Mitt Romney Half-Steps to Obama

In an election year, political speeches have more in common with hip-hop ?diss? tracks then they do with anything else. In which case, President Obama?s speech last night was the ?Ether? to the Republican Party?s ?Takeover??an assured, aggressive response that methodically destroyed the GOP?s rationale for its slavish devotion to the rich.

Today, I expected Mitt Romney to hit back with a diss of his own. As the presumptive standard-bearer of the Republican Party, it falls on him to make the party?s case against a second term for Obama. In his speech today before the American Society of News Editors, he tried to hit the president on both his record and the tenor of his campaign. And in fairness to the former Massachusetts governor, he makes a few well-placed swipes?it is true that the administration has yet to release a budget, and it is true that Obama has abruptly changed pace on energy issues, accommodating the oil and gas industry in a way that wasn?t true last year.

With that aside, however, the speech fell completely flat. But this had nothing to do with Romney?s delivery?which was actually quite good?and everything to do with the fact that Romney oscillated between contradictions and outright falsehoods. Here the most stunning examples:

?[I]nstead of answering those vital questions, President Obama came here yesterday and railed against arguments no one is making?and criticized policies no one is proposing. It?s one of his favorite strategies?setting up straw men to distract from his record.?

Not only did Mitt Romney praise Paul Ryan?s latest budget?which was adopted by congressional Republicans?but he was a support of last year?s ?Roadmap,? and he pledged to sign a Ryan-like budget if it came to his desk. What?s more, in numerous campaign speeches, he has promised to ?cut, cap, and balance? the federal budget, referencing a plan to slash federal spending and implement a balanced-budget amendment. If either policy were ever passed, it would have disastrous effects on programs for ordinary Americans. Romney may not have an explicit policy to kick children off of Medicaid or deny food aid to poor families, but if he were to follow through on his ideas and promises, that?s exactly what would happen.

President Obama?s answer to our economic crisis was more spending, more debt, and more government. By the end of his term in office, he will have added nearly as much public debt as all the prior Presidents combined.

If Romney is as knowledgeable about the economy as he says he is, then he must know that the increase in public debt has everything to do with the Great Recession and the drastic reduction in tax revenue that comes with economic collapse. Moreover, there?s the Bush tax cuts, which has kept revenue at historically low levels for more than a decade. If you remove both things from the equation?which, to my mind, is the fair thing to do?then Obama is responsible for far less debt than any of his recent predecessors.

In over three years, [Obama] has failed to enact or even propose a serious plan to solve our entitlement crisis. Instead, he has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it.

He is the only President to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare. And, as a result, more than half of doctors say they will cut back on treating seniors.

It?s hard to overstate the extent to which this doesn?t make any sense. How is it possible to both cut $500 billion from Medicare and fail to enact a plan to deal with our entitlement problems? Presumably, a plan to fix entitlements would contain cuts to entitlement programs. Indeed, if it stands, the Affordable Care Act will implement cuts and attempt to control the overall growth of health spending. If successful, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the law will save $1 trillion over the next decade. That, to me, sounds like an entitlement plan.

Unlike President Obama, you don?t have to wait until after the election to find out what I believe in?or what my plans are.

The last month has been dominated by questions over Romney?s sincerity. Is he serious about the policies he proposed during the Republican primary, or will he abandon them as soon as he reaches the general election? And if he wins the presidency, there?s no clear sense of which Romney will emerge to take the oath of office; will it be the conservative ideologue who won the GOP nomination, or will it be the moderate businessman who pioneered health-care reform during his last stint in government? The only thing we truly know about Mitt Romney is that he wants to be president and that he?ll say whatever it takes to get there. He?s certainly in no position to tout his consistency.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/mitt-romney-half-steps-obama

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Mitt Romney manages to take both sides twice in
just six sentences

Mitt Romney disgusts himself. And Mitt Romney too.From his Wednesday speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, here's a perfect piece of evidence demonstrating why so many people believe Mitt Romney is a dishonest political hack:

Of course, no fiscal challenge is greater than the one we face with entitlements. As the President himself acknowledged three years ago, this is not a problem that we can kick down the road any further.

I?d be willing to consider the President?s plan, but he doesn?t have one. That?s right:  In over three years, he has failed to enact or even propose a serious plan to solve our entitlement crisis.

Instead, he has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it.

He is the only President to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare.

Consider Romney's logic:

1. Our biggest fiscal challenge is cutting entitlement spending
2. Obama hasn't offered a plan to cut entitlement spending
3. Instead, Obama has cut entitlement spending by $500 billion, ending Medicare as we know it

Even if you didn't already know Romney's claims about Medicare were dishonest, even if you didn't know that he was the candidate to have proposed ending Medicare (in his words, "fundamentally transform Medicare"), the self-contradictions here are simply amazing.

In the space of less than one hundred words, Mitt Romney says we need to cut entitlement spending, slams Obama for not cutting entitlement spending, and then slams Obama for cutting entitlement spending. You literally don't need to know anything about the issue in order to see that Romney is full of crap; the internal inconsistency of his logic alone is enough.

These are not the words of someone who is interested in doing the right thing or in being a good president. These are the words of someone whose one and only goal is advancing his own interests. He's not interested in making a coherent argument, he's merely interested in destroying his enemies to obtain power.

And one of the big questions in 2012 is whether or not he's going to get away with it.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/_MnRqzvR_68/-In-span-of-six-senten
ces-Mitt-nbsp-Romney-nbsp-takes-both-sides-twice

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Immigration Proposal To Keep Families Together
Sparks Conservative "Amnesty" Attack

Right-wing media have attacked a proposed Obama administration rule change that would reduce the amount of time required for undocumented immigrants who are immediate relatives of American citizens to apply for residency as "stealth amnesty" by a "lawless regime." But the proposed rule change would allow eligible immigrants to obtain a lawful return visa without a long separation from their families; moreover, immigrant-rights activists have said that the current system encourages people to remain here illegally.

Right-Wing Media Declare Proposed Rule Change "Stealth Amnesty" By A "Lawless Regime"

Judicial Watch: Obama Administration "Using Its Executive Powers To Grant Illegal Immigrants Backdoor Amnesty." In an April 2 post, the right-wing blog Judicial Watch reported on a proposed Department of Homeland Security rule change by claiming the agency was on a "quest to implement stealth amnesty" and that the Obama administration is attempting "to blow off Congress by using its executive powers to grant illegal immigrants backdoor amnesty." From Judicial Watch:

In its quest to implement stealth amnesty, the Obama Administration is working behind the scenes to halt the deportation of certain illegal immigrants by granting them "unlawful presence waivers."

The new measure would apply to illegal aliens who are relatives of American citizens. Here is how it would work, according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement posted in today's Federal Register, the daily journal of the U.S. government; the agency will grant "unlawful presence waivers" to illegal aliens who can prove they have a relative that's a U.S. citizen.

[...]

This appears to be part of the Obama Administration's bigger plan to blow off Congress by using its executive powers to grant illegal immigrants backdoor amnesty. The plan has been in the works for years and in 2010 Texas's largest newspaper published an exposé about a then-secret DHS initiative that systematically cancelled pending deportations. The remarkable program stunned the legal profession and baffled immigration attorneys who said the government bounced their clients' deportation even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed. [Judicial Watch, 4/2/12]

Drudge Report: Rule Change Is "Stealth Amnesty." On April 4, The Drudge Report linked to the Judicial Watch post under the headlines, "Big Sis To Grant Illegal Aliens 'Unlawful Presence Waivers,'" and, "'Implement Stealth Amnesty.'" From The Drudge Report:

[Drudge Report, 4/4/12]

Jim Hoft: "Laws, What Laws?... Big Sis To Grant Illegal Aliens 'Unlawful Presence Waivers.'" In an April 3 post on Gateway Pundit, right-wing blogger Jim Hoft posted a section of the Judicial Watch piece under the headline "Laws, What Laws?... Big Sis To Grant Illegal Aliens 'Unlawful Presence Waivers.'" Hoft asked, "Is there any law this administration is willing to honor?" and concluded, "And the lawless regime rolls on." [Gateway Pundit, 4/3/12]

Fox Nation: "Obama Granting Illegals 'Unlawful Presence Waivers.'" On April 3, Fox Nation posted a portion of the Judicial Watch report under the headline, "Obama Granting Illegals 'Unlawful Presence Waivers.'" From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 4/3/12]

But Immigrants Would Still Have To Apply For A Visa To Re-Enter The Country Under The Rule Change

DHS Proposes Reducing Time Required For Undocumented Immigrants With Family In The U.S. To Apply For Legal Visa. According to the request for public comment issued in the April 2 Federal Register, DHS proposed a rule change that would reduce the amount of time undocumented immigrants with immediate family in the United States would have to wait before applying for a legal return visa. From the Department of Homeland Security:

Currently, certain spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens ("immediate relatives") who are in the United States are not eligible to apply for lawful permanent resident status (LPR) without leaving the United States because they entered the country unlawfully. These immediate relatives must travel abroad to obtain an immigrant visa from the Department of State (DOS) and, in many cases, also must request from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a waiver of the inadmissibility that resulted from their unlawful presence while they remain outside of the United States, separated from their U.S. citizen spouses, parents, or children. In some cases, waiver application processing can take well over a year, and the prolonged separation from immediate relatives can cause many U.S. citizens to experience extreme humanitarian and financial hardships. In addition, the action required for these immediate relatives to obtain LPR status in the United States -- departure from the United States to apply for an immigrant visa at a DOS consulate abroad -- is the very action that triggers the unlawful presence inadmissibility grounds under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i). As a result, many immediate relatives who may qualify for an immigrant visa are reluctant to proceed abroad to seek an immigrant visa.

The rule change further notes that return visas will be issued only to immigrants "if there are no other grounds of inadmissibility and if the immediate relative otherwise is eligible to be issued an immigrant visa." [Federal Register, 4/2/12]

AP: Immigrants With Families In U.S. Could Cut Down Time Required "To Return Here Legally." A January 6 Associated Press article about the administration's proposal noted that undocumented immigrants with families in the United States who have been issued one of the proposed waivers must still "seek a visa to return here legally." From the AP:

Currently, many illegal immigrants must leave the country before they can ask the federal government to waive a three- to 10-year ban on legally coming back to the U.S. The length of the ban depends on how long they have lived in the U.S. without permission.

On Friday, the Obama administration proposed changing the rule to let children and spouses ask the government to decide on the waiver request before they head to their home country to seek a visa to return here legally.

The illegal immigrants would still have to go abroad to finish the visa process, but getting a provisional waiver approved in advance would reduce the time they are out of the country from months to days or weeks. [AP, 1/6/12, via Yahoo News]

LA Times: Rule Change Would Benefit Immigrants "Seeking Legal Status." A March 30 Los Angeles Times article noted:

The Obama administration is proposing to make it easier for illegal immigrants who are immediate family members of American citizens to apply for permanent residency, a move that could affect as many as 1 million of the estimated 11 million immigrants living here illegally.

The new rule, which the Department of Homeland Security will post for public comment Monday, would reduce the time illegal immigrants are separated from their American families while seeking legal status, immigration officials said. Currently, such immigrants must leave the country to apply for a legal visa, often leading to long stints away as they await resolution of their applications. [LA Times, 3/30/12]

Immigrant Rights Groups Have Noted That Rule Change Would Reduce Delays In Reuniting Families

USCIS Director: Change Would "Minimize ... Bureaucratic Delays" Which "Separate Americans From Their Families." The AP article quoted U.S. Citizenship and Immigraion Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas noting that the change would reduce delays that "separate Americans from their families." From the AP:

The illegal immigrants would still have to go abroad to finish the visa process, but getting a provisional waiver approved in advance would reduce the time they are out of the country from months to days or weeks, said Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The purpose is "to minimize the extent to which bureaucratic delays separate Americans from their families for long periods of time," Mayorkas told reporters.

It currently takes about six months for the government to issue a waiver, Mayorkas said. [AP, 1/6/12 via Yahoo News]

AP: "Pro-Immigration Activists" Have Pointed Out That The Rule Change Would "Keep Families Together" And Possibly "Save Lives." From the AP article:

Pro-immigration activists and lawyers embraced the change, saying it would keep families together and encourage more people now in the United States illegally to emerge from the shadows and apply for visas. Some said it could even save lives.

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado recalled the case of Tania Nava Palacios, who went to Ciudad Juarez -- a hotbed for drug-fueled violence -- with her American husband and son in pursuit of a waiver. Drug cartel members killed her husband last year, his office said in a statement.

Kelly Alfaro, of Washington state, said her husband, Guillermo, waited in Mexico for eight months last year after he had his visa interview in Ciudad Juarez.

"I was terrified for his safety because I know how dangerous it is there and I had no way of knowing how long he would have to stay in Mexico," she said. [AP, 1/6/12, via Yahoo News]

Immigration Attorney: Rule Change Would Alter Current System Which "Encourag[es] People To Remain Illegal." From the LA Times article:

Many immigrants who might seek legal status do not pursue it out of fear they will not receive a "hardship waiver" of strict U.S. immigration laws: An illegal immigrant who has overstayed a visa for more than six months is barred from reentering the U.S. for three years; those who overstay more than a year are barred for 10 years.

Lisa Battan, an immigration attorney based in Boulder, Colo., said the current process is "encouraging people to remain illegal."

[...]

Abel Aguirre de la Cruz and his wife, Jessica Martinez, a U.S. citizen, were carjacked at gunpoint with their infant child in November 2010 in Fresnillo, Mexico, while going through the waiver application process, according to Battan, the Colorado-based lawyer, who represents the couple. On March 15, 20 months after the family first applied for a waiver, the consulate in Juarez requested more information. [LA Times, 3/30/12]

American Immigration Lawyers Association:  Rule Change "Is A Positive Step For Keeping Families Together" And "Will Literally Save Lives." In a March 30 press release, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) pointed out that the rule change will "keep families together" and "save lives." From AILA:

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) commends the Department of Homeland Security's proposal to change its processes to enable spouses and children of U.S. citizens physically present in the United States to apply within the U.S. for the waiver they need to become U.S. permanent residents. The current procedure requires the spouse or child to leave the United States, file the waiver application in the home country, and wait for processing while separated from their U.S. citizen loved ones.

[...]

"Today's proposed change, permitting the waiver request to be decided stateside, is a positive step for keeping families together. It would result in a significant change in process for many individuals and, if implemented, will literally save lives. People have been kidnapped and murdered waiting for waivers in Juarez, Mexico, and other countries," said Eleanor Pelta, President of AILA. "It's a move that will be less destructive to families and bring about a fairer and more streamlined waiver process. [AILA, 3/30/12]

Catholic Legal Immigration Network: "The Current Process Has Caused Prolonged Family Separation." In an April 2 press release, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) noted that the change would alter "the current process" which "has caused prolonged family separation." From CLINIC:

[T]he current process has caused prolonged family separation as individuals await adjudication of their waiver application in their home country. The proposed pre-adjudication measure allows individuals to apply for and receive a preliminary decision on their waiver application before departing the United States.

"The issuance of this proposed rule constitutes a meaningful and very positive step towards ensuring that the process of legalizing one's status does not come at the high price of being separated, often for years, from one's loved ones," said Maria M. Odom, executive director of CLINIC. "CLINIC supports the overall proposed rule and looks forward to providing detailed commentary over the next 60 days, noting that there are still fundamental areas in which the rule can be improved. It was disappointing to learn that this important benefit will be unavailable to those who have already been scheduled for an immigrant visa interview abroad, penalizing those who have already taken meaningful steps to legalize their status." [CLINIC, 4/2/12]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.mediamatters.org/~r/mediamatters/latest/~3/v1OVSFeNKm8/201204040007

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Suspect charged in bombing of Planned Parenthood,
'may' have been anti-choice protester

Francis Gerald Grady,
charged with bombing Planned ParenthoodVia TPM:

The man arrested in connection with the weekend bombing of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Wisconsin is 50-year-old Francis Gerald Grady, a police official confirmed to TPM. [...]

Wisconsin court records show Grady has a history of run-ins with the law. Most recently, on March, 30, he was charged with resisting or obstructing a police officer.

In August 2011, Grady was sentenced to two months in jail and a year of probation after pleading no contest to a similar charge of resisting or obstructing a police officer.

Grady?s court records show he was also accused of skipping out on his bail a number of times, including three times in 2005 and once in 2007.

In 2004, court records show, Grady was accused of manufacturing or distributing cocaine. He was sentenced to a year and a half in prison and three and a half years on supervised released.

According to the FBI, Grady "is charged with arson of a building used in interstate commerce [...] and intentionally damaging the property of a facility that provides reproductive health services."

Oh, and then there's this utterly not-shocking bit:

Investigators are looking into the possibility that the man accused in the weekend bombing of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Wisconsin may have been involved with anti-abortion protests there in the past, a police official told TPM on Wednesday. [...]

Grand Chute Police Chief Greg Peterson said investigators in the case learned that Grady may have been involved in past protests at the office. The information was so far unconfirmed, Peterson said, but it is being looked at closely by the team of local and federal investigators handling the case.

?There was some indication that surfaced at some point that he has been involved in some of the demonstrations,? Peterson told TPM. But the chief described the information as coming from ?someone who didn?t have direct knowledge,? so there was still more work to be done.

But remember, let's not rush to judgment and assume that the terrorist who attacked Planned Parenthood has a record of involvement with the forced birthers just because that is always the case every single time a terrorist attacks a women's health care provider. This might turn out to be the one time in history when the terrorist really is just a lone lunatic with no agenda of terrorizing doctors and their patients. We'll just have to wait and see.

Let's send a message to the terrorists: We stand with women and their health care providers. Click here to donate to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on Act Blue.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/WkM2idrwon4/-Suspect-charged-in-bo
mbing-of-Planned-Parenthood-may-have-been-anti-choice-protester

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Mexicans Feel Less Safe After Five Years of
Bloody Drug War

Since late 2006 the Mexican government has pursued an aggressive militarized war on drugs in their country. Violence has spiked from attempts to control the drug trade, driven by huge profits that result from prohibition. Roughly 50,000 people have been[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/Xep3J1Mrlbo/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Fed Actions Speak Louder Than Words

 

Axel Merk April 3, 2012

Investors may be taken for a ride by today’s Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which expand on the FOMC’s March 13, 2012 statement; in the interim, we believe the Federal Reserve (Fed) Chairman Bernanke has gone out of his way to assure the markets that monetary policy will remain “highly accommodative,” at least through late 2014.

The Fed does indeed have a credibility problem: having assured investors that rates will remain low for an extended period, it may only take one or two FOMC members to turn more optimistic about the economic outlook to cause the markets to more aggressively price-in tighter monetary policy. Conversely, Bernanke has . . . → Read More: Fed – Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Read The Full Article:
http://jutiagroup.com/20120404-fed-actions-speak-louder-than-words/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Wisconsin Bombing Suspect May Have Attended
Anti-Abortion Protests

Investigators are looking into the possibility that the man accused in the weekend bombing of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Wisconsin may have been involved with anti-abortion protests there in the past, a police official told TPM on Wednesday.

Francis Gerald Grady, 50, was charged Tuesday with two federal crimes in the attack, which took place Sunday night in the town of Grand Chute. No one was injured and the explosion did only minor damage to the clinic.

Grand Chute Police Chief Greg Peterson said investigators in the case learned that Grady may have been involved in past protests at the office. The information was so far unconfirmed, Peterson said, but it is being looked at closely by the team of local and federal investigators handling the case.

"There was some indication that surfaced at some point that he has been involved in some of the demonstrations," Peterson told TPM. But the chief described the information as coming from "someone who didn't have direct knowledge," so there was still more work to be done.

The Planned Parenthood location in Grand Chute has been a regular target of anti-abortion demonstrations for years.

One of the most vocal groups to protest there is Pro-Life Wisconsin, which puts out weekly announcements asking for volunteers to organize regular demonstrations. The announcements describe the location as a place "where abortions are sold and committed."

The group held events throughout Wisconsin on Sunday for the closing of a nationwide campaign called 40 Days for Life. None of the events that day took place at the Grand Chute clinic, but one was scheduled for a Planned Parenthood clinic in the neighboring town of Appleton, according to the group's website.

On Tuesday, Steven Karlen, the development director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, told TPM that none of the organization's staffers had heard of Grady.

Karlen added he would be surprised if the suspect had been part of "any mainstream pro-life" organizations, given Grady's long criminal record.

Grady has a history of criminal convictions and run-ins with the law, including a 2004 conviction for manufacturing or distributing cocaine and a 2011 no contest plea to resisting or obstructing a police officer.

The Grand Chute police chief said if Grady does have ties to the anti-abortion demonstrations, it would be a departure from what usually takes place.

"For the most part those demonstrations are very peaceful," Peterson said. The protesters generally follow the rules and avoid blocking entrances or driveways.

But Peterson also said Grady's views on abortion are going to play a key role as the case moves into the courts.

"Motive is going to be important at some point in this process," he said. "Certainly if he's been involved in the past, it's going to help tell us why he might have done this."

Grady was scheduled to make his first appearance Wednesday in federal court in Green Bay, Wis., where he was charged with arson of a building used in interstate commerce and intentionally damaging a facility that provides reproductive health services.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TPMmuckraker/~3/8v1UxzDmLjk/francis_grady_abortion
_protest_wisconsin.php

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

WTMJ Goes Soviet

WTMJ - On your side, comradeFrom Pravda, make that WTMJ:

TODAY'S TMJ4 and Newsradio 620 WTMJ discovered that several members of our staff signed the recall petitions for Governor Walker. Some of those employees play a role in our news-gathering and editorial process. Several of them also work on-air: One at TODAY'S TMJ4; four at Newsradio 620 WTMJ. ... [M]any employees told us that they felt signing the recall petition was not a political act, but instead felt it was similar to casting a vote.  WTMJ does not agree. ... [W]e want to assure you, our viewers, that we are taking measures to make sure all of our reporting is fair, balanced and to ensure something like this does not happen again.

So another one of the Party organs takes exceptions to its employees exercising the Wisconsin Constitutional Right of Recall (Article XIII, Section 12). Wonder what measures WTMJ will take.

Journal Communications Chairman, President, and CEO: Steven J. Smith is a board member of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce (MMAC), but I guess their activity is properly sanctioned by the Party.

Funny how progressives and liberals fight for the rights of all citizens; and rightwingers like WTMJ, the Wisconsin State Journal and other GOP organs police unsanctioned political activity of their employees.

From the Capital Times [leebrals in Madison]:

The same constitutional amendment that protects the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and the right to assemble ? the essential underpinnings of democratic life ? also protects the right to petition for the redress of grievances.

To tell an American that it is wrong to sign a petition, any petition, is to our view the equivalent of telling people that they cannot speak their opinion, publish their views or worship as they choose.

Conservatives and liberals have long agreed that nothing smacks more of totalitarianism than to tell a citizen what he or she cannot say, to tell a publisher what he or she cannot print, or to tell a believer how he or she should worship.

Yet in recent days there has been a flurry of debate about whether citizens of Wisconsin ? judges, journalists, elected officials, public employees ? should be sanctioned for signing petitions to recall Gov. Scott Walker, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch or members of the state Senate.

When Scott Walker was for recalling the Milwaukee County executive, Herb Kohl, and Russ Feingold, WTMJ didn't police its employees for unsanctioned political activity.

Back when he was a state legislator, Walker was an enthusiastic proponent of recall elections. In fact, he was one of only a handful of state legislators who aligned himself with?and ultimately took money from?a group that was seeking to recall US Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl.

Walker got even more enthusiastic about recalls in 2002, when he became the favored candidate of the group seeking to remove Milwaukee County Executive Tom Ament. After Ament resigned, Walker was elected to replace him. When he ran for governor in (2010), Walker talked up the recall drive of 2002 as an exercise in democracy?celebrating the recall as a tool for holding errant officials to account.

Wonder why the different treatment by WTMJ between then and now.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MalContends/~3/JwsxrGntkN4/wtmj-goes-soviet.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Motive

The man charged with bombing a Wisconsin Planned Parenthood office may have attended anti-abortion protests, police officials tell TPM. [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/qFQcAlbBu8Y/motive.php

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

How do we explain the different eyewitness
accounts of the alleged incident yesterday at the Capitol

There's been quite a bit of talk today surrounding what happened or did not happen with the alleged shoving of Rep. Reecy Dickson (D - Macon) by a reported Tea Party member yesterday.  How can so many people who claim to have seen the same event have such different accounts of it?  Here's my crack at an explanation:

EMCL - Eyewitness identification and testimony - Is it reliable?

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/GsAJ/~3/b9EI3epeoQs/how-do-we-explain-dif
ferent-eyewitness.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!