Mitt Romney takes on Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty and others in the New Hampshire Republican debate – live 8.51pm ET: Crowd shot. Lots of bored people in the audience. And I’m not surprised, each candidate is essentially saying the same thing, and just repeating catchphrases. The format is helping: 30 second answers do not encourage discursive thinking. Ads break! 8.45pm ET: Some classic Newt Gingrich brand of bullshit here. Asked about Nasa and the space programme, Gingrich chunters on about how the failure of the space programme was caused by Nasa. Now there we were thinking the whole “man on the moon” thing was a success, but no. According to Newt, if the zillions of dollars given the Nasa had been given to the private sector, then “We would today probably have a permanent station on the moon.” Oh yes. The moderator asks the rest of the group if they too blame Nasa. Lots of foot-shuffling until Tim Pawlenty – good on him – actually speaks up for Nasa and says the space programme is worth keeping. Newt then claims he was misquoted – by himself? – and they he didn’t say Nasa was at fault. A lot of Republicans say that Newt Gingrich has a “brilliant mind”. Tonight he seems to have several minds, all on the same issue. 8.38pm ET: The reaction on Twitter to the format of the debate isn’t great. Now Romney is confronted with his previous words saying that if the government bailed out the auto industry, then “you can kiss the US auto industry goodbye”. Now that sounds pretty stupid, since the US auto industry is doing OK right now. Romney says no that’s not what he emant, and blah blah blah. Especially blah. The entire corps of candidates say they would have opposed all the 2008-2009 financial bail outs. Wow, from a laboratory point of view, it’s almost worth wanting to see what would happen if that actually occured. 8.36pm ET: Elvis or Johnny Cash, Bachmann is asked. “Oh that’s really tough,” she says. “Both.” Oh come on. Johnny Cash is not fit to shine Elvis’s shoes, or his spandex jumpsuit. 8.34pm ET: Ad break! 8.30pm ET: “Right to work legislation” is the next topic, in this situation that means “no unions”. “We live in the United States of America,” replies Tim Pawlenty, which is self-evident, “and no one should be forced to join anything”. Oh god. Now CNN’s John King is asking “this or that” questions. What’s that all about? The first question is to Rick Santorum and it’s: Leno or Conan? “Neither,” is Santorum’s first response. A new low for American political debate? What’s next, a quick round of “shag, marry, kill”? 8.29pm ET: Rick Santorum break. 8.28pm ET: Tim Pawlenty is asked, and he says the country is carrying 50 pounds of rocks on their back, “and one of those rocks is Obamacare,” claiming he knows someone who has moved their entire company out of America because of healthcare reforms. Uh huh. 8.24pm ET: Herman Cain starts every answer: “As a businessman…”. Kind of fluffy answer on the Tea Party though. Cain’s major policy is that he’ll get experts together, find the right answer, and do it. It’s so simple. Maybe those politicians should try it? Ron Paul is asked about encouraging manufacturing and it appears to be going back on the gold standard, basically. Not entirely convincing. 8.22pm ET: Bachmann is asked about the influence of the Tea Party. “The Tea Party is made up of disaffected Democrats,” she claims, among other things. Not strictly true. Bachmann is wowing the crowd. “President Obama is a one term president!” she shouts, to some cheers. 8.21pm ET: Rick Santorum is asked a question. It’s always to have a break. 8.14pm ET: Michele Bachmann is asked about abolishing “Obamacare”. Her eyes gleam. Open goal! Now Romney is asked about Pawlenty’s snide remark about “Obamneycare” – a play on Obama + Romney + healthcare = Obamneycare, given how Romney backed a similar healthcare bill in Massachusetts. Mitt says it’s all different, and so forth. Hmm. Pawlenty is asked about his use of “Obamneycare,” and Pawlenty mentions that Obama specifically mentioned Romney’s healthcare plan as a role model. Pawlenty’s being very arch here and doing quite well. Do you want to respond, Romney is asked. But he won’t. Instead he says: “Why didn’t the president give me a call and ask me what worked?” Oh Mitt, really? You want voters to think you’d have co-operated with Obama on this? When in a hole, stop digging. In conclusion: everyone hates Obamacare and possibly Obamneycare. 8.10pm ET: Newt Gingrich is asked about the economy and he immediately harks back to the Reagan tax cuts “which I helped passed”. That was like a million years ago. Seriously, like 28 years ago. Half the voters have no idea what he’s talking about. Michele Bachmann when asked about the economy instead hijacks the discussion by announcing that she has officially filed to run for the presidency. Like, wow. Ron Paul gets a big laugh when asked if President Obama had done anything right on the economy. “That’s a tough question,” he grins. Anyway the answer is free markets, says Ron. Isn’t it always? 8.07pm ET: First question is on the economy, and Herman Cain has a pretty coherentish answer about changes to taxes, no idea what it means. Santorum just bangs on about how awful Obama has been. Tim Pawlenty is asked about his plan and he says “America is not Portugal,” and follows up his nutty claim that the US can have a long-run 5% rate of growth, which is nonsense. But he says that if Brazil can do it, then the US can. He’s wrong. Romney is asked. “Tim has the right instincts,” he replies, in a neat piece of patronising, and then pivots onto attacking Obama. But he’s running over time, and John King, the moderator, has to sort of go “Uh, uh, uh” to interupt him and shut him up. 8.05pm ET: A question from the audience but I calculate that the assembled candidates have 80,000 children in one way or another between them. Are they running to be head of a Parent-Teacher Association? 8.03pm ET: OMG, Ron Paul beats them all by mentioning that he has delivered 4,000 babies! Which is a true fact because he used to be an OBGYN. Poor Tim Pawlenty, he only has two children. Herman Cain: “I am not a politician. I am a problem solver.” But only two children and three grand children. Solve that problem Herman Cain! 8.01pm ET: CNN’s John King says “This will be unlike any presidential primary you’ve ever seen.” Somehow I doubt that. The candidates are introducing themselves. Rick Santorum mentions he has seven children. Then Michele Bachmann beats him with five children – and 28 adopted children! Really. Mitt Romney has five sons and 16 grand kids. Does that beat Bachmann? Good question! 7.55pm ET: Here we go. Seconds out. It’s two hours long. Are you ready to rumble? 7.25pm ET: What, you may be wondering, is that sign all about at the top of this live blog, the one reading “Romney RINO”. It’s a Reuters photo taken outside the debate venue this evening – note the side-arm apparently being carried by the sign-holder. Anyway, RINO stands for Republican In Name Only, and it is a term of internecine abuse in the Republican party. Many conservative Republicans believe this about Romney, and they have good reason to, since the healthcare bill he passed as governor in Massachusetts resembles the hated “Obamacare” passed by the Democrats. But Romney has a long history of flip-flopping on his positions, so much so that sales of special “Romney flip-flips” (as in footwear) usual appear around events such as this. 7.14pm ET: To warm things up, here’s a piece I wrote earlier today on the state of the Republican party presidential field – and why “running for president” doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means: Think of the Republican presidential primaries as a political version of Big Brother or American Idol or Top Chef. The majority of contestants quickly realise they don’t have a real chance of winning but they crave the exposure for what it might lead to. What are the three most exciting words in the American lexicon? ” National donut day ” of course. But surely a close runner-up is: “Republican presidential debate”. National donut day was last week, and tonight it’s the Republican party candidates debate, as six men and one woman (not Sarah Palin, sorry) fight for the right to take on Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential elections. We’ll be live-blogging the event right here from the halls of St Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. Here’s a quick run-down of the cast of characters we’ll be meeting tonight: • Mitt Romney: the former governor of neighbouring Massachusetts is currently leading the polls, having been running for president since 2007 (seriously). With a campaigning style so wooden you could make furniture from it, Romney’s hard work and much-touted business background have helped him in the opinion polls. Many Republicans think he’s too liberal on matters such as healthcare, and don’t trust him. • Tim Pawlenty: a former governor of Minnesota, he appears to be running for the role of “earnest older brother” in a Disney movie. Despite being moderate and sensible, his name recognition is submarine-like, while his campaigning style makes Romney’s seem like a Las Vegas casino in comparison. Probably needs to attack Romney with a broken bottle to make an impact tonight. • Michele Bachmann: also from Minnesota, Bachmann is a member of the House of Representatives and a fully paid up member of the Tea Party. She is currently being touted as “Sarah Palin with brains,” which is setting the bar pretty low. Very conservative. • Newt Gingrich: this may be Newt’s first and last debate since last week his entire campaign quit. The former Speaker of the House is a divisive figure, with some thinking he’s full of hot air, while others think he’s full of something else. He’ll have to explain why even people he paid to support him won’t do so any more. • Ron Paul: the stalwart of the Libertarian wing of the Republican party is running for the third time, and while he has a small and dedicated of followers his dovish policies on national security won’t find favour with the Republican voters. • Herman Cain: the chief executive of Godfathers Pizza has never run for or held elected office in any capacity. Naturally he’s doing very well, given the rest of the field. Thinks running a pizza chain is excellent preparation for being president of the United States. • Rick Santorum: Google his name [NSFW!] and you’ll see what he’s all about. To the right of Attila the Bachmann. Running to get a talkshow or something. Right, shall we begin? Republican presidential nomination 2012 Republicans Mitt Romney New Hampshire Tim Pawlenty Michele Bachmann Newt Gingrich Ron Paul US politics US elections 2012 CNN United States Richard Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …George Will Continues to Call Social Security ‘A Welfare State That Exists to Transfer Wealth to the Elderly’
June 13, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media I know Susie already wrote about this segment on This Week, but I thought George Will’s comments here deserved some attention of their own. It seems some things never change, like Will calling our social safety nets welfare as he did back in 2007 on this same show, which Nicole wrote about here — George Will Wants Those Lazy Seniors Off The Dole . He also repeated that same talking point for an article he wrote for the Cato Institute back in 2008 where along with repeating that same talking point, Will also derided Americans for not saving enough on their own and for running up their credit cards so that they would end up being dependent on programs like Social Security in the first place rather than having some money in the bank. You know George, all of those terrible, welfare loving seniors might have been able to put more into their savings accounts and would not have needed to run up their credit cards if it weren’t for the “conservative” economic policies someone’s actually been paying you to push for the last god knows how many years with those wingnut welfare checks you receive every week for writing your columns and writing pieces like the one in ’08 for Cato. Or if heaven forbid there had been some tighter regulations on the banks where they weren’t encouraging the type of easy access to credit with interest rates that used to make loan sharks blush, maybe more Americans would not have been allowed to be irresponsible with their spending habits in the first place. But then, we all know what Republicans think about regulation and any nasty government interference with those “free markets.” This is the same man who called the benefits union members in the auto industry received “welfare” as well. I’ve got to wonder how many seniors, no matter what their political leanings, would appreciate Will calling their Social Security benefits welfare. Now that Republicans have decided that doubling down on defending Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare is a good idea, maybe we can get them to adopt Will’s talking point on Social Security as well, since they apparently believe that destroying our social safety nets is a winner for them during the next election. AMANPOUR: So I know you’re considering Pawlenty as a real viable candidate. Do you think, though, that’s a bit fanciful? I mean, a lot of economists have said that 5 percent today is — I mean, it’s great, it would be great, but not really possible. WILL: A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, and that certainly does. Steady 5 percent growth probably won’t happen. Also, his pledge to get federal spending down to 18 percent of GDP is very hard to do with an aging population and a welfare state that exists to transfer wealth to the elderly. That said, he’s avoiding the austerity trap. He’s avoiding the green eyeshade, root canal kind of politics that Ronald Reagan avoided. Reagan said we’re going to get out of this mess with growth. At this point, by the way, in the Reagan recovery, after ’81-’82, the economy was growing at 7 percent.
Continue reading …
On the eve of Game 5 of the NBA Finals, with the series tied at 2 games apiece, Bill Simmons, one of the most popular sports columnists in America made a stunning prediction. “If Miami blows this Finals after choking away Games 2 and 4, after everything that happened since The Decision,” Simmons wrote, “the
Continue reading …Bank Of America Faces New Probe; New York Attorney General Launches Investigation Into Mortgage Securitization [EXCLUSIVE]
June 13, 2011 No Comment![Bank Of America Faces New Probe; New York Attorney General Launches Investigation Into Mortgage Securitization [EXCLUSIVE]](http://newsbreakingonline.com/wp-content/themes/transcript/timthumb.php?src=%3Cimg+src%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fnewsbreakingonline.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2F57c38ea529A-mini.jpg.jpg%22+%2F%3E&q=90&w=190&h=100&zc=1 "Bank Of America Faces New Probe; New York Attorney General Launches Investigation Into Mortgage Securitization [EXCLUSIVE]")
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has targeted Bank of America, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, in a new probe that questions the validity of potentially thousands of mortgage securities and their associated foreclosures, two people familiar with the matter said. The investigation, which began quietly in recent weeks, is part of a larger inquiry that is scrutinizing whether mortgage companies and Wall Street firms took the necessary steps under New York state law when creating mortgage-backed securities, these people said, who requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the probe. Court testimony and independent studies have raised questions over whether banks and other financial firms passed along the required documents to trusts, the independent entities that oversee securities for investors. In some cases where trusts moved to seize borrowers’ homes, judges have determined the trusts lacked legal standing due to faulty documentation. The inquiry could prove explosive: Wall Street’s great mortgage securitization machine took millions of home loans and bundled them into securities for sale to investors. If the legal steps that guide securitization — like taking mortgage documents from one party to another, a critical step under New York law — were not undertaken, then the investors who bought the bundled loans could force the companies to buy them back, compelling them to eat enormous losses. New York state investigators could also find that those securities aren’t valid financial instruments at all and take action under state law. The probe is part of a comprehensive investigation into Wall Street’s activities before and after the credit crisis undertaken by New York’s top cop. Schneiderman, a Democrat who rode to office by pointing out Wall Street’s misdeeds, requested documents earlier this year from Bank of America, the largest lender and mortgage servicer, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley regarding their mortgage operations. But an investigation into whether the securities these companies created are even valid represents a new front in his ongoing probe and raises fresh questions into the potential liability sellers of these mortgage instruments face. Last November, the Congressional Oversight Panel, a federal watchdog created to keep tabs on the bailout, said widespread paperwork problems involving mortgage securities could cause the largest U.S. banks to swallow unknown billions in losses, threatening the stability of the financial system. “If mortgages were not properly transferred in the securitization process, then mortgage-backed securities would in fact not be backed by any mortgages whatsoever,” Adam J. Levitin, a bankruptcy expert and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said at a House panel last November. Levitin said the problem could “cloud title to nearly every property in the United States” and could lead to trillions of dollars in losses. The six largest U.S. banks, including Bank of America, Goldman and Morgan, currently hold nearly $668 billion in so-called Tier 1 capital, cash banks are required to hold as a backstop against unforeseen losses, Federal Reserve data as of March 31 show. All six companies are defined as “well capitalized” by federal bank regulators. Schneiderman’s inquiry also raises questions about the speed the Obama administration and a coalition of state attorneys general and bank regulators are moving towards a settlement agreement to resolve claims of widespread foreclosure abuse. The states’ top cops and representatives of the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury Department are pushing the nation’s largest mortgage companies to pay about $20 billion in a deal to end the months-long probes into shoddy and possibly illegal practices employed by Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial. While several investigations remain ongoing at the state and federal level, no agency has systematically examined loan-level documents to ensure the creation of mortgage securities complied with state laws or to examine the scope of sloppy paperwork in foreclosure proceedings, like the so-called “robo-signing” fiasco. In its November report, the bailout watchdog said that the “robo-signing of affidavits served to cover up the fact that loan servicers cannot demonstrate the facts required to conduct a lawful foreclosure.” “In essence, banks may be unable to prove that they own the mortgage loans they claim to own,” the panel said. Sheila Bair, the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, said at a Senate panel last month that “flawed mortgage banking processes have potentially infected millions of foreclosures.” “The extent of the loss cannot be determined until there is a comprehensive review of the loan files and documentation of the process dealing with problem loans,” she added. Despite that appraisal, Bair, along with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Shaun Donovan, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, have said they want a quick settlement. Schneiderman’s investigation of defective mortgage practices comes on the heels of public reports that Bank of America systematically failed to transfer essential documents to other entities in the daisy chain that turned home loans into securities to be sold on Wall Street. A review of 104 New York foreclosure cases between 2006 and 2010 where Countrywide Financial made the original loan found that the nation’s once-biggest home lender did not follow proper procedures in securitizing the mortgages, according to Abigail C. Field, a New York-based attorney who wrote a column about her findings for Fortune. Bank of America purchased Countrywide in 2008. The review “calls into question the securitization of these loans,” Field wrote. She added that the findings also raise questions over the right of investors to foreclose on the borrowers who defaulted on their loans since the mortgage securities may be invalid. In a New Jersey bankruptcy case last November, a Bank of America executive, Linda DeMartini, testified that Countrywide routinely did not convey crucial documents for loans sold to investors. The judge cited the testimony in dismissing the bank’s claim against the borrower. Bank of America later said DeMartini essentially did not know what she was talking about. The case caused an uproar in mortgage banking and securitization circles because if Countrywide held onto essential documents — rather than pass them onto the entity representing investors who bought their securities — then investors could question whether the security was legal and force Bank of America to buy the investments back. Investors in mortgage securities, which include pension funds and insurance companies, are currently embroiled in numerous lawsuits and private actions to compel banks to repurchase faulty mortgages. Some of the lawsuits raise questions over such paperwork problems. Danny Kanner, a spokesman for Schneiderman, declined to comment. * * * * * Shahien Nasiripour is a senior business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 917-267-2335.
Continue reading …“Cruelty to the 98%ers” should be the GOP motto for 2012 election, since so much of their economic gadgetry is aimed at only helping the richest of the rich, and taking as much away from working people and the poor as they possibly can. Paul Ryan’s Randian budget is a nightmare and Americans are rejecting it as fast as they can, but someone might have topped him: Several of the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have laid out economic platforms that would include huge cuts in the corporate tax rate. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) called for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent , while former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) went a step further, calling for a cut to 15 percent . In an interview published today by the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — who is toying with a presidential run herself — decided to one-up both Romney and Pawlenty, calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 9 percent . Adding insult to injury, Bachmann wants to pair that huge tax cut with giant tax reductions for the rich, as well as a tax increase on the working poor : “In my perfect world,” she explains, “ we’d take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we’re the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax. ” Her main goal is to get tax rates down with a broad-based income tax that everyone pays and that “gets rid of all the deductions.” A system in which 47% of Americans don’t pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy, she says, “because there is no tie to the government benefits that people demand. I think everyone should have to pay something.” Let’s take these one at a time. First, cutting the corporate tax rate to 9 percent — a reduction about two and a half times larger than that called for in the radical House Republican budget — would cost more than $2 trillion over ten years. (The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 10 point reduction in the corporate tax rate would cost about $915 billion .)… read on These ideas are insane and I’m not sure why they believe seniors and the elderly will nod their heads in approval, though of course they can always count on the most vicious right wing ideologues. Her ideas as well as many other conservatives these says draw up the battle lines of direct class warfare. I look at her proposals and I say, WTF will happen to me if they have their way in the near future? It’s getting scarier each and every day, people. Matt Yglesias writes: If you’re old, then Bachmann thinks there’s an “obligation” for you to keep your health care and pension benefits. But not only do those of us born later than 1956 have no right to decent health care and pension when we are old, but if we’re right now relying on student loans to make college affordable, that’s going to be cut. If you’re a parent relying on Medicaid to cover your autistic child’s treatment, you’re out of luck. If commute to work and are hoping America continues to have a viable transportation infrastructure, you’re out of luck. Absolutely everyone born after 1956 is going to be subject to immediate draconian cuts in the programs we benefit from, while we’re supposed to believe that nobody born earlier than that will suffer even the slightest bit. Earlier in the interview she’s going on about Ludwig Von Mises and Milton Friedman, but the actual economic agenda here is rather different from small government as such. It’s all about who’s the right kind of people and who’s not. Almost all of America is not the right kind of people. Do they really believe claiming that everyone over 55 will be A-OK is of any comfort? There seems to be a common idea among these fiscal extremists that if they can only convince the old folks that they won’t be hurt, then they’ll have no problem selling this dystopian future to the country. I don’t know why they think that. The over 55ers don’t trust them to keep their word (after all, they’re prepared to tell people 54 and under that all the money they’ve put in was for nothing) and they also tend to love their kids and grandkids enough not to want to consign them to a Death Race 2000 kind of existence. And I think they might need some other people to vote for them so blatantly screwing them probably isn’t going to be a huge selling point.
Continue reading …“Cruelty to the 98%ers” should be the GOP motto for 2012 election, since so much of their economic gadgetry is aimed at only helping the richest of the rich, and taking as much away from working people and the poor as they possibly can. Paul Ryan’s Randian budget is a nightmare and Americans are rejecting it as fast as they can, but someone might have topped him: Several of the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have laid out economic platforms that would include huge cuts in the corporate tax rate. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) called for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent , while former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) went a step further, calling for a cut to 15 percent . In an interview published today by the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — who is toying with a presidential run herself — decided to one-up both Romney and Pawlenty, calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 9 percent . Adding insult to injury, Bachmann wants to pair that huge tax cut with giant tax reductions for the rich, as well as a tax increase on the working poor : “In my perfect world,” she explains, “ we’d take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we’re the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax. ” Her main goal is to get tax rates down with a broad-based income tax that everyone pays and that “gets rid of all the deductions.” A system in which 47% of Americans don’t pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy, she says, “because there is no tie to the government benefits that people demand. I think everyone should have to pay something.” Let’s take these one at a time. First, cutting the corporate tax rate to 9 percent — a reduction about two and a half times larger than that called for in the radical House Republican budget — would cost more than $2 trillion over ten years. (The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 10 point reduction in the corporate tax rate would cost about $915 billion .)… read on These ideas are insane and I’m not sure why they believe seniors and the elderly will nod their heads in approval, though of course they can always count on the most vicious right wing ideologues. Her ideas as well as many other conservatives these says draw up the battle lines of direct class warfare. I look at her proposals and I say, WTF will happen to me if they have their way in the near future? It’s getting scarier each and every day, people. Matt Yglesias writes: If you’re old, then Bachmann thinks there’s an “obligation” for you to keep your health care and pension benefits. But not only do those of us born later than 1956 have no right to decent health care and pension when we are old, but if we’re right now relying on student loans to make college affordable, that’s going to be cut. If you’re a parent relying on Medicaid to cover your autistic child’s treatment, you’re out of luck. If commute to work and are hoping America continues to have a viable transportation infrastructure, you’re out of luck. Absolutely everyone born after 1956 is going to be subject to immediate draconian cuts in the programs we benefit from, while we’re supposed to believe that nobody born earlier than that will suffer even the slightest bit. Earlier in the interview she’s going on about Ludwig Von Mises and Milton Friedman, but the actual economic agenda here is rather different from small government as such. It’s all about who’s the right kind of people and who’s not. Almost all of America is not the right kind of people. Do they really believe claiming that everyone over 55 will be A-OK is of any comfort? There seems to be a common idea among these fiscal extremists that if they can only convince the old folks that they won’t be hurt, then they’ll have no problem selling this dystopian future to the country. I don’t know why they think that. The over 55ers don’t trust them to keep their word (after all, they’re prepared to tell people 54 and under that all the money they’ve put in was for nothing) and they also tend to love their kids and grandkids enough not to want to consign them to a Death Race 2000 kind of existence. And I think they might need some other people to vote for them so blatantly screwing them probably isn’t going to be a huge selling point.
Continue reading …Openly-gay CNN anchor Don Lemon dug back to a May 16 interview with liberal Joy Behar to smear GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum just before Monday night's Republican primary debate. Behar then said of the socially-conservative Santorum that he “seems like a big homophobe,” and Lemon made sure Friday to reference that smear and put Santorum on the defensive. As NewsBusters reported Friday, Lemon badgered Santorum in an airport over his positions on gay marriage. The CNN segment featured an abbreviated portion of the interview, and Lemon aired the extended version Sunday evening on the 7 p.m. EDT hour of Newsroom. [Video below the break.] Lemon labeled Santorum as “very decisive and very divisive on social issues” to introduce the interview. Then he tried to frame Santorum's support for amending the Constitution to protect traditional marriage as contradictory to his small-government conservatism. After that he brought out the smear. “I was recently on Joy Behar and she said that, she called you I think it was – I'm paraphrasing – bigoted or homophobic or what have you,” Lemon said to Santorum. Apparently, what Joy Behar says represents the highest in opinion journalism. In the May 16 interview with Behar, Lemon claimed he could still be objective in covering the gay rights debate. “I don't think just because I'm gay that it makes, it takes my brain away…or it makes me not be objective,” he told Behar. However, Lemon has a history of pro-gay bias, as NewsBusters has documented . After the Santorum interview, when Lemon was hosting a Sunday panel to discuss the interview, he hit Santorum from another angle. He declared that “many people find” that Santorum “has said some pretty disturbing things about gay people” and has “ostracized them and moved them into a corner.” A transcript of the segment, which aired on June 12 at 7:24 p.m. EDT, is as follows: DON LEMON: And we are back. Coming to you live from New Hampshire on the campus of St. Anselm College where CNN is getting ready for tomorrow night's GOP presidential debate. Hold on. All right. That's better. CNN released a fascinating poll ahead of the debate. We asked whether the government should be promoting traditional values. Now here's the response: 46 percent said yes but 50 percent said no. Why is that important? Because it's the first time the percentage in the “yes” column has fallen below 50 percent since CNN first started asking the question in 1993. That number should be very interesting to candidates like Rick Santorum, someone who is very decisive and very divisive on social issues. Here is what he had to say when I caught up with them. I want you to take a listen. (Video Clip) RICK SANTORUM, GOP presidential candidate: You know go to my announcement speech, I didn't talk about social issues. I talked about the impact of Obama care on jobs and the economy. I talked about the huge debt that we have and the obligation it deal with that. I talked about entitlement reform. I talked about the Ryan plan. You know, in all due respect, I think the media is fixated on trying to – this is how the media works, they try to pigeon-hole candidates. They're this kind of here – they fit this niche. They fit that niche. Well the interesting thing I think in my candidacy is that I fit all of the niches. I am someone who's strong on social issues but I'm strong on national security issues. There's nobody who has the experience or the levels of accomplishment that I have on national security; no one has – and
Continue reading …Openly-gay CNN anchor Don Lemon dug back to a May 16 interview with liberal Joy Behar to smear GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum just before Monday night's Republican primary debate. Behar then said of the socially-conservative Santorum that he “seems like a big homophobe,” and Lemon made sure Friday to reference that smear and put Santorum on the defensive. As NewsBusters reported Friday, Lemon badgered Santorum in an airport over his positions on gay marriage. The CNN segment featured an abbreviated portion of the interview, and Lemon aired the extended version Sunday evening on the 7 p.m. EDT hour of Newsroom. [Video below the break.] Lemon labeled Santorum as “very decisive and very divisive on social issues” to introduce the interview. Then he tried to frame Santorum's support for amending the Constitution to protect traditional marriage as contradictory to his small-government conservatism. After that he brought out the smear. “I was recently on Joy Behar and she said that, she called you I think it was – I'm paraphrasing – bigoted or homophobic or what have you,” Lemon said to Santorum. Apparently, what Joy Behar says represents the highest in opinion journalism. In the May 16 interview with Behar, Lemon claimed he could still be objective in covering the gay rights debate. “I don't think just because I'm gay that it makes, it takes my brain away…or it makes me not be objective,” he told Behar. However, Lemon has a history of pro-gay bias, as NewsBusters has documented . After the Santorum interview, when Lemon was hosting a Sunday panel to discuss the interview, he hit Santorum from another angle. He declared that “many people find” that Santorum “has said some pretty disturbing things about gay people” and has “ostracized them and moved them into a corner.” A transcript of the segment, which aired on June 12 at 7:24 p.m. EDT, is as follows: DON LEMON: And we are back. Coming to you live from New Hampshire on the campus of St. Anselm College where CNN is getting ready for tomorrow night's GOP presidential debate. Hold on. All right. That's better. CNN released a fascinating poll ahead of the debate. We asked whether the government should be promoting traditional values. Now here's the response: 46 percent said yes but 50 percent said no. Why is that important? Because it's the first time the percentage in the “yes” column has fallen below 50 percent since CNN first started asking the question in 1993. That number should be very interesting to candidates like Rick Santorum, someone who is very decisive and very divisive on social issues. Here is what he had to say when I caught up with them. I want you to take a listen. (Video Clip) RICK SANTORUM, GOP presidential candidate: You know go to my announcement speech, I didn't talk about social issues. I talked about the impact of Obama care on jobs and the economy. I talked about the huge debt that we have and the obligation it deal with that. I talked about entitlement reform. I talked about the Ryan plan. You know, in all due respect, I think the media is fixated on trying to – this is how the media works, they try to pigeon-hole candidates. They're this kind of here – they fit this niche. They fit that niche. Well the interesting thing I think in my candidacy is that I fit all of the niches. I am someone who's strong on social issues but I'm strong on national security issues. There's nobody who has the experience or the levels of accomplishment that I have on national security; no one has – and
Continue reading …Lunar Eclipse 2011: Year’s First Total Eclipse Of Moon Will Be Unusually Long, Not Visible In North America
June 13, 2011 No Comment
LOS ANGELES — The year’s first total eclipse of the moon will last an unusually long time, a rare celestial treat for a wide swath of the globe. Except if you’re in the United States and Canada. North America will be left out of Wednesday’s lunar spectacle, which will be visible from start to finish from eastern Africa, central Asia, the Middle East and western Australia – weather permitting. The period when Earth’s shadow completely blocks the moon – known as totality – will last a whopping 1 hour and 40 minutes. The last time the moon was covered for this long was in July 2000, when it lasted 7 minutes longer than that. The full moon normally glows from reflected sunlight. A total lunar eclipse occurs when the moon glides through the long shadow cast by the Earth and is blocked from the sunlight that illuminates it. As the moon plunges deeper into the Earth’s shadow, the disk will appear to gradually change color, turning from silver to orange or red. This is because some indirect sunlight still reaches the moon after passing through the Earth’s atmosphere, which scatters blue light. Only red light strikes the moon, giving it an eerie crimson hue. It’s difficult to predict the exact shade the moon will take, which will depend on how much dust and clouds are in the atmosphere during the eclipse. Since the moon will pass close to the center of the Earth’s shadow, the total eclipse phase will be longer than usual, said NASA eclipse expert Fred Espenak at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. The entire eclipse will last a little over 5 1/2 hours. Observers in Europe will miss the first part of the show because it will occur before the moon rises. Eastern Asia and eastern Australia won’t catch the final stages, which will happen after the moon sets. Portions of South America will be able see the moon entirely shrouded. Unlike solar eclipses, lunar eclipses are safe to watch with the naked eye. Keith Gleason, who runs the Sommers-Bausch Observatory in Boulder, Colo., is disappointed that he will not have a ringside seat to the upcoming eclipse. The last total lunar eclipse visible from the U.S. occurred on Dec. 21, 2010, which coincided with winter solstice and was widely observed. Some 1,400 people showed up for a viewing party at the observatory. “We had an absolutely glorious time,” he said. The next total lunar eclipse will fall on Dec. 10 with best viewing from Asia and Australia. The moon will be completely blotted out for 51 minutes. Only parts of the U.S. including Hawaii and the Pacific Northwest will catch a glimpse. The rest of the continental U.S. will have to wait until April 15, 2014 to witness a total lunar eclipse. ___ Online: Array ___ Array .
Continue reading …Al-Qaeda’s attacks on 9/11 killed nearly 3,000 people, completely transforming America’s approach to national security. And yet food-borne illnesses kill 5,000 Americans each year and hospitalize 325,000, but there is little interest in improving food safety, writes Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times . Now, however, the…
Continue reading …