New York Times: ” Obama Tries to Ease Ire on Contraception Rule ” Washington Post: ” Tim Kaine splits with Obama on birth control rule for religious groups ”
Continued here:
Happy Hour: How Romney Could Fail
As if the Nobel wasn’t enough of a joke. Via IB Times: The Icelandic parliamentarian has been a vocal supporter of WikiLeaks since it leaked the “Collateral Murder” video of a 2007 Baghdad strike by U.S. forces that killed at least a dozen unarmed civilians, including two Reuters reporters, which is widely believed to have
Go here to read the rest:
WikiLeaks Traitor Bradley Manning Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize By Icelandic Parliamentarian…
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot? (Washington Times) – The Obama administration on Tuesday announced a new “public advocate” charged with listening to immigrants’ concerns about its law enforcement policies — but Republicans said the position amounts to an official mouthpiece for illegal immigrants being deported. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the advocate will “serve as a
View original post here:
No Joke: Obama Appoints “Public Advocate” For Illegal Immigrants Worried About Law Enforcement…
[Posted by Karl] Calling SuperPACs a “ threat to democracy ” is sooo two days ago: On a conference call with members of President Obama’s 2012 reelection committee Monday evening, campaign manager Jim Messina announced that donors should start funding Priorities USA, the Democratic super PAC run by two former White House staffers, Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney. The move was a remarkable shift in approach toward the independent political expenditure groups, whose role in the political process Obama has criticized and from which his campaign had sought to keep distance. *** Just seven months earlier, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt assured, “Neither the President nor his campaign staff or aides will fundraise for super PACs,” according to the LA Times . BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski collects video of Obama’s attacks on the Citizens United ruling that made this spending possible, while Ben Smith recalls Obama’s earlier campaign financing hypocrisy in rejecting public funding: That 2008 decision wasn’t made entirely out of some reformist purity. Obama would go back on a pledge to take public financing, accepting the hit on his reform credentials (which was enacted solely on the Times editorial page) in exchange for a serious financial advantage over John McCain. And his team decided that outside allies — whether the 527s or the more traditional DNC independent expenditure, could only muddy up the purity of his very pure message. So what has changed? One major shift is that Obama faces an opponent whose rich friends really will pour tens of millions into outside groups, unlike the underfunded and relatively isolated John McCain. Josh Kraushaar laid this out in detail last week. Based on the 2011 numbers: [T]he combined Obama and Democratic outside group totals to $98.3 million cash-on-hand, with the GOP groups tallying $94.1 million. Take out the Democratic groups strictly devoted to congressional activities, and it’s a virtual financial tie. With labor and environmental groups poised to help Obama’s re-election, Democrats still could hold a narrow edge. But it’s hardly the cash advantage that would allow Team Obama to run negative advertising uncontested against Romney, without an aggressive response. It’s a far cry from the vision of a billion-dollar Obama re-election campaign bankroll that Democratic strategists are now downplaying. And it shows that the amount of time Democrats spent complaining and attacking the liberalized campaign finance laws before the 2010 midterms would have been better spent preparing for an infrastructure utilizing super PACs to their advantage. Priorities USA, headed by former White House spokesman Bill Burton, hasn’t yet shown it can compete with American Crossroads so far — and time is running short. This was really a no-brainer for Obama. In my experience — and his — there is no political price to be paid for gaming the campaign finance system. Politico’s Jonathan Martin and others will sniff and move on, just to make sure it remains a Beltway story. Indeed, it’s barely a “Beltway story” — it made the front page of the NYT, but not the WaPo . –Karl
Here is the original post:
Barack Obama, Super-hypocrite on SuperPACs
The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest. — Nietzsche So it seems it will be Mitt. And good thing he won’t be offering his main rival the second spot on the ticket. “Mitt & Newt” sounds like the name of a comedy act or a network sitcom. Not right for something epic or tragic. Which is to say… not right for the times. Not even close. When you think about this election — and you must, there is no escaping it — you wonder if it is not just the same old, same old. Is this just another “most important election of our lifetimes,” or something, actually, a little more important than that? Is it business as usual or are we entering a pre-revolutionary phase of history when, soon, nothing will be the same again? Who knows? But to ask the question is to point out how unfit Mr. Romney may be to lead during these times. To begin with, he has never given any indication that he even understands, or appreciates, the mood of these days. You can listen to Mr. Romney debate or speak for hours (some have, poor souls) and never get the feeling that he senses the fear, the uncertainty, and the outright dread that is loose in the land. People, millions of them, are not merely frightened; they are terrified. Mr. Romney’s message of assurance? “I’ll fix things. Trust me, I’m a businessman.” An example of Mitts’s insouciance would be that line about how the health care mandate isn’t something to “get angry about.” Nah. Geeze, man. Chill. And on the existential (sorry, only word that will do) choices about just how much government the nation can afford and how much debt it can endure (or visa versa), Romney has never exhibited the slightest sign that he appreciates what a big deal it is. Nothing, he seems to believe, to get your knickers in a twist over. He’ll fix it. He’s a businessman. Mr. Romney has captured the Republican flag and will carry it into battle this Fall. If he loses, those people who believed devoutly that the times require something more than a standard-issue Republican for whom all things political are negotiable and to whom there is no dispute that cannot be settled by compromise … those people will be saying, “Never again.” They will have seen it before and one suspects they will be finished with a party that repeatedly sends out for slaughter candidates who do not represent their beliefs, positions, and ideas with conviction. If it is about common ground and compromise, they will say, then the hell with it and leave the Republican Party to people who consider it a boast to say, “I could work with Teddy Kennedy.” If, on the other hand, Mr. Romney wins, what then? Does anyone expect that when he gets to Washington and starts running the government like a business, entitlements will reform themselves, the deficit will shrivel on its own accord, and Leviathan will shrink to a size where it can be domesticated and housebroken? Has Mr. Romney demonstrated, ever, any convictions regarding the proper size and the rightful powers of the government? Does anyone believe he shares the fear millions feel about government power and their angry indignation at its arrogance and overreach? His overriding sentiment about government seems to be that it would be nice if he were in charge of it … so it would be run (all together now) like a business. In short, does anyone think that Romney will ride into Washington next January determined to tame the town… or die trying? Mr. Romney’s aim will almost surely be to take Washington on its own terms and try to “make it work.” Whatever anti-Washington sentiments he might express during the campaign, the odds are they will be discarded and forgotten within weeks of his taking the oath of office in a replay of George H. W. Bush and “read my lips.” The people who voted for Romney in the belief that he would take on Washington will be patronizingly told by the political class that “Governing is not the same as campaigning.” “No stuff, Sherlock,” the betrayed will say. “Governing is a lot more important and a lot tougher and the guys like Bush, Dole, McCain, the other Bush and, now, Romney never understood that. It is they who govern as though they were campaigning for the approval of Washington and the political class. “We never thought that electing them was the whole point and that if, afterwards, you got ‘Big Government Conservatism’ or ‘Compassionate Conservatism,’ it was no big deal because, praise Jesus, the Republicans were in charge. We always thought that the governing would be the hard part. Look how tough it was to get rid of ethanol subsidies. It is you who are confused.” The betrayed will leave if Romney makes it his mission to manage his way to a second term. He’ll have an easier path, this time, getting the nomination. But he will likely be the last Republican.
See original here:
The Last Republican?
