News and Current Events - 2012

[fritzkep]

Looks like FOX prefers adultery.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/20/408488/fox-news-a-team-psychologist-being-married-three-times-could-make-gingrich-a-better-president/

Maybe Romney should have tried adultery as a campaign ploy, it might have helped.

[doodler]

Another Yahoo story

The Newtonian conundrum: Has Gingrich changed since the 1990s? Character Sketch
Walter Shapiro, a special correspondent for the New Republic, is covering his ninth presidential campaign.

...

Part of the Gingrich difference is that Newt understands, at least in theory, how to negotiate. Offering a slightly airbrushed account of the government shutdown in 1995 and 1996 that ended up strengthening Bill Clinton's bargaining position, Gingrich said in Columbia: "Clinton and I had a rhythm: Hold a press conference and beat each other up--and then go to work. And we would sit in a meeting and he would say to me, 'This is what I have to do and this is what I can do. Now what do you have to have and what can you do?'"

This is a world-shaking historical insight. (Whoops, I'm sounding like Newt). But, in truth, this is how smart politicians and presidents negotiate. They do not govern by fiat. They cannot unilaterally transform the tax code or automatically rewrite Medicare legislation. Instead, they get their political adversaries to set priorities: What is politically off-limits and what is negotiable? It is within those margins that legislation like welfare reform can not only pass Congress but also be signed into law by the president. Gingrich appears to understand that lesson, even though his ability to put it into practice remains debatable.

Gingrich's stump speech offers another hint of the Newtonian laws of political compromise. In Columbia, he said that as president, "I would reach out to every Democrat [in Congress], not just the leadership." Using as an example the efforts to revitalize the impoverished "corridor of shame" along the planned route of I-73 in South Carolina, Gingrich said that as president he would ask Democrats in Congress: "Do you want to help get it done or not? If not, I won't call you. If you want to, we're in business." Again, this is how an activist president like Lyndon Johnson would use the levers of power: telling legislators, in effect, that you have to give to get.

...

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

Another Yahoo story

The Newtonian conundrum: Has Gingrich changed since the 1990s? Character Sketch
Walter Shapiro, a special correspondent for the New Republic, is covering his ninth presidential campaign.

...

Part of the Gingrich difference is that Newt understands, at least in theory, how to negotiate. Offering a slightly airbrushed account of the government shutdown in 1995 and 1996 that ended up strengthening Bill Clinton's bargaining position, Gingrich said in Columbia: "Clinton and I had a rhythm: Hold a press conference and beat each other up--and then go to work. And we would sit in a meeting and he would say to me, 'This is what I have to do and this is what I can do. Now what do you have to have and what can you do?'"


...

This is hilarious!  And then, when Newt said to Clinton -- "Dude, we're gonna impeach you for your affair," it turned out Gingrich had to leave before the job was done because of his own affair. Very ying-yang, back and forth, fair and balanced, now that we look back on it from a distance.
*******

I think it's confusing and crazy how right now Gingrich is criticizing Romney for not paying enough taxes.  Isn't the whole message of Republicans that taxes need to be reduced even further?  So isn't it confusing when he makes a case that he's the better Republican because he paid a higher tax rate?

The message is very garbled.

[oilgun]

It won't be so hilarious if that megalomaniacal Gingrich becomes president.

[Marge_Innavera]

This is hilarious!  And then, when Newt said to Clinton -- "Dude, we're gonna impeach you for your affair," it turned out Gingrich had to leave before the job was done because of his own affair. Very ying-yang, back and forth, fair and balanced, now that we look back on it from a distance.

That scenario does have a Fantasyland tint to it.

Interesting how the Right is now playing up Gingrich's "Contract On With America" and suffering selective amnesia about the disastrous (for them) gubbimint shutdown.

[doodler]

Which was caused not over political differences but when Clinton told the reptile to leave by the back of the plane.

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

It won't be so hilarious if that megalomaniacal Gingrich becomes president.

You are so right.

Any Republican, right now -- even Romney the moderate, is a truly scary thought, considering what we know they will continue to do with taxes and social services.

But still, I think it's true what David Brooks said last night on the PBS news hour -- that Gingrich may win South Carolina, but that won't hold him in the lead for long.

If they beat up Romney too much, it will be harder for those who don't like him to rally round him, he's not looking so good right now.

If somehow Newt Gingrich gets the nomination, I have trouble believing swing voters would go for him over Obama.  Even in a debate, for heaven's sake, where supposedly Newt does best -- I don't think he's better than Obama.

I'm not complacent about this by any means.  I have lived through Bush vs. Gore, and suffered the disappointment of watching Kerry lose Ohio. (so close!)

But you know, I was thinking last night, there isn't even one of these Republican candidates who is as likeable as John Kerry was.  And that's quite a statement.


ETA:  Even I find Ron Paul a little loveable.  Again -- wouldn't vote for him.  Don't think many people could or would.

[doodler]

...
ETA:  Even I find Ron Paul a little loveable.  Again -- wouldn't vote for him.  Don't think many people could or would.

That's rather funny since yesterday I was talking politics with the guy who owns the laudramat I use and he said Ron Paul was the only one, besides the Prez, that he would vote for and a number of people chimed in in agreement (except several have no intentions of voting for Obama.)

And I hear a lot of Ron Paul support from various Democrat friends around the country. (Of course, birds of a feather and all that jazz....)

[Lyle (Mooska)]

You have to have a photo id to drive. You have to have a photo id to cash a check. Many places you have to have a photo id to get in at work. You have to have a photo id at college. What is the big deal? If a person is so interested in having a say about what goes on in their city, county, state or nation that they want to vote, why are they unwilling to have a little card with their name and picture on it?

Whether or not anyone is willing or unwilling to have a photo ID card isn't necessarily an issue.
In a previous post, I mentioned that there are studies and reports that widespread voter
fraud by individuals is practically non-existent.  So why put a law in place for a supposed
problem that isn't there?

Plus, in my previous post, I outlined that it's not as simple as JUST having the ID.  People
have been turned away because their address says 123 Doodler AVE. and it's actually STREET.
You also didn't outline the why and wherefores of voting by absentee--do you need an ID to
do that?  If you're poor and have to pay the $32 in California to get an ID to vote, would you
rather spend the $32 on food or something else?

There are not masses of people voting multiple times all over the country.  It's hard enough
to get people to vote once.  And once people vote the systems can't even seem to count
them accurately, even in a small state like Iowa.

Your statements that you have to have photo ID's to drive -- well you also have to take
a driving test and many states used to have a thirty question test people had to take to
register to vote.  One of the questions, I heard on tv last night, was:  "Have you ever
been guilty of moral turpitude?"

To cash a check:  Money is involved here and hopefully money isn't involved in voting schemes.

Photo ID's to get in at work:  To keep people out of places they should not be.  Voting?

Photo ID at college:  Because you have to pay to go to college and partake of its services.  Voting?

On the other side of the equation:  Ever heard of fake ID's?

In this country, even if some people show their birth certificate people don't believe things.

My biggest problem with this idea and spate of new voting regulations is that it is not solving
anything that is a problem worth putting all this time and effort into it.  Plus, since the bills
are coming from Republican legislatures, why are they going contrary to their mantra of too
many government regulations and keep government out of our lives as much as possible?

[brokebacktom]

^^^

Thanks

[janjo]

In the UK we have to register to vote on a form that is sent to us once a year, and applies to the people who are living at a certain address. When it comes near to the ballot you are sent a voting card with your number, name and address on it. You take the card to the polling station to vote, but even if you forget it you can still vote as long as you are on their list as registered and living at that address.
We don't have ID cards here, although the Labour government tried to introduce them, the idea was dropped after the last election when the coalition government took over.
I don't think there has ever been much of a problem, at least on the mainland, with people voting more than once, but it did happen in Northern Ireland, where the saying was "vote early, vote often."
I presume that has been clamped down on now, but I don't know.

[AZ.bbm]

General Petraeus has a dastardly plan to take Muslims shopping?  I think there was something left out.

Yes, the plan was to target Muslims in marketplaces using paid insurgents (aka, "contractors"), in order to extend the conflict... -I believe Petraeus referred to it as "low-intensity conflict"... When Petraeus was outed by whistleblower Anwar Al-Alawki, Obama moved Petreaus to CIA, put CIA man Panetta in as head of DoD.  
After Mr. Awlaki an American citizen and Pentagon insider, started posting details of the Petraeus plan on his website, Wicked Obama in a Presidential Finding pronounced Anwar al-Awlaki to be "the most dangerous man on the planet," and had his CIA execute the man without due process (aka, "terminate with extreme prejudice"), in Yemen.

Google 'Obama + Awlaki + Yemen'

[AZ.bbm]

(In Viet Nam, in a combat zone, my pay- with combat pay - amount to $108 every two weeks: people making minimum wage in the Sates made more money/week. 

(Mike failed to mention that in addition to his pay, his room & board along with medical care and other benefits were paid for by the Army.) 

[janjo]

He got back though, even if the army did get him!

[AZ.bbm]

Just saw Obama singing on the news, couldn't you just eat him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-hDt2E8MoE

Nice voice, but in the end I think he'd be rather hard to swallow...

  (Let your mind wander.......... )