Daily Archives: December 6, 2012

Thom Hartmann: Something more sinister is in the GOP plans for the 2016 Election…

Mr. Hartmann gives his thoughts and possible solutions to sinister GOP voter suppression tactics.   This video is quite informative.  Take a look…

The Democratic Underground

The 2012 election may have come and gone – but Republicans across the country are already laying out their plans to rig the 2016 Presidential election. What needs to happen in this country so that everyone’s right to vote is protected from the Right’s never-ending war on voting.

The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann on RT TV & FSTV “live” 9pm and 11pm check http://www.thomhartmann.com/tv for local listings.

 

Comments Off

Filed under Voter Suppression

11 Reasons You’re Glad Jim DeMint Is Leaving The Senate

I need only one reason to be glad to see Senator DeMint leave the Senate:  The man is nuttier than a Snickers candy bar.

Think Progress

In an unexpected move, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), an arch-conservative and leader of the Tea Party movement, is resigning his seat in order to head up the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington DC.

DeMint has been among the most extreme members of the Senate since first getting elected in 2004, drawing a hard-right line on issues from unions to LGBT rights to abortion and beyond.

Here’s a look back at some of DeMint’s Senate highlights:

1. Stood with Akin after “legitimate rape” remarks. Following Rep. Todd Akin’s (R-MO) infamous statement that victims of “legitimate rape” can’t become pregnant, DeMint was one of the first major conservatives to stand with the Missouri congressman. DeMint even used his political action committee to donate $90,000 to Akin’s campaign and used its network to raise hundreds of thousands more. “We support Todd Akin and hope freedom-loving Americans in Missouri and around the country will join us,” DeMint’s group said.

2. Led the opposition against Obamacare. In 2009, during the height of the GOP’s opposition to health care reform, DeMint told a conference call of conservative activists that, “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” Ironically, DeMint once supported Mitt Romney’s health care reform in Massachusetts, the law on which Obamacare is based.

3. Wants to prevent gay or unmarried teachers from teaching in public schools.In 2010, DeMint “said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn’t be in the classroom.” During his first Senate campaign in 2004, DeMint agreed with the state party’s platform barring gay teachers from public schools, claiming that the government shouldn’t endorse certain behaviors.

4. Pushed a bill outlawing the discussion of abortion over the Internet. Last year, DeMint proposed an amendment to an unrelated bill that would have barred a woman and her doctor from discussing abortion over the internet, even if her health was at risk and tele-conferencing was the most feasible option to receive care.

5. Wants to strip all federal employees of collective bargaining rights. Though most federal employees don’t enjoy the rights and benefits of unionization, DeMint wants to take away even the few bargaining rights they currently enjoy. “I don’t believe collective bargaining has any place in government,” DeMint told ThinkProgress last year.

6. Blocked creation of the National Women’s History Museum. Along with fellow arch-conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), DeMint placed a hold on a 2010 bill to sell land near the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC in order to create the National Women’s History Museum. Coburn justified their move to block the museum by noting that there already exist museums for “quilters” and “cowgirls”.

7. Likened striking Chicago teachers to “thugs” in the Middle East. Speaking at the Values Voters Summit in September 2012, DeMint blasted Chicago teachers who were on strike for a brief period earlier this year. “On my way over, I was reading another story about a distant place where thugs had put 400,000 children out in the streets,” DeMint said. “And then I realized that was a story about the Chicago teachers strike.”

8. Threatened to single-handedly shut down the Senate. In September 2010, DeMint warned his colleagues that he would place a unilateral hold on every single piece of legislation in the Senate, bringing the entire lawmaking process to a grinding halt. Despite being in the minority, DeMint threatened to only allow bills to proceed that his office had personally approved.

9. Used a failed terrorist plot to attack unions. Following the failed “underwear bomber” plot in December 2009, DeMint went on Fox News and used the episode as an opportunity to bash unions. “I am concerned, because it’s related to another issue that we’re dealing with now in the Senate,” DeMint said. “The administration is intent on unionizing and submitting our airport security to union bosses’ collective bargaining.”

10. Argued that people with pre-existing conditions got better care before Obamacare. Speaking with ThinkProgress at a Tea Party rally this year, DeMintargued that Obamacare actually hurt people with pre-existing conditions, despite that fact that it bars insurance companies from denying them care. “I can guarantee you people with pre-exisitng conditions are going to get less health care—lower quality health care—under Obamacare,” DeMint said.

11. “Willing” to cause “serious disruptions” in the economy in order to secure draconian cuts. During last year’s debt ceiling showdown, DeMint appeared on Fox Business and said that, despite the fact that not raising the debt ceiling would cause “serious disruptions,” he was “willing to do that” in order to get major cuts to social programs like Medicare and Social Security.

2 Comments

Filed under Sen. Jim DeMint

Rachel Maddow Picks Up Grammy Nomination For Best Spoken Word Album

Rachel Maddow

Unlike the subject in the previous post, Rachel Maddow is a well respected “truth-teller” who people from all sides of the political spectrum admire…

The Huffington Post

Rachel Maddow was nominated for a Grammy Award. The nominations wereannounced on Wednesday.

Maddow was nominated for Best Spoken Word Album with her book, “Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power.” She shares the category nomination with Ellen DeGeneres, Bill Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama.

A number of politicians have been nominated and subsequently won Grammy Awards in this category before. President Barack Obama won in 2008 with his book “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.” He also won in 2006 with his book “Dreams From My Father.”

Clinton picked up the prestigious award one year earlier—in 2005—with his book “My Life.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also won in this category in 1997 with her book “It Takes A Village.”

The 2013 Grammy Awards will take place on Feb. 10 on CBS.

1 Comment

Filed under Grammy Awards, Rachel Maddow

Liberals stole my Oscar!

The movie 2016: Obama’s America seems to be designed for low information voters who could confirm their suspicions about President Obama based on rhetoric, innuendos and fabrications after viewing the movie.

The film makers and Dinesh D’Souza, the author of the book with the same title and “star” of the movie, cannot understand why the movie was not nominated for an Oscar.  Apparently the Academy refused to include the film among their list of best documentaries for the year.

Salon

According to D’Souza, if Hollywood wasn’t so liberal, he would have gotten the Oscar nomination he believes he deserves.

D’Souza’s wildly anti-Obama film “2016: Obama’s America” was snubbed this week when the Academy left it off of the list of 15 documentaries that will advance in the award ceremony’s voting.

“I want to thank the Academy for not nominating our film,” D’Souza said. “By ignoring ’2016,’ the top-performing box-office hit of 2012, and pretending that films like ‘Searching for Sugar Man’ and ‘This Is Not a Film’ are more deserving of an Oscar, our friends in Hollywood have removed any doubt average Americans may have had that liberal political ideology, not excellence, is the true standard of what receives awards.”

The film’s producer, Gerald Molen, who also won an Oscar for producing “Schindler’s List,” agreed: “Dinesh warned me this might happen,” he told the Hollywood Reporter. “The action confirms my opinion that the bias against anything from a conservative point of view is dead on arrival in Hollywood circles. The film’s outstanding success means that America went to see the documentary in spite of how Hollywood feels about it.”

2016 wound up grossing a surprise $33.4 million domestically, but did not do quite so well with the critics: It has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 27 percent.

By way of comparison, the two films D’Souza mentions, “Searching for Sugar Man” and “This Is Not a Film,” have scores of 95 percent and 100 percent, respectively.

1 Comment

Filed under Obama Conspiracies

5 political realities about the ‘fiscal cliff’

It’s rather difficult to keep up with all the rhetoric about the “fiscal cliff”.  The Week attempts to put it all in to perspective…

The Week

As you wade through the often confusing political posturing over the impending expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the automatic budget “sequester,” consider the following political dynamics that will determine the outcome.

1. President Obama’s swagger. More than just a post-election glow, Obama has actual leverage over Republicans, and he is not going to waste it. Some pundits say that Obama’s newly confident negotiating posture is the result of lessons learned during the first term wrestling over the debt limit and budgets: He could offer the farm for free and Republicans wouldn’t accept it. But Obama was genuinely constrained by the political realities of the time, much more so than he is today. The economy was in a more precarious state; the options Obama had for stimulus were few; his own party was under assault from the Tea Party movement over deficit spending, and the health care battle had exhausted Hill Democrats. Today, Obama can afford to be more confident. He has no re-election ahead of him; his time threshold for action is much longer. The economy is better.

2. Americans support Democratic policies. To be fair, Americans supported Democratic policies during the last round of these fights; a balanced approach to deficit reduction that supported taxing the wealthy more while slowly reducing the deficit relative to the size of the economy. But the election was in many ways an explicit referendum on economic policy. The Democratic candidate ran on the issue of raising tax rates (or letting the Bush rates for upper-income earners expire), where Republicans ran on significantly cutting spending.  Obama could not marshal public opinion that was already in his favor before; it is much easier for him to do so now.

3. John Boehner wants a decent legacy. If Boehner were to retire today, he would be an historical irrelevancy: a decent man in over his head who could not herd cats, much less his own conference. A decent legacy means a deal. A deal means compromise in the end.  Boehner has a lot to do before he can compromise. He will absolutely be within his rights to represent the opinions of Republicans until the last minute; at that point, he will either become a Speaker with a legacy worth recognizing, or he will be redundant.

4. Democrats have more wiggle room. Where Republicans are constrained by the Norquist tax pledge and by the unpopularity of their specific tax cut proposals, Democrats have the following political/policy factors working in their favor: (a) Obamacare slowed the growth of Medicare spending, as Mitt Romney knows full well; (b) the Democratic caucus is more amenable to further adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid than they are willing to publicly admit; and (c) the tax cuts expire automatically.

5. Obama’s  proposal is not that radical. The economy needs continued stimulus, and Obama has merely proposed very, very creeping austerity. The expiring tax cuts will raise revenue, but aside from unemployment insurance extensions and arguing for a renewal of his payroll tax cuts, he’s proposed only $50 billion worth of additional immediate spending. The rest of the “more” will come in very slowly and it will be offset by cuts. Republicans can take some solace knowing that the table they set in 2010 (or, you could argue, by hastening the economic collapse in 2008), Obama’s best option is probably adequate at best from an historical perspective.

So — what do these factors tell us about the chances of a deal? I’d say there’s a pretty decent chance of one. It is hard to see Republicans rolling over and becoming Keynesians, agreeing to significant new stimulus and abandoning their appetite for spending reductions. But it is hard to see how the year begins with a $2,000 tax hike for middle class Americans.  It is true that Washington knows what to do; they haven’t figured out how to do it just yet.

1 Comment

Filed under U.S. Politics