Subtle, it’s not. Apocalyptic, maybe. Rick Perry’s new campaign ad uses bleak images of America under “President Zero” to make the case that it’s time for a new leader. “I believe in America,” Perry says as more hopeful images play. “I believe in her purpose and promise.” Some reaction: “This…
Continue reading …New York Times Middle East reporter Neil MacFarquhar brought his usual anti-Israel slant to his Monday New York Times story on the Palestinians seeking United Nations membership: “ Palestinians Turn To U.N., Where Partition Began .” The Palestinians see the membership application as a last-ditch attempt to preserve the two-state solution in the face of ever-encroaching Israeli settlements, as well as a desperate move to shake up the negotiations that they feel have achieved little after 20 years of American oversight. The question is whether trying to bring the intractable problem back to its international roots will somehow provide the needed jolt to get negotiations moving again. …. Palestinians believe that their position has gradually eroded over the past 20 years, when the United States began monopolizing the negotiations with the 1991 Madrid peace conference. They remain under occupation, the number of Jewish settlers has tripled to around 600,000, and they have far less freedom of movement in the territories ostensibly meant to become their state. MacFarquhar skimmed over the anti-Israel hatred emanating from the United Nations: Lopsided votes against Israel are not new to the United Nations . But this time the Palestinians are hoping they can muster enough weighty support from Europe to overcome right-wing domestic constraints in the United States and Israel that have helped stall negotiations for at least 18 months . So far the Europeans remain divided among themselves, however. MacFarquhar often portrays events in the Middle East from an anti-Israel perspective. In August 2006 he celebrated the “ Disney touch ” of a leader of the anti-Israel terrorist group Hezbollah. He notoriously ranted about “ Bush’s bombs ” going to help Israel on the July 31, 2006 edition of the talk show Charlie Rose: You know, it just — you saw those heart-rendering pictures in Qana yesterday after the Israeli air strike. And every one of the reports on the Arab satellite channels were saying, you know, this is American bombs that killed these children. And you know, I have lived in this region for a really long time, since I was a little boy, really. And if you talk to people my age, I'm in my mid-40s and who grew up in poor countries like Morocco, you know, they will tell you that when they went to school in the mornings, they used to get milk, and they called it Kennedy milk because it was the Americans that sent them milk. And in 40 years, we have gone from Kennedy milk to the Bush administration rushing bombs to this part of the world. And it just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation.
Continue reading …On Wednesday's NBC “Today,” co-host Matt Lauer brought on left-wing MSNBC host Rachel Maddow to address concerns of President Obama being “in danger of losing support from his liberal base.” The headline on screen throughout the segment read: “Losing the Left; Can President Obama Win Back His Base?” Maddow downplayed Obama's slipping support in the polls: “I think mostly what is happening is that the President's approval ratings are softening overall and that includes among his strongest supporters. I don't think that the White House believes they have a particular problem with the base.” Lauer added: “But the fact of the matter is, you lose support among the base, what does that really mean in an election year? They have nowhere else to go.” Moments later, Lauer wondered: “Are they perhaps sending a message?…Are they simply asking him to change his methods a little bit?” Maddow reiterated: “Again, I don't think that the base, in particular, is abandoning Obama.” However, she did argue: …the things that he's proposing right now in terms of his jobs plan are not narrowly targeted to please the base. I mean, 86% of moderates say they like what the President's proposing in terms of his policies, a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes on the wealthiest people in America. 86% of moderates like that. Only in America would the pundit class respond to that by saying, 'Oh, he's trying to alienate moderates.'
Continue reading …On Monday night, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow attacked the “Beltway media” for ignoring liberals. She said this on a piece of the major media that champions liberals around the clock. To share in her pain, Maddow invited on Michael Moore to announce once again that the American public is “much more liberal than the Beltway pundits give America credit for being.” There’s a small nugget of truth in this big bowl of Silly: while liberals dominate the media, they don’t use the word “liberal” and they often try to pretend Obama doesn’t have a “base” as they express great (fake) concern that the conservative base is tearing the GOP apart. It makes more sense if you replace the word “radical” where Maddow puts “liberal,” that the fringy Daily Kos roots are being ignored: You know, if you listen just to the Beltway media, Democratic Party doesn't really have a base. And liberals don't really function in American politics. I have said before, and I will say again, the way the Beltway media covers liberals in this country is sort of on a good day akin to the way they cover really, really, really foreign news in countries where we don`t have diplomatic relations and on a bad day, it`s like extraterrestrial life. The Beltway media doesn't believe liberals are important. This White House has been able to get away for a long time without believing the loyalty of its base is important, that the left and frankly the center didn`t have anywhere to go, that they were going to support this president and his re-election effort no matter what happened. Seeing the poll numbers on the left and among Democrats soften in recent weeks and in recent months has brought this back to the center, has brought this issue back to the center and has made liberals a relevant point of Beltway discussion for the first time in a very long time — certainly the first time in the Barack Obama presidency. Then Maddow brought on Michael Moore as they expressed some joy that Obama was “finally” waging class warfare. “I wanted to know if you feel better about his tone these days.” MOORE: I felt instantly better. So, it doesn't take much for me. That`s another good thing about liberals. That's just how easy we are. Just a little — you referenced us as being treated sometimes by the mainstream media as extraterrestrials. Well, you put a few of those Reece`s Pieces out in front of us and we got a whole bag of Reese's Pieces today. By the way, the American public loves E.T. So, as beloved as E.T. is, I think the American public is actually, as you've pointed out many times on this show, much more liberal than the Beltway pundits give America credit for being. When you look at the actual issues, the American public takes the liberal position on the majority of them, whether being against the war, whether it`s equal rights for women, whether it`s a strong environmental laws. In last month's poll, for the first time ever, 54 percent of Americans saying that they believe gay marriage should be the law of the land.So, Americans are actually quite liberal even though they may not call themselves that.
Continue reading …Obama speaking at the UN general assembly opening session amid plan to avoid showdown over Palestine – live coverage 10.18am: “It’s been a difficult decade but we stand at a crossroads in history,” says Obama, talking about the “extraordinary changes” that have taken place since the last such UN general assembly meeting a year ago. 10.17am: “The fact is: peace is hard – but our people demand it,” says Obama. “There are still convultions in our world that endanger us all.” Now he mentions that he took office at a time when the US was involved in two wars, and mentions Osama bin Laden and terrorism. “Today we’ve set a new direction. At the end of this year, America’s military operations in Iraq will be over,” says Obama: As we end the war in Iraq, America and its partners have begun a transition in Afghanistan. ending in 2014 … Let there be no doubt: the tide of war is receeding. “We are poised to end these wars in a position of strength,” says Obama. 10.11am: Obama is speaking now – and says his subject is peace, and harks back to the origins of the UN, quoting President Roosevelt about the search for a lasting peace. 10.10am: President Obama has arrived at the UN for his speech, which will start as soon as President Rousseff of Brazil concludes. It looks like she’s winding up – and Obama is being introduced. Here he comes. 10.04am: While we are waiting for Obama to begin speaking, here’s the latest by the Guardian’s Chris McGreal in New York on the plan emerging to avoid a showdown over Palestinian statehood: The deal is being pushed by the Middle East “Quartet” of the UN, EU, US and Russia, which is attempting to persuade Abbas to back away from a diplomatic confrontation with Washington, which says it will veto the Palestinian bid. The US president Barack Obama is expected to meet the Palestinian leader at the UN on Wednesday as Abbas comes under intense pressure from the US and Europe to compromise. Diplomats said the proposed compromise would see Abbas submit his letter to the security council, which would then defer action. In parallel, the Quartet would issue the framework for renewed negotiations that would include a timeline for the birth of a Palestinian state. 10am: Barack Obama is due to speak at the UN general assembly, in an address expected to cover a wide range of international issues but especially focussing on the Middle East and the so-called “Arab Spring” – as well as the controversial issue of the Palestinian statehood bid. You can follow our earlier live blogging coverage here . And you can leave your comments on Obama’s speech below. United Nations Barack Obama Palestinian territories Israel Middle East United States US politics Obama administration Richard Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Type: Book Title: Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President See all customer reviews Product Description: The hidden history of Wall Street and the White House comes down to a single, powerful, quintessentially American concept: confidence. Both centers of power, tapping brazen innovations over the past three decades, learned how to manufacture it. Until August 2007, when that confidence finally began to crumble. In this gripping and brilliantly reported book, Ron Suskind tells the story of what happened next, as Wall Street struggled to save itself while a man with little experience and soaring rhetoric emerged from obscurity to usher in “a new era of responsibility.” It is a story that follows the journey of Barack Obama, who rose as the country fell, and offers the first full portrait of his tumultuous presidency. Wall Street found that straying from long-standing principles of transparency, accountability, and fair dealing opened a path to stunning profits. Obama’s determination to reverse that trend was essential to his ascendance, especially when Wall Street collapsed during the fall of an election year and the two candidates could audition for the presidency by responding to a national crisis. But as he stood on the stage in Grant Park, a shudder went through Barack Obama. He would now have to command Washington, tame New York, and rescue the economy in the first real management job of his life. The new president surrounded himself with a team of seasoned players—like Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, and Tim Geithner—who had served a different president in a different time. As the nation’s crises deepened, Obama’s deputies often ignored the president’s decisions—“to protect him from himself”—while they fought to seize control of a rudderless White House. Bitter disputes—between men and women, policy and politics—ruled the day. The result was an administration that found itself overtaken by events as, year to year, Obama struggled to grow into the world’s toughest job and, in desperation, take control of his own administration. Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Ron Suskind introduces readers to an ensemble cast, from the titans of high finance to a new generation of reformers, from petulant congressmen and acerbic lobbyists to a tight circle of White House advisers—and, ultimately, to the president himself, as you’ve never before seen him. Based on hundreds of interviews and filled with piercing insights and startling disclosures, Confidence Men brings into focus the collusion and conflict between the nation’s two capitals—New York and Washington, one of private gain, the other of public purpose—in defining confidence and, thereby, charting America’s future. See the details
Continue reading …enlarge Conservative columnist David Brooks of the NY Times finally admitted what most of America already knows. Yes, I’m a sap. He tries to turn that statement around in his idiotic op-ed by saying that he always truly believed Obama would do great things, but because of his deficit reduction speech, he’s now disillusioned. Does the NY Times really believe the words he’s putting down on paper? If they do and he does then I have an old crumbling bridge to sell them. Yes, I’m a sap. I believed Obama when he said he wanted to move beyond the stale ideological debates that have paralyzed this country. I always believe that Obama is on the verge of breaking out of the conventional categories and embracing one of the many bipartisan reform packages that are floating around. But remember, I’m a sap. The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too. The president was stung by the liberal charge that he was outmaneuvered during the debt-ceiling fight. So the White House has moved away from the Reasonable Man approach or the centrist Clinton approach. David, David, David. Your party has been taken over by ideologues that pray to Ayn Rand before they go to bed at night. Don’t you even remember your own columns? You admitted that the GOP has changed into Beltway Bandits, Big Government Blowhards, Show Horses and Permanent Campaigners. In other words, a bunch of political lunatics. And you’re disillusioned with the one person that tried to negotiate with these people?
Continue reading …Barack Obama welcomes repeal of 18-year ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy as gay lobby groups across US celebrate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – the US military’s 18-year ban on openly gay and lesbian service personnel – has officially been repealed, ushering in a new era for the country’s armed forces. In a statement President Barack Obama welcomed the end of a policy that he said had forced gay and lesbian members to “lie about who they are”. The repeal, which took effect from midnight on Tuesday, was celebrated as “momentous news” by gay lobby groups across the US, who have long fought against the policy, and among the military’s estimated 65,000 serving gay and lesbian servicemen and women. Obama said he was confident that lifting the ban would enhance national security. Previously, serving gay and lesbians who did not keep their sexuality a secret faced being discharged from the military. Opponents had argued that allowing openly gay troops to serve would hamper military effectiveness. “As of today, patriotic Americans in uniform will no longer have to lie about who they are in order to serve the country they love,” Obama said in a statement. “As of today, our armed forces will no longer lose the extraordinary skills and combat experience of so many gay and lesbian service members. “Today, every American can be proud that we have taken another great step toward keeping our military the finest in the world and toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals.” Last December, the president signed legislation to repeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy (DADT), which had been passed by congress and signed into law in 1993 under then-President Bill Clinton. Obama paid tribute to gay and lesbian troops who had been discharged as a result of the policy, and to those who had lost their lives to serve their country. More than 14,500 US service personnel have been thrown out of military service since the DADT policy took effect, according to the non-profit watchdog and lobby group, the Servicemembers Legal DefenseDefence Network. In a memo, the Pentagon said that the policy would not harm military readiness, unit cohesion or recruiting and retaining members. “Effective today, statements about sexual orientation or lawful acts of homosexual conduct will not be considered as a bar to military service,” said Clifford Stanley, the US under secretary of defence for personnel and readiness. Nor would they prevent admission military academies and other programs. “All service members are to treat one another with dignity and respect, regardless of sexual orientation,” he said, warning that “harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation” would not be tolerated in the military. The Pentagon said recruiters are now accepting applications from openly gay people. In a statement, the US army said: “From this day forward, gay and lesbian soldiers may serve in our army with the dignity and respect they deserve.” At one minute past midnight on Tuesday, Stanley put out a statement from the Pentagon to the work force. “The department of defense is committed to promoting an environment free from personal, social or institutional barriers that prevent service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility possible regardless of sexual orientation.” Across the US, groups that have long lobbied for the change welcomed the news. Mike Thompson, of the media monitoring group Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said: “Today, America took a momentous step forward in the pursuit of full equality by fully repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and opening its military to every brave man and woman willing to serve, whether straight or gay.” He said: “The courage, perseverance and patriotism displayed by the American military shines even more brightly today as our nation strengthens its national security and takes a firm stand against discrimination in our armed forces.” Mike Breen, a former army captain and vice president of the Truman National Security Project, a security thinktank, said he was “overjoyed” that the policy is over. “It is long overdue and has no place in a military at war time.” Breen, who led a group of paratroopers in the Korengal and Pech valleys in Afghanistan, often in support of special forces, has first-hand experience of how DADT robbed the military of first-rate soldiers. A section leader under his command in Afghanistan, whom he recommended and who was later awarded a Bronze Star for heroism, had left the military because of the policy, he said. “When a helicopter crashed, he tackled a young private in his charge, shielding him with his body. He showed the sort of leadership we tend to lionise in the military. He loved being a soldier, but he left in part because he wanted a personal life.” Many campaigners paid tribute to those who have suffered as a result of the policy. Lieutenant Daniel Choi is a former US officer and now rights campaigner who was kicked out of the army for being gay after serving in Iraq in 2007. He said: “This is not a moment when I have been out chugging beers. There are still a lot of unknowns for us who want to go back. I also think this is a moment when I remember those who were kicked out and even those who committed suicide after they were kicked out … this is still just the beginning.” The US defence department will now publish revised regulations to reflect the new policy. The lifting of the ban also brings a halt to all pending investigations, discharges and other administrative proceedings that were begun under the law. Marine Corps veteran Corporal Evelyn Thomas, a lesbian who was discharged after four years of service, said: “It is remarkable. It is wonderful that this time has come.” In 2009, Thomas founded The Sanctuary Project Veterans, which aims to look after the concerns of those affected by the now repealed law. She said: “When I was in the military, I had to serve in secret. I had to compromise my integrity.” However, like other gay rights advocates, she said the repeal of DADT was just part of a wider battle. She said many gay veterans discharged under DADT were often told – wrongly – that they were not eligible for full healthcare benefits through the US department of veterans’ affairs. Thomas said that her organisation would now put advocacy on this issue at the forefront of its mission. “There are a lot of veterans who are eligible for these benefits, but they don’t know about it. We are going to educate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender veterans,” she said. US military Gay rights Barack Obama United States Karen McVeigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Apparently Bill O’Reilly is terribly upset that President Obama might want to raise his taxes on capital gains, so much so that he actually threatened that he and his ilk of fellow investors who potentially could be taxed higher on their “sweat equity” might “pack it in” during his “Talking Points Memo” on this Monday’s The O’Reilly Factor . O’REILLY: Here’s the unintended consequence of Mr. Obama’s revenue enhancing plan, and I must tell you, I want the feds to get more revenue. I don’t want to starve them, as some people do. We need a robust military, a good transportation system and protections all over the place. But if you tax achievement, some of the achievers are going to pack it in. I’m not quite sure just where O’Reilly and his buddies are going to “pack it in” to, but let me be the first to say that if it means you not being on the air any more at Fox, please go… and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out to wherever in the hell you plan on going. And apparently O’Reilly has absolutely no idea what the term “sweat equity” means. I would recommend him spending a little time watching either HGTV or the DIY networks if he would like to get a clue on what that term actually means. UPDATED: Steve Benen explains: In Ronald Reagan’s first term, for example, the top rate was — you guessed it — 50% . Did Reagan’s “oppressive” tax rates prevent robust economic growth? Did “the achievers” decide to “pack it in”? No and no. For nearly all of Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency, the top rate was 91% . That’s not a typo. Did this Republican president’s “oppressive” tax policy prevent the U.S. economy from growing in the 1950s? Apparently not. That said, if O’Reilly is contemplating retirement to avoid helping America pay its bills, I’m not inclined to discourage him Hullabaloo That’s the best reason I’ve yet heard for raising taxes on these creeps. What’s funny is that O’Reilly is under the illusion that he’s one of the big job creators in our culture who can’t be asked to give up even one penny of his massive income lest he lose all reason to wake up in the morning. Well sorry — he’s one of the entertainers, not one of the producers. He may be irreplaceable to curmudgeonly old FOX News, but it won’t make a bit of difference to the economy. So, buh bye. But that’s not why I say he’s a moron. He’s a moron because he doesn’t know how marginal tax rates work and when you make the ridiculous sums of money he makes, you really ought to. On the other hand, if he’s so dumb that he thinks Obama is actually proposing a 50% tax rate and then whines publicly to a country full of poor people about it, then maybe we should just take his money .
Continue reading …It’s America’s favorite meal – the state fair! Every year, the fairs across this great land compete with each other to invent bigger, badder, greasier fair food. But after Texas stepped up its game last year with deep fried beer, this thing hit a whole ‘nother level. The 2011 state and country fair foods have been more insane — and more amazing — than ever. Here are our top 10 favorite finds.
Continue reading …