Cartnoon

post from Docudharma - Front Page on 13 February 2012 11:46:14 AM. © Docudharma - Front Page

Pettin' in the Park [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/ZpRRGphyLMg/cartnoon-by-ek-hornbeck

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Obama's Factcheckers

post from The American Prospect on 13 February 2012 11:23:26 AM. © The American Prospect

The Obama campaign announced Monday morning that it would launch a new initiative termed Truth Team designed to combat Republican misrepresentation of the president's record. It's the successor to the 2008 campaign's Fight the Smears website which corrected the common myths?such as his birth certificate or secret Muslim faith?through e-mail chains that year. "The GOP candidates are spending a huge amount of time attacking President Obama?no surprise," Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "But instead of basing their attacks on our differences of opinion, they've chosen to run on claims about his record that just aren't true."

The new website is subdivided into three sections: AttackWatch, KeepingGOPHonest, and KeepingHisWord. The first blog item criticizes Romney's economic plan as one that "helps millionaires and hurts the middle class" (filed under KeepingGOPHonest) followed by a string of favorable Obama accomplishments, such as sanctions on Iran or growth in the private sector job market. According to the announcement, the campaign has teamed with union groups, including the Service Employees International Union and United Steelworkers Union, and will be holding events in various swing states such as Colorado, Florida, and Ohio.

Establishing a network of truth sleuths might seem a little grandiose considering the president's ability to manage the facts through the power of the bully pulpit. But after spending last week at CPAC I can see what the Obama team is concerned about. Senator Marco Rubio's comment that Obama "looks like he's a really good father, looks like he's a really good husband, but he is a terrible president," was the rare statement that suggested Obama is not the devil incarnate. Throughout the various CPAC panels, there was a sense that Obama wasn't just a president that happened to have ideological differences with Republicans, but one who is, in fact, a nefarious socialist.

At any such conference, conservative or liberal, you will hear paranoid and outlandish comments from random attendees, but I was shocked by the prevalence of that kind of rhetoric from officially designated speakers. ?What he is really doing is leading an effort to define the Constitution and undermine its legitimacy as the primary document which forms the basic principles and the structures that should be followed by the executive branch as well as the other two branches,? said former Attorney General Ed Meese. Others suggested that the true intent of the Affordable Care Act wasn't to increase health care access, and was instead a malicious plan to make Americans more reliant on government services to turn them into future Democratic voters.

Liberals hated George W. Bush during his eight years as president, but few outside the far left wing believed that Bush had secret malevolent intentions. He may have led the country on the wrong path, but he did so under the belief that his actions were the best course for the country. Republicans are well within their rights to criticize Obama for representing an ideology opposite from their own and implementing policies they dislike, but the hyper inflated rhetoric has gone too far in painting the president as a socialist radical. Hopefully the Obama campaign's truth team can help restore a bit of sanity.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/obamas-factcheckers

Digg this

Obama's Fact-Checkers

post from The American Prospect on 13 February 2012 11:23:26 AM. © The American Prospect

The Obama campaign announced Monday morning that it would launch a new initiative termed Truth Team designed to combat Republican misrepresentation of the president's record. It's the successor to the 2008 campaign's Fight the Smears website, which corrected the common myths?such as his birth certificate or secret Muslim faith?through e-mail chains that year. "The GOP candidates are spending a huge amount of time attacking President Obama?no surprise," Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "But instead of basing their attacks on our differences of opinion, they've chosen to run on claims about his record that just aren't true."

The new website is subdivided into three sections: AttackWatch, KeepingGOPHonest, and KeepingHisWord. The first blog item criticizes Romney's economic plan as one that "helps millionaires and hurts the middle class" (filed under KeepingGOPHonest), followed by a string of favorable Obama accomplishments, such as sanctions on Iran or growth in the private-sector job market. According to the announcement, the campaign has teamed with union groups, including the Service Employees International Union and United Steelworkers Union, and will be holding events in various swing states such as Colorado, Florida, and Ohio.

Establishing a network of truth sleuths might seem a little grandiose considering the president's ability to manage the facts through the power of the bully pulpit. But after spending last week at CPAC, I can see what the Obama team is concerned about. Senator Marco Rubio's comment that Obama "looks like he's a really good father, looks like he's a really good husband, but he is a terrible president," was the rare statement that suggested Obama is not the devil incarnate. Throughout the various CPAC panels, there was a sense that Obama wasn't just a president that happened to have ideological differences with Republicans but one who is, in fact, a nefarious socialist.

At any such conference, conservative or liberal, you will hear paranoid and outlandish comments from random attendees, but I was shocked by the prevalence of that kind of rhetoric from officially designated speakers. ?What he is really doing is leading an effort to define the Constitution and undermine its legitimacy as the primary document which forms the basic principles and the structures that should be followed by the executive branch as well as the other two branches,? said former Attorney General Ed Meese. Others suggested that the true intent of the Affordable Care Act wasn't to increase health-care access and was instead a malicious plan to make Americans more reliant on government services to turn them into future Democratic voters.

Liberals hated George W. Bush during his eight years as president, but few outside the far left wing believed that Bush had secret malevolent intentions. He may have led the country on the wrong path, but he did so under the belief that his actions were the best course for the country. Republicans are well within their rights to criticize Obama for representing an ideology opposite from their own and implementing policies they dislike, but the hyper-inflated rhetoric has gone too far in painting the president as a socialist radical. Let's hope that the Obama campaign's truth team can help restore a bit of sanity.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/obamas-fact-checkers

Digg this

President Obama unveils populist budget

post from Daily Kos on 13 February 2012 11:21:51 AM. © Daily Kos

Obama President Obama (White House photo)

ABC News previews President Obama's budget. At this point, it's all about setting the media narrative:

President Obama today officially unveils a 2013 budget that outlines his tax and spending priorities for the coming year, and doubles down on populist proposals central to his re-election campaign. [...]
But with little chance that Congress will enact the agenda, and many of the included proposals already rejected, the presentation will be largely a moment of political theater aimed at projecting an image of the president as a ?warrior for the middle class.?

The budget includes $350 billion in jobs programs and $476 billion in infrastructure spending, which is effectively also jobs creation. These measures would include transportation projects, modernizing schools, and keeping teachers, police, and fire fighters on the job. The president also, once again, wants the Bush tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 a year to expire, and adding a Buffett Rule provision, in which if you make more than $1 million, you pay a minimum tax rate of 30 percent.

But, you know, because Republicans will reject all of these much-needed and generally popular measures, it's "political theater."

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/UA9X8XG5EAc/-Obama-prepares-to-unv
eil-populist-budget

Digg this

Cognitive Dissonance Arising From Failed
Self-Reliance

post from Firedoglake on 13 February 2012 11:20:33 AM. © Firedoglake

Conservatives are ready to suffer to avoid taxes on themselves and others. My advice: stop listening to right-wing radio. Those people make you feel bad about yourself, when the problems aren't your fault.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/PjTNh7NzjuM/

Digg this

Obama a Shoe-in for 2012 Re-election!

post from Docudharma - Front Page on 13 February 2012 11:17:40 AM. © Docudharma - Front Page

Well. The horse race is over and the 2012 presidential election is a lock.This should lift a great deal of stress from anyone worried that Barack Obama might not win the November election, and save a lot of heartache and soul searching for all those[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/CuR2WBiGfEw/obama-a-shoein-for-2012-
reelection

Digg this

It's Rick Santorum vs. Mitt Romney in Michigan as
Santorum takes big lead

post from Daily Kos on 13 February 2012 11:02:30 AM. © Daily Kos

Mitt Romney hasn't got a clue how to get rid of Rick Santorum Mitt Romney just can't get rid of Rick SantorumPublic Policy Polling (PDF). February 10-12. Likely Michigan Republican primary voters. ±4.9%. No trends.

Rick Santorum: 39
Mitt Romney: 24
Ron Paul: 12
Newt Gingrich: 11

Obviously, the headline here is Rick Santorum's lead, but arguably the most important element of this poll is Newt Gingrich's fourth place finish. Gingrich is no longer registering as a serious candidate in the state, and although Ron Paul will continue to play a peripheral role, Michigan is a contest between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.

Santorum's lead over Romney is broad-based?he leads every ~~county~~area code except that of Oakland County in the Detroit suburbs (edit: and the Lansing area, where Ron Paul has a slim lead)?but don't forget that Newt Gingrich was dominating Mitt Romney in Florida less than two weeks before Florida's primary.

With Gingrich largely out of the running and two weeks left until Michiganders vote, Romney certainly has enough time to turn things around. His problem is that two weeks probably isn't long enough to develop a credible positive message, and savaging Santorum won't be as easy for Romney as nuking Newt. Santorum is not only more popular than Gingrich, but everybody expects Romney to go nuclear, which will make it harder for him to do so. Plus, he needs to conserve resources for Super Tuesday?not even Mitt Romney has unlimited sources of funding.

8:04 AM PT: Santorum's net favorability: +44. Romney's? +10. Gingrich is -9 and Paul is -19.

8:08 AM PT: Among evangelicals (48 percent of likely GOP voters), Santorum has a huge lead on Romney?28 points. Among non-evangelicals, Santorum has a 2 point advantage.

8:15 AM PT: PPP's Tom Jensen notes "only 47% of voters saying they're strongly committed to their candidate while 53% are open to changing their minds in the next two weeks." As things stand now, however, Santorum would benefit from Gingrich's withdrawal: "54% of his supporters would go to Santorum if he dropped out, compared to only 21% for Romney and 14% for Paul."

8:17 AM PT:

Newt staying in is Mitt's saving grace right now. Santorum would be up 48-27 in MI if Newt dropped: http://t.co/...
— @ppppolls via web

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/xsEmULypM04/-It-s-Rick-Santorum-vs
-Mitt-Romney-in-Michigan-as-Santorum-takes-big-lead

Digg this

A Knock Out

post from Talking Points Memo on 13 February 2012 11:00:38 AM. © Talking Points Memo

We now have real evidence that Mitt Romney could have a race on his hands in the state of his birth and the one where his father was a longtime governor. PPP reported last night that its first night of polling in the state showed Santorum well ahead of[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/hSQ07zW29yI/a_knock_out.php

Digg this

Legal action against Murdoch in US increasingly
likely

Now we're talking. The US authorities remain too timid, if not afraid, of Rupert Murdoch but that may not even matter. (Surely US authorities are already much too busy prosecuting Wall Street for the collapse to be bothered.) Since News Corp is a US registered company, the overseas fight may be coming to the US because of the location of its headquarters. The Guardian:

It was reported on Sunday night that the solicitor representing the family of Milly Dowler and other alleged victims of phone hacking is to take his battle against Murdoch to America.

Mark Lewis, one of several lawyers representing clients pursuing claims against the News of the World for phone hacking, is expected to travel to the US within the next few weeks to meet American lawyers to discuss legal action there. Lewis was reported to be in the "advanced stages" of bringing at least one case against Murdoch's company in the US. He said he was "not prepared to deny" the reports.

The threat of prosecution under the US foreign corrupt practices act, which criminalises the payment of bribes to public officials by American companies overseas, exposes the company to tens of millions of dollars in fines and the risk of imprisonment of its executive officers ? and brings the fallout from the phone-hacking scandal to the US.

Mike Koehler, an expert in FCPA law at Butler University, said the arrests on Saturday marked an escalation in the risk of an FCPA prosecution for the New York-based News Corp. "This spreads the alleged bribery to a completely different newspaper, to a different segment of the company and to other public officials," he said.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/CzgDPW0nFL0/legal-action-against-mu
rdoch-in-us.html

Digg this

Rick Santorum Claims Lack of Insurance Coverage
Would Not Deny Women Access to Birth Control

Rick Santorum Claims Lack of Insurance Coverage Would Not Deny Women Access to Birth Control

Click here to view this media

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week that birth control is cheap and therefore should not be covered by insurance plans:

In an interview with CNN on Friday, Santorum also defended his opposition to requiring employers and insurers to cover contraception by asserting that birth control is ?inexpensive? and therefore should not be subject to a government mandate -- a claim that, in the backdrop of a fall campaign, could be a target for liberal-leaning groups representing women of modest means or living in poverty. [...]
?This is the federal government using the power of coercion to force an employer to pay for things that are morally objectionable to that employer,? he told CNN?s Wolf Blitzer. ?We're not talking about a $10,000 procedure here. We're talking about something that is an inexpensive drug. And the idea that somehow the government even has to insure this ? make(s) a mockery out of the issue of insurance.?
The cost of birth control, Santorum further argued, ?is not going to threaten anybody?s financial stability.? This is a president trying to impose his values, rolling over religious liberty, and in the case of the [Catholic] archdiocese, rolling over the freedom of speech.?

This Sunday on Meet the Press, Santorum again denied that refusing to cover the cost of birth control in insurance plans was going to mean that women would be denied access to the drugs and used some hapless Democrats who are scared to death of the Catholic bishops for cover.

Naturally we got no push back from David Gregory telling Santorum that he and anyone else who agrees with him are just dead wrong when they say costs are not a factor in women having access to birth control.

Santorum also repeated these same sort of remarks at CPAC over the weekend and Think Progress has more on that here -- Santorum: Birth Control Is Not Something ?You Need Insurance For? Because It Costs ?Just A Few Dollars?:

Rick Santorum told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this morning that insurance plans shouldn?t cover contraception services because birth control ?costs a few dollars? and is only a ?minor expense? for women: [...]
In reality, oral contraceptives or ?The Pill? range between $35 and $250 for the initial provider visit and the cost of a monthly supply of pills ranges between $15 and $50 a month, which amounts to between $180 and $600 a year depending on woman?s medical coverage. This means some women without insurance coverage for contraception may pay over $850 the first year of their prescription. Other forms of birth control are far more expensive. For instance, the cost for a monthly supply of birth control patches ranges from $15 to $80 dollars, or between $180 and $960 a year. Combined with the doctors visit, uninsured women could spend over $1,200 dollars in the first year.

As I've said before, it really is shameful we're even having this discussion in the year 2012 and if this is really what these people want to run on... again, good luck with that. You're going to need it.

Transcript below the fold.

GREGORY: Let's talk about this birth control fight and the direct question. You just heard the White House chief of staff. Is this a debate that you want to have in the course of the campaign as he would frame it, to deny women access to birth control in this country?
SANTORUM: No one's denying them access to birth control. This is, this is outrageous. I mean, the, the bottom line is that you have the federal government now saying we're going to give you a right and then saying, by the way, we're going to tell you how to exercise that right. We're going to control you, a religious, a church-affiliated group as to, you know, what you provide to your employee. And if you don't like it, tough, because our rights, our right to tell you what to do trumps your deeply held convictions about what your dollars should be spent for. And the idea that you can have the insurance company, and by the way, many and--of--a large number of Catholic social service providers are self-insured, and so the self-insured is the insurance company, they're going to be forced to still provide. So there's no compromise here. They're forcing religious organizations, either directly or indirectly, to pay for something that they find is a deeply, morally, morally, you know, wrong thing. And this is not what the government should be doing.
And this is not just Rick Santorum talking. You've got a lot of Democrats, you've got a lot of liberals who are, who are just aghast that this president's going to take on a fight of saying government will force you to do things that are against your conscience.
GREGORY: Do you think this is a public health issue for women? I've heard you say before you think contraception is dangerous.
SANTORUM: Well, I--what I've talked about it with respect is my Catholic faith, which, you know, I, I agree with the Catholic Church on the issue of contraception. But as you know, I mean, I--that's, that's a different position than I have with respect to public policy. You know, public policy, women should have access to contraception. I have no problem with that at all. The question is whether some religious organization should be forced to pay for something that they believe is a moral wrong, and the issue is--the answer to that is no. And under the Obama administration policy they are continuing to be forced to do so.
GREGORY: You talk about this in broader terms, as I brought up with Mr. Lew, the idea that a lot of conservatives have that this is beyond the religious freedom issue but this is what happens when government makes healthcare decisions. That's your argument and the argument of others. You've talked about this in terms of why you believe the president is dangerous, that re-electing the, the president would unmask some sort of hidden plan that he has for the second term. This is what you said recently on Fox News.
(Videotape, Tuesday)
SANTORUM: I suspect that it will be backed down here rather shortly, but it's a lesson learned of what this president would do if he's got another term and he doesn't have to worry about re-election.
(End videotape)
GREGORY: What is that secret plan that you're, you're so worried about? And is that not just hyperbole and demagoguery?
SANTORUM: It's not secret at all. I mean, the president went out and, and promoted, at the time he was promoting Obamacare, a program of cap and trade where he wants to control and literally control people's availability to, to use energy in this country and, and charge you for that energy in a, in a way that, again, that the government decides the allocation of these resources. The president's agenda is very, very clear. He believes, as, as someone who's, who's smarter than everybody else, that they should make decisions for you and that whether it's health care, whether it's Dodd-Frank and having this consumer protection board that's going to go out and tell people what kind of loans they're going to get, who's going to qualify, who's not, this is government taking over choices from people.
Even if you look at the Medicare system, which we may be talking about. I mean, the idea that, you know, Ron Wyden and, and Paul Ryan come together and say, look, we're going to give Medicare recipients choices as to what is best for them. And President Obama says, oh, you give people choices, that's throwing people off a cliff. We need to make those decisions for them. We're the ones who should decide what kind of health care everybody should have. It is a top down, I--that government knows best attitude, and it's, and it's reaching more and more places in people's lives.