Tag Archives: party

Amidst Obama’s Falling Poll Numbers, MSNBC Tries to Suggest He Could Rebound Like Reagan

During the 3 p.m. MSNBC news hour Monday, anchor Chris Jansing asked the question and hosted an expert who supplied the seemingly desired answer. The question: Could President Obama make a mid-term comeback similar to President Reagan in 1982? The answer: Absolutely. The two discussed the similarities of the situations faced by the presidents, and seemed to conclude that if the economy turns around, President Obama would almost certainly be re-elected. It is a big if, but the short segment seemed quite focused on what would happen after the economy turns around. The two didn’t bother to discuss what would happen if the economy continues to be stagnant, or takes a turn for the worse. “Well you have a President facing a deep recession, high unemployment, dropping poll numbers, and a potentially game-changing midterm election. That was Ronald Reagan’s first two years in office. Then, two years later, he won re-election in a landslide,” stated MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing. “Could President Obama make the same comeback?” Guest Allan Lichtman, presidential historian at American University, answered in the affirmative.  “Absolutely,” he responded. “They are kind of mirror images of each other.” After Lichtman explained how the two Presidents’ situations are quite similar, Jansing asked her follow-up question. “If the economy starts to turn around in the next year to 18 months…is it likely to follow that Barack Obama will have a much easier time with re-election?” “It will follow like night to day,” Lichtman predictably answered. “And of course this all presumes the Democrats don’t commit internal suicide by challenging [Obama] in the primaries.” A full transcript of the segment, which aired on August 23 at 3:40 p.m. EDT, is as follows: KRIS JANSING: Well you have a President facing a deep recession, high unemployment, dropping poll numbers, and a potentially game-changing midterm election. That was Ronald Reagan’s first two years in office. Then, two years later, he won re-election in a landslide. Could President Obama make the same comeback? And with 30 years between them, is it realistic to compare the fate of these two very different presidents? Allan Lichtman is a political analyst and Presidential historian at American University. And we didn’t just come up with this. There are plenty of people who have made this comparison, and especially in recent months, when the poll numbers for President Obama have been dropping so precipitously. Are there fair comparisons to be made with Ronald Reagan? ALLAN LICHTMAN: Absolutely. They are kind of mirror images of each other. Each president won a pretty handy victory coming in against the grain of his times. Ronald Reagan was a conservative elected at the end of a liberal-to-moderate era. Barack Obama was a liberal, elected at the end of a conservative-to-moderate era. Both presidents passed major initiatives. Ronald Reagan with his big tax cuts. Barack Obama with his stimulus plan and his health care plan. Neither one got very much credit for that during their first two years. They both faced biting recessions, they both saw their poll numbers plummet into the low forties, remarkably identical poll numbers. And in both cases, the ideological wings of their parties were very unhappy. Conservatives were really unhappy with Ronald Reagan because he wasn’t cutting the budget, and he wasn’t pushing social issues like abortion, and we know the liberals are very unhappy with Barack Obama because of his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and his failure to adopt a more liberal type of health care, and to push harder on global warming. So let me count the ways they are similar, as the poet would say. JANSING: If the economy starts to turn around in the next year to 18 months, if people start to get jobs again, if people start to feel more confident in their jobs, start buying houses and spending money again, is it likely to follow that Barack Obama will have a much easier time with re-election? LICHTMAN: It will follow almost like night to day that Barack Obama will win re-election if the economy picks up. Ronald Reagan faced a tough midterm, he lost a couple of dozen house seats, but the economy began to pick up in 1983, boomed in 1984, and he won one of the biggest landslide re-elections in the history of the United States. The same thing could happen to Barack Obama, although it’s unlikely the economy will boom the same way it did for Ronald Reagan. So he may not be looking towards a landslide, but if the economy significantly improves, especially as we head into the election year, then I think Barack Obama’s re-election is almost certain, particularly given the confusion within the opposition, and the lack of a clear, strong, Republican opponent. And of course this all presumes the Democrats don’t commit internal suicide by challenging him in the primaries. JANSING: Ah, well there’s always that. LICHTMAN: Always that. The Democrats can always snatch defeat from victory.

Originally posted here:
Amidst Obama’s Falling Poll Numbers, MSNBC Tries to Suggest He Could Rebound Like Reagan

ABC Singles Out ‘Hard-line, Tea Party Conservative,’ Ignores Antics of Florida Democratic Candidate

Good Morning America’s Jon Karl on Tuesday characterized a Republican senatorial candidate in Alaska as a “hard-line, Tea Party conservative” and someone who ” has also been known to attract assault weapon-baring weapon supporters at his political rallies .” He added, “In a recent interview on ABC’s Top Line, [candidate Joe Miller] suggested that unemployment benefits are unconstitutional.” [MP3 audio here .] Karl played a clip of Miller asserting, “The unemployment compensation benefits have got to- first of all, is not constitutionally authorized. I think that’s the first thing that has to be looked at. So, I do not favor their extension.” Yet, Karl and GMA ignored one of the day’s other big primaries, involving Democratic senatorial candidate Jeff Greene. The Florida hopeful has endured gaffes revolving around drugs, strippers and Mike Tyson. But, Karl made no mention of this. And while Miller was at least making a constitutional argument, wouldn’t the colorful, controversial statements by Greene also warrant a mention? Instead, Karl pivoted to the GOP’s primary in Arizona and used more ideological labeling: “Senator John McCain up against another Republican, who has carved a position even further to the right.” A transcript of the August 24 segment, which aired at 7:09am EDT, follows: DAVID MUIR: We’re going to turn to politics this morning. And three states are holding primaries today. And the stakes are high for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. She’s not on the ticket. But she is throwing her support behind candidates in the race. And the big question this morning, does that endorsement actually help? Senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl now in Washington. John, good morning. JONATHAN KARL: Good morning, David. And today, we’ll see how much political clout Sarah Palin has in her own state. She has taken sides in the Republican Senate primary in Alaska, launching a tough attack against her state’s Republican incumbent senator. It’s momma grizzly versus momma grizzly. Sarah Palin is trying to oust Alaska’s Republican Senator Lisa Murkowsi. Palin has endorsed Murkowski opponent Joe Miller, suggesting that unlike Murkowski, he’s tough enough to take on the President. SARAH PALIN: He’s got the backbone to take on Obama’s radical agenda. By contrast, Lisa Murkowski has voted with the Democrats more than any Republican up for re-election this year. KARL: The race is a test of Palin’s clout in her own backyard. Palin scored some impressive victories earlier this year in the lower 48. Providing critical endorsements to Nikki Haley for governor in South Carolina, and Carly Fiorina for Senate in California. But, lately, Palin’s been on a losing streak. Over the last five weeks, Palin-endorsed candidates have lost in Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas, Colorado and Washington State. Palin’s candidate in Alaska is a hard-line, Tea Party conservative . In a recent interview on ABC’s Top Line, he suggested that unemployment benefits are unconstitutional. JOE MILLER: The unemployment compensation benefits have got to- first of all, is not constitutionally authorized. I think that’s the first thing that has to be looked at. So, I do not favor their extension. KARL: Miller has also been known to attract assault weapon-baring weapon supporters at his political rallies. MUIR: And, Jon, while we’ve been following that race in Alaska, I know you going to be following what’s going on in Arizona, too. Senator John McCain up against another Republican, who has carved a position even further to the right. KARL: That’s right. And this has been a tough challenge FOR john McCain against J.D. Hayworth, a former Republican congressman. McCain has spent a staggering $21 million to fend off this Hayworth challenge. But, also important to point out, David, McCain is yet another Sarah Palin-endorsed candidate. MUIR: $21 Million. More than he spent in any of his Senate campaigns. But, I want to ask you about the stem cell judgment from the federal judge, too, while we have you. It’s going to be the big issue in Washington today. Blocking President Obama’s executive order last year that had expanded embryonic stem cell research. What does that mean for labs this morning? And what was behind the decision. KARL: Well, this is a major decision. Scientists are scrambling to figure out what the implications are. But, it effectively puts an end, at least temporarily, to all federally-funded embryonic stem cell research. It is a temporary injunction, David. The judge said he believes as a lawsuit challenging the Obama policy goes forward, that all federal funding of research must stop because he believes there’s a good chance that the policy will be overturned by the court.

See original here:
ABC Singles Out ‘Hard-line, Tea Party Conservative,’ Ignores Antics of Florida Democratic Candidate

On Letterman, Brian Williams Cheers ‘Fruits’ of ‘Clinton Economy’ and Ridicules Tea Party

Appearing on the Late Show on Monday night to plug his Friday night Dateline on the 5th anniversary of Katrina, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams bizarrely asserted “we’re still enjoying the fruits really of the Clinton economy,” claimed Tea Party activists who say “we want our country back” want it back “from the Trilateral Commission” and ridiculed their presumed hypocrisy as he insisted “you see a lot of signs, ‘Federal Government Out of My Social Security,’ ‘Federal Government Out of My Medicare and Medicaid.’ But for the federal government, of course, those programs would not exist.” Plus, he passed along how “I’m hearing a few people say” that President Barack Obama won’t run for re-election because he “wants to somehow transcend the presidency,” citing a British columnist who contends he was “never supposed to be an ordinary President.” Williams considered the possibility Obama could be as consequential as Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton: “Jimmy Carter converted the post-presidency, redesigned the idea of an ex-President. Solving diseases and bad elections around the world. Bill Clinton with the Clinton Global Initiative trying to do the same thing.” When David Letterman raised the disparity between gluttonous Americans and kids starving around the world, Williams rued self-centered Americans as he incongruously touted: “We’ve had a good run here. We’re still enjoying the fruits really of the Clinton economy.” Huh? The current economy is doing well? And I thought the line was that Bush drove the economy into the ditch and we’re all being saved by Obama? (Or was he saying the Clinton years made us selfish?) Letterman soon wondered: “When they say ‘we want our country back,’ who, what, what are they talking about?” That prompted an answer from Williams which sounded more like derision than impartial reporting: “If you ask them, they would say from, ‘from the Trilateral Commission, from the big bankers, from the Council on Foreign Relations.’” Williams sounded like he’s still living in the 1980s. The condescending duo soon latched on to supposed Tea Party hypocrisy, which really just proved their hostile naivete as Williams showed quite an imagine as to the signs held up at Tea Party events and dismissed it all as simply anger caused by people upset by the bad economy: DAVID LETTERMAN: And again the popular inconsistency that is cited is “we don’t want the nationalized health care. But by god we still want our Medicare and our Medicaid.” How do they reconcile that? BRIAN WILLIAMS: Well, you see a lot of signs, “Federal Government Out of My Social Security,” “Federal Government Out of My Medicare and Medicaid.” But for the federal government, of course, those programs would not exist. A lot of it is just raw anger being translated onto signs and in slogans because people are on the downside of a bad economy. So much for “still enjoying the fruits of the Clinton economy.” From the Monday night, August 23 Late Show with David Letterman on CBS: DAVID LETTERMAN: There are two food channels, two food networks. One’s motto is “Stay hungry.” “Stay hungry.” There are cupcake shows, there are cupcake wars, there are cake shows, there are let’s build a cake. “Who can build a cake that looks more like a reclining chair?” And then there’s one show where a guy goes out and eats as much as can. “Bring me all the food in your house. I’ll eat it.” Three million people in this country do not get enough to eat and every six seconds, an infant in this world dies of starvation. How, how do you explain the disparity? BRIAN WILLIAMS: Ask your friends at the World Food Program and they’ll tell you the same thing. We’re a highly generous nation. And we like to think of ourselves as a very generous people. But we’ve had a good run here. We’re still enjoying the fruits really of the Clinton economy. And an ethos — I still come back to this that says you’re the star. It’s about you. Listen to the commercials on all those channels and the message is all in the first person in ways we never ever used or would dream of in the time of say Mad Men, for a modern television reference. So I think it’s that. I think out of sight, out of mind, however, is what sends children around the world to bed hungry and kills them ultimately. …. LETTERMAN: Now when the Tea Party formed, or when I think it formed, or when I read about the formation of it, I thought this is great. This is great. People have gotten together and said “holy god, we’ve lost all our money, our pension funds are gone. Nobody seems to know where the money goes. The government raises all this money to bail out huge corporations, our money is still gone. Our retirement funds, everything is gone. We don’t like this. We think we can do a better job. We’re going to form another political party.” That’s great. That’s all part of the luxury of being born in this country. You can do that. You should do that. We thrive on that sort of thing. Now I hear them saying things like “we want our country back.” And I’m having trouble deciding who took it, where did it go. You know, when they say “we want our country back,” who, what, what are they talking about? WILLIAMS: …You’ve latched on Dave, in what is Topic 5 for those playing our home game, you’ve latched on to sloganeering, which is as fine as an American tradition as any Tom Jefferson was involved in. And it makes people feel better to say “take our country back.” If you ask them, they would say from, “from the Trilateral Commission, from the big bankers, from the Council on Foreign Relations.” …. LETTERMAN: A friend of mine, I said there’s going to be a Tea Party convention up the road. I said go there and let me hear what they’re saying. Do they have a platform? Do they have solutions? And she said “well, no, not so much. It was more about we want our country back and are you with us and this and that and attracting support.” Which I understand is part of a growing movement. But to get any kind of traction, don’t you want to hear, oh here’s what we’re going to do different. I mean let’s face it, you could get elected, Harry Truman could get elected, and because of the politics of the day and the bureaucracy, it’s going to be a pretty tough slog for anybody. WILLIAMS: …People’s anger goes to their money. They do kind of generically want control back. They see a government so big and yet a government that says, “wait a minute, stop an oil leak a mile down under the water. Oh, we have nothing for that, that’s BP’s technology. We’re going to put an admiral here in charge and watch BP for you, but I swear we’ve got this covered.” LETTERMAN: And again the popular inconsistency that is cited is “we don’t want the nationalized health care. But by god we still want our Medicare and our Medicaid.” How do they reconcile that? WILLIAMS: Well, you see a lot of signs, “Federal Government Out of My Social Security,” “Federal Government Out of My Medicare and Medicaid,” but for the federal government, of course, those programs would not exist. A lot of it is just raw anger being translated onto signs and in slogans because people are on the downside of a bad economy. …. WILLIAMS: I think you’re going to see anger, in some form or fashion, translated at the ballot box. LETTERMAN: And projecting from that, are we looking at a one-term President? WILLIAMS: You know what, and I think the British Telegraph last night online there was a column saying he wants to be. And I’m hearing a few people say this, that he wants to somehow transcend the presidency. He was never supposed to be, or so this columnist’s theory goes, never supposed to be an ordinary President. And so this would be extraordinary to not do the expected thing and run for a second term. To kind of be a different kind of figure. Jimmy Carter converted the post-presidency, redesigned the idea of an ex-President. Solving diseases and bad elections around the world. Bill Clinton with the Clinton Global Initiative trying to do the same thing. So I’m not putting any credence in this column. I think we have to assume, because he’s a politician and he’s an incumbent President, he is running for re-election.

See the original post:
On Letterman, Brian Williams Cheers ‘Fruits’ of ‘Clinton Economy’ and Ridicules Tea Party

Republicans Support Strip Clubs on Ground Zero Sacred Ground

While the Constitution forbids prohibiting a mosque from being built blocks away from ground zero (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”), Republicans are salivating at the prospect of ignoring the constitution (again) and using this for political hay. Apparently, the Family Values Party is not concerned with the strip clubs (like New York Dolls) that surround hallowed ground (after all, we all know that Hooters is a family restaurant and Fox News is not conservative day time porn), because nothing says Christian Values and Apple Pie like a strip club. Yes, we will fight for our rights to strip but you can take your religious freedom, the very thing this country was founded on, and shove it! Hey, if you don’t like strip clubs, we have the Ground Zero Trashy Lingerie store. Or if you’re really feeling crummy about your inability to stir up religious hate, you can wander over to the Pussycat Lounge, described as “the place strippers go to die” and just blocks from so called Hallowed Ground, we can call this Ground Zero-Ish Strip Club. You can Google map the area and find the strip clubs the same distance from Ground Zero as the proposed community center (and – cue scary music- MOSQUE) named the Cordoba House. added by: toyotabedzrock

New Yorker Publishes Hit Piece Demonizing Koch Brothers for Thought Crime of Supporting Conservative Causes

The Tea Parties are driving the liberals crazy. They charged that Tea Partiers were racists but that pretty much backfired on them when they were unable to collect on the $100,000 Breitbart prize offered for any video evidence of racial epithets that were supposedly hurled at congressmen on March 20 at the Capitol. Now it seems that they have gone back to the Nancy Pelosi charge of accusing the grassroots Tea Party of being an “astroturf” organization. And who is suposedly financing them? According to a New Yorker hit piece article written by Jane Mayer , much of the money is coming from businessmen brothers, Charles and David Koch. Of course, any article complaining about businessmen contributing to conservative causes will have a big elephant in the room in the form of George Soros who pours hundreds of millions into the far left movement. And that elephant is so large that even Mayer can’t ignore it. So what to do? Why, portray Soros as saintly. So start plucking your harps as you read the hilarious money quote Mayer employs to explain away this hypocritical matter by presenting the “benevolent” Soros floating upon his heavenly cloud: Of course, Democrats give money, too. Their most prominent donor, the financier George Soros, runs a foundation, the Open Society Institute, that has spent as much as a hundred million dollars a year in America. Soros has also made generous private contributions to various Democratic campaigns, including Obama’s. But Michael Vachon, his spokesman, argued that Soros’s giving is transparent, and that “none of his contributions are in the service of his own economic interests.” A big tell as to where Mayer is coming from is presented at the get go in a photo caption that states: “David H. Koch in 1996. He and his brother Charles are lifelong libertarians and have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes .” Much of the information for Mayer’s article comes from the “non-partisan” group, Center for Public Integrity. And how do we know it is non-partisan? Because Jane Mayer says so. Unfortunately for Mayers’ assertion, even a most basic Web search reveals Center for Public Integrity to be a left-wing group which is funded by the aforementioned George Soros. What is most laughable about the charge by Mayer about the Tea Party movement being funded by the Koch brothers is that there is really nothing much to fund. It takes almost no money to hold Tea Party rallies. How much has to be spent to post on Facebook that there will be a Tea Party rally taking place in, say, Sunrise, Florida at the northeast corner of University and Oakland Park Blvd. on a certain date? Pretty much the only costs consists of minor gas fare to get there and small expenditures on signs and flags paid by the participants themselves. No big league funding necessary but that hasn’t stopped Mayer from making the ridiculous charge of big money being poured into the Tea Party movement.  Other charges made by the transparently devious Mayer are that the Koch brothers don’t (EEK!) blindly buy into the Global Warming mythology. Bottom line is that all the Koch Brothers are really “guilty” of is that they support conservative (along with vast charitable) causes. In an alternative universe where those brothers were supporting liberal causes there would be no Jane Mayer hit piece on them. 

More:
New Yorker Publishes Hit Piece Demonizing Koch Brothers for Thought Crime of Supporting Conservative Causes

Lauryn Hill: A Timeline Of Her Post-‘Miseducation’ Shows

A history of the reclusive artist’s spotty returns to the stage. By Mawuse Ziegbe Lauryn Hill Photo: Brendon Thorne/ Getty Images Lauryn Hill is making a much-heralded return to the stage — and the spotlight — at this year’s Rock the Bells Tour. However, die-hard fans of the Grammy-winning singer/MC hope the appearance breaks L-Boogie’s decade-long tradition of mounting rare and spotty shows. Hill, who shot to fame as a member of the pioneering hip-hip trio the Fugees, became a critically-acclaimed media darling and the subject of arguably cultish fan worship after the breakout success of her solo debut, The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. Yet, in the wake of the chart-topping success of Miseducation and her then record-setting five Grammy wins in 1999, the artist began to withdraw from the world stage. Sure, she rocked the VMAs, scored a Best Dressed nod from Vogue, and continued to nab a bevy of music trophies. However, by 2001 Hill had nearly vanished from the scene. She released the live album MTV Unplugged No. 2.0 in 2002 but since then, public sightings of Hill have been relegated to the odd festival appearance. Here’s a timeline of Hill’s stage shows after the success of Miseducation:

Yelawolf Says Gucci Mane Made ‘Wanna Party’ ‘Incredible’

The Trunk Muzik MC also teases ‘crazy house-party’ concept for upcoming video, heavy on kegs, DJs and girls. By Steven Roberts Yelawolf Photo: MTV News When Yelawolf’s “Wanna Party,” featuring Gucci Mane dropped, something about it made sense. Maybe it was that there were so many parallels between the rappers’ careers. Gucci proudly reps East Atlanta, but he and Yela are both Alabama-born. Both have grinded for years on the underground and the two rappers aren’t afraid to experiment with music. It turns out that it’s no coincidence that the track just sounds right: They clicked when it came time to record the song. “It was dope. With as many features as I’ve done, I have yet to work with the artist in the studio, with all of them except for Travis [Barker],” Yela said. “Actually bringing [Gucci] to the studio and getting in the booth with him on some real old-school hip-hop sh–, sharing one mic, it was dope, man. That’s the best vibe to me. Being that he’s from Alabama just makes it extra special.” Yela said Gucci was perfect for the record. While he has collaborated with the likes of Gucci, Big Boi and Raekwon, he said that he and his team only reached out to the artist they thought would make the best fit. “We go get Raekwon for ‘I Wish,’ because we felt like Rae fit ‘I Wish.’ We don’t reach out and go get features based on who they are, how big they are,” Yela explained. “We got Gucci because Gucci is dope. We’re huge fans and he made the record incredible.” He said that the two already shot a video for “Wanna Party” directed by Motion Family. It will have the same eerie vibe as his video for “Pop the Trunk.” But instead of trunks popping to reveal loaded shotguns, this time it’s just a sweaty, country-ass party. “We came up with the concept like ‘Let’s just roll tape. Let’s throw a crazy house-party and just roll tape.’ And that’s what we did. We called everybody we knew. Got kegs, got a bunch of beer, a bunch of DJs, some crazy white girls for the ‘go white girl’ line. They did go crazy by the way.” “Wanna Party” is the first single from Yelawolf’s major label debut, Trunk Muzik: 0 to 60, which is set to drop September 4. Yela called the LP a continuation of his last mixtape, Trunk Muzik, with 808s, grooves and music for your trunk speakers. The album will feature five fan-favorite tracks from the tape along with seven new tracks, including “Billy Crystal Meth,” produced by Jim Jonsin. Yela will also be featured in Big Boi’s new video for the Andre 3000-produced “You Ain’t No DJ.” Who else would you like to see Yelawolf get in the studio with? Tell us in the comments! Related Artists YelaWolf Gucci Mane

More here:
Yelawolf Says Gucci Mane Made ‘Wanna Party’ ‘Incredible’

‘The Switch’: Fluid Situation, By Kurt Loder

Jennifer Aniston, Jason Bateman and the search for a kid in a cup Jason Bateman in “The Switch” Photo: Miramax “The Switch” is set in that fantasy Manhattan, familiar from Woody Allen movies, in which everyone seems to be a highly compensated white professional and all ethnic coloration has been drained away. The movie wants us to care about these people’s problems — which include things like imaginary medical maladies — but many viewers may wish that such trifling complaints were the only ones they had. Jennifer Aniston plays Kassie Larson, a top TV producer who’s facing 40 and desperate to have a child. Jason Bateman is Wally Mars, a stock trader who was once Kassie’s boyfriend but is now simply her best pal — although of course he still secretly pines for her love. Kassie has never found the right guy to have a family with, so she’s decided to go the artificial-insemination route. She’s found the ideal donor in a guy named Roland (Patrick Wilson), who’s both a hearty jock and an assistant professor of feminist theory at Columbia University. Obviously Mr. Right, at least for purposes of impregnation. Do women desirous of offspring actually throw “I’m Getting Pregnant” parties at which their chosen sperm donor arrives bearing baby juice in a plastic cup? Kassie does. Unfortunately, Wally is among the many friends in attendance, and he gets drunk, stumbles into the bathroom, finds Roland’s cup, accidentally spills its contents, and then — using a magazine photo of Diane Sawyer for stimulation — brings forth his own seminal contribution, which he leaves to be passed off as Roland’s. Wally is so drunk that the next day he doesn’t remember doing this. Two weeks later, Kassie announces she’s pregnant. She relocates to Minnesota to raise the child she’ll soon be having. Seven years later she returns to New York with her little boy, Sebastian (Thomas Robinson). She reconnects with Wally — who’s still in the dark about what he did at the party that night, and doesn’t realize Sebastian is his son — but also with Roland, who quickly develops a romantic interest in her. And so forth. Romantic comedies aren’t often an arena for violence, but this one’s different — the movie’s script continually manhandles its characters into situations of brazen implausibility. The picture does have some funny moments, mostly provided by Jeff Goldblum, as Wally’s distracted boss (Goldblum always seems to have another, more interesting conversation going on in his head while he’s delivering his character’s lines); and by Juliette Lewis, who enlivens a few scenes with her blowsy, wisecracking energy. (“I’ve had orgasms that last longer than his relationships.”) And Robinson is unusually engaging as little Sebastian — he’s a cute kid with a surprisingly wry intelligence. It’s too bad that Bateman, so expert at underplaying comic characters, has a character here that’s so thinly conceived it can’t bear much underplaying. Wally — who exhibits none of the sharkish

Al Franken Mocks Mosque Critics

“It’s a community center. They’re going to have a gym. They’re going to have point guards. Muslim point guards,” Franken said, to laughter and applause. “They (Republicans) do this every two years. They try to find a wedge issue, and they try to work it.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/al-franken-conservative-c_n_687696.html added by: atomiclegion

Sharron’s Angle: No Gay Rights

Sharron Angle of Nevada would be detrimental to gay people across the country if she wins the November election against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, gay and lesbian political leaders said in several different ways during a conference call on Thursday. Callers stressed Angle's voting record as a member of the Independent American Party, which took out ads in 1994 warning that HIV/AIDS could be spread through “contaminated water” and another 16-page advertising insert that promoted constitutionally legalizing discrimination against gay people. The ad ran in several Nevada newspapers. added by: TimALoftis