revolution by supporters, the Congressman smashed the all-time record for political donations on one day, beating John Kerry’s previous effort as he hauled in over $6 million dollars during a 24-hour period that coincided with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Indeed, as we have continuously highlighted, The Tea Party movement, originally Libertarian in origin, grew out of this trend of honouring the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. An event held in 2006 was repeated in 2007 with the Ron Paul Money bomb, and the movement evolved from there over the following three years. As part of an effort to encourage Ron Paul to run for president in 2012, a Tea Party moneybomb has been set up with the aim of repeating those previous successes. The goal of The Ron Paul Tea Party is to have 100,000 people donate $100 each on December 16, 2010 to kick off Paul’s 2012 presidential bid, should he decide to run. Infowars’ Alex Jones has personally pledged support to the Draft Ron Paul movement, noting that Paul is the only candidate who will inject real issues into an otherwise sterile debate format and that everything he has been warning the American people about for decades is coming into fruition as we approach 2012. Whether neocon and corporate Republicans like it or not, Ron Paul has had and continues to have a far reaching impact upon the direction of the party. Every rare intelligible thing that Sarah Palin has said regarding limited government, fiscal economic policy and the restoration of freedom is taken straight from the Ron Paul handbook. The core difference between Paul and Palin is that the Congressman has built a real grass roots following over the course of several decades. Paul is the real deal, while Palin, Romney, McCain and Gingrich, on the other hand are all neocons at the core, supporting the invasion and occupation of sovereign nations in step with the grossly bloated empire building military industrial complex. Never pandering to the crowds, Paul has consistently hammered home this key difference. Of the current crop of possible 2012 GOP presidential candidates, Ron Paul is once again the only one truly in step with the majority anti-war, anti-big government sentiment in America. The Texas Congressman has also been instrumental in leading a grass roots revolt against the real culprits behind the economic collapse, the Federal Reserve, introducing a bill to audit the private organization which has received widespread support from both Republicans and Democrats but has been fought at every turn by elitists in Washington. If you thought the impact of the Ron Paul Revolution in 2007 and 2008 was damaging to the new world order agenda, then imagine what kind of momentum could be built up over the next few years as we head towards 2012, which globalists have marked down as a key juncture by which they want their global feudalist system firmly in place. It almost seems like fate that the Congressman should lead the mass resistance to the globalist agenda at this crucial time in history, and we implore him to take on that hefty responsibility while guaranteeing that the grass roots will rally behind him with a ferocity never before seen in recent political times. added by: im1mjrpain