Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
November 29, 2012
Liberalism saved Western civilization from the tyranny of the church. Liberalism freed us from superstition and its sequelae, like burning people who said “no” to the dominant power; and it gave us freedom and democracy and science, leading to a world where people were free to make their own decisions and to pursue individual happiness rather than a path bound on all sides by damnation, dictated for them by religious authorities.
Conservatives have never quite gotten over this rejection of the past and with it, of their ultimate, capital-T Truth. We have seen them convince themselves in recent years of liberalism’s essential illigitimacy as a political ideology, leaving liberalism’s success, let alone its continued existence, to confound them. Earlier this month, William Bennett admitted conservatives have lost the culture war, but he managed to do so without really acknowledging the reasons conservatives lost, or even accepting for conservatives any responsibility for their own defeat.
At the time, Bennett whined (there is no other word for it) that,
What Bennett catastrophically failed to see is that the Republicans were guilty of all these things. What he was essentially complaining about was that the Democrats told the truth about what the Republicans were planning. Now he has convinced himself that liberalism will ultimately fail, and he explains his thinking in an opinion piece on CNN. To make his argument, he pulls out some old Republican fantasies, showing at the outset that he is not prepared to have this conversation; that this will be another piece of conservative apologia rather than an honest political analysis based on the facts on the ground.
He says that diversity is bad – it is a long-term weakness, not a strength for the Democratic Party, despite liberalism’s short-term success in fashioning a union of disparate factions (gosh, it sounds a lot like liberalism’s success in fashioning a union out of thirteen disprate colonies too, doesn’t it?). Then out comes conservative economics 101, based not on evidence but wishful thinking:
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/conservatives-wrong-liberalism-fail.html
Why Conservatives Are WRONG When They Say Liberalism Will Fail
Liberalism saved Western civilization from the tyranny of the church. Liberalism freed us from superstition and its sequelae, like burning people who said “no” to the dominant power; and it gave us freedom and democracy and science, leading to a world where people were free to make their own decisions and to pursue individual happiness rather than a path bound on all sides by damnation, dictated for them by religious authorities.
Conservatives have never quite gotten over this rejection of the past and with it, of their ultimate, capital-T Truth. We have seen them convince themselves in recent years of liberalism’s essential illigitimacy as a political ideology, leaving liberalism’s success, let alone its continued existence, to confound them. Earlier this month, William Bennett admitted conservatives have lost the culture war, but he managed to do so without really acknowledging the reasons conservatives lost, or even accepting for conservatives any responsibility for their own defeat.
At the time, Bennett whined (there is no other word for it) that,
To women they said: Republicans are waging a “war on women,” trying to outlaw abortion and contraception and would take them back to their rights in the 1950s. To minorities they said: Republicans are anti-government services, cold-blooded individualists, and cannot represent minority communities. To middle and low income Americans they said: Republicans are the party of the rich, who will slash taxes for only the richest Americans and cut social safety nets for the poor.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/bennett-gop-election/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/bennett-gop-election/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
What Bennett catastrophically failed to see is that the Republicans were guilty of all these things. What he was essentially complaining about was that the Democrats told the truth about what the Republicans were planning. Now he has convinced himself that liberalism will ultimately fail, and he explains his thinking in an opinion piece on CNN. To make his argument, he pulls out some old Republican fantasies, showing at the outset that he is not prepared to have this conversation; that this will be another piece of conservative apologia rather than an honest political analysis based on the facts on the ground.
He says that diversity is bad – it is a long-term weakness, not a strength for the Democratic Party, despite liberalism’s short-term success in fashioning a union of disparate factions (gosh, it sounds a lot like liberalism’s success in fashioning a union out of thirteen disprate colonies too, doesn’t it?). Then out comes conservative economics 101, based not on evidence but wishful thinking:
Rather than waiting on free markets to correct themselves and start creating wealth again, liberalism’s cure is immediate, and so are the political payoffs. This explains partly why many voters feel liberals care about them more than conservatives.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/opinion/bennett-liberalism/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/opinion/bennett-liberalism/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/conservatives-wrong-liberalism-fail.html
November 29, 2012
On his show Wednesday night, The Daily Show host Jon Stewart brutally mocked Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for their criticism of Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN. The two senators have pilloried Rice for saying the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam film. However, Stewart noted that both McCain and Graham had falsely told the public that Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
Stewart then played a clip of Condoleezza Rice suggesting that Iraq was attempting to build a nuclear weapon, along with clips of McCain and Graham saying it was wrong to criticize her.
watch video:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/29/jon-stewart-exposes-blatant-hypocrisy-of-mccain-and-graham/
Jon Stewart EXPOSES Blatant HYPOCRISY Of McCain and Graham
On his show Wednesday night, The Daily Show host Jon Stewart brutally mocked Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for their criticism of Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN. The two senators have pilloried Rice for saying the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam film. However, Stewart noted that both McCain and Graham had falsely told the public that Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
“Unfortunately, that’s not really a fair one-to-one comparison, because Susan Rice admitted to the error within weeks — these two still refuse to acknowledge that invading a country based on information from a source named ‘curveball’ was actually considered a pretty shitty idea by many at the time,” Stewart said.
“If only we had a more direct comparison to make here. Like another high-ranking government official passing what they knew at the time was misleading intelligence to the American public on a Sunday news show, also in line to become secretary of state, and was African American, and a woman, and lets say her name was also Rice. That’d be something.”
Stewart then played a clip of Condoleezza Rice suggesting that Iraq was attempting to build a nuclear weapon, along with clips of McCain and Graham saying it was wrong to criticize her.
watch video:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/29/jon-stewart-exposes-blatant-hypocrisy-of-mccain-and-graham/
November 29, 2012
According to the Pentagon 4,487 American soldiers died in the Iraq War; 32,226 were wounded.
For this tremendous sacrifice, Iraqis gained the right to vote and Universal Health Care.
The United States committed to spend $950 million to establish universal healthcare. In article 31 of The Iraqi Constitution, revised by the Bush administration, it states:
Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care. The United States is the lone exception. The following list was compiled from World Health Organization sources.
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/03/we-gave-iraqis-universal-healthcare-why.html
WE Gave Iraqis Universal Healthcare, WHY Not Americans?
According to the Pentagon 4,487 American soldiers died in the Iraq War; 32,226 were wounded.
For this tremendous sacrifice, Iraqis gained the right to vote and Universal Health Care.
The United States committed to spend $950 million to establish universal healthcare. In article 31 of The Iraqi Constitution, revised by the Bush administration, it states:
“Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and health institutions. “
Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care. The United States is the lone exception. The following list was compiled from World Health Organization sources.
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/03/we-gave-iraqis-universal-healthcare-why.html
November 29, 2012
Tom Ricks: FOX NEWS....Apology Is HORSESH!T
Fox News really needs to slowly back away from Tom Ricks. In the ongoing drama over Fox getting butt hurt over Tom Ricks’ short but total takedown of its Benghazimania, executive VP of news, Michael Clemente, keeps digging the hole deeper. After Ricks denied apologizing after the shortest interview ever, Clemente had this to say to TVNewser:
“I’m surprised by the General’s utter dishonesty,” Clemente says. “I’ll refresh his memory – what he said following the segment was, ‘Sorry… I’m tired from a non-stop book tour.’ Perhaps now he can finally get some rest.”
Ricks’ response to the whole thing was as blunt as the interview that got him kicked off the air just 49 seconds after he started to speak: “It’s horseshit.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/28/tom-ricks-calls-fox-news-apology-claim-horseshit-video/
“I’m surprised by the General’s utter dishonesty,” Clemente says. “I’ll refresh his memory – what he said following the segment was, ‘Sorry… I’m tired from a non-stop book tour.’ Perhaps now he can finally get some rest.”
Ricks’ response to the whole thing was as blunt as the interview that got him kicked off the air just 49 seconds after he started to speak: “It’s horseshit.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/28/tom-ricks-calls-fox-news-apology-claim-horseshit-video/
November 29, 2012
In a letter to his Senate colleagues today, Bernie Sanders exposed the bipartisan Simpson/Bowles plan for what it really is. A scheme to lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations while passing the burden to the rest of us.
Sanders laid out the 5 areas of Simpson-Bowles that he believes Democrats should strongly oppose.
There is a reason why Mitt Romney and the Republican campaigned so hard for Simpson-Bowles. It is exactly what the Republican Party wants. It slashes entitlements and passes the pain on to the middle and lower classes, while lowering taxes for corporations and the so called “job creators.” The rich feel no pain and get all of the gain from Simpson-Bowles.
The reason why this plan never went anywhere with Obama is because it violates several of the elements that he believes any deal on deficit reduction should contain. If congressional Democrats adopted Simpson-Bowles as their negotiating framework, they would lose before they even sat down at the table. Simpson-Bowles contains everything that the right could ever hope for. This is why it being championed by corporate America and the Republican Party.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-blows-lid-bipartisan-plan-cut-taxes-corporations-wealthy.html
Bernie Sanders BLOWS THE LID OFF The ‘Bipartisan’ Plan To CUT TAXES for Corporations and the Wealthy
In a letter to his Senate colleagues today, Bernie Sanders exposed the bipartisan Simpson/Bowles plan for what it really is. A scheme to lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations while passing the burden to the rest of us.
Sanders laid out the 5 areas of Simpson-Bowles that he believes Democrats should strongly oppose.
Simpson-Bowles would cut Social Security benefits for current retirees, cut veterans’ benefits, raise the retirement age to 69, and cut Social Security benefits for middle class workers. Simpson-Bowles would also cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy. The Simpson-Bowles plan would reduce taxes to an even lower level than the Bush tax cuts. Taxes on corporations and the wealthy would be reduced to 23%-29%. Simpson-Bowles also would increase the gas tax by 15 cents, increase Medicare premiums, establish a territorial taxation system that would allow corporations to avoid US taxes by establishing subsidiaries overseas. Simpson-Bowles would also increase taxes on low income workers by 14.5% starting in 2021, and it would make fewer people eligible for SSI, CHIP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, WIC, Head Start, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Refundable Child Credit.
Sanders urged his Democratic colleagues to reject Simpson-Bowles because it would, “cause major economic pain to nearly every America while lowering tax rates for millionaires, billionaires, and large corporations even more than President Bush.”
PDF:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SimpsonBowles.pdf
PDF:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SimpsonBowles.pdf
There is a reason why Mitt Romney and the Republican campaigned so hard for Simpson-Bowles. It is exactly what the Republican Party wants. It slashes entitlements and passes the pain on to the middle and lower classes, while lowering taxes for corporations and the so called “job creators.” The rich feel no pain and get all of the gain from Simpson-Bowles.
The reason why this plan never went anywhere with Obama is because it violates several of the elements that he believes any deal on deficit reduction should contain. If congressional Democrats adopted Simpson-Bowles as their negotiating framework, they would lose before they even sat down at the table. Simpson-Bowles contains everything that the right could ever hope for. This is why it being championed by corporate America and the Republican Party.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-blows-lid-bipartisan-plan-cut-taxes-corporations-wealthy.html
November 28, 2012
The so-called Fiscal Cliff is a political creation...the cousin to Starve the Beast. I don’t know why they think everyone is so dumb. We print our own currency, set the interest rate and owe a third of the debt to ourselves. Can I rant a little? Everytime I hear politicians say the approach to solving the deficit should be “fair and balanced”, I want to spit. There was absolutely nothing fair and balanced about its accumulation. The rich made out like bandits, while the Middle Class struggled.
But, you hear it all the time...”everyone has to sacrifice”. Really? Well, the Middle Class has been sacrificing for decades. Now, all of a sudden, it is fair for “everyone” to feel the pinch? I don’t think so! The Middle Class has been slapped, punched and kicked long enough. The rich have extracted the national treasury and refused to invest in the country and the Middle Class owes them something more? The so-called job creators, created no jobs. They just took their tax-cuts and ran. Not because they are uncertain...because they are greedy, heartless and unpatriotic.
The Middle Class stood in unemployment lines, suffered the humiliation of food stamps and food pantries, dropped out of college or couldn’t go, moved back home, suffered through illness without medical care, watched the value of our homes diminish, moved into our cars and onto the streets. We already went over the cliff. We are broke and we should sacrifice more?
I DON'T THINK SO.
To whom much is given, much is expected; and that is as it should be. The rich reaped all the benefits of the downturn, so let them finance the upturn. Raise taxes on the rich and give the Middle Class the tax cuts for a change. Raise the minimum wage to $12.00 an hour, so anyone working can earn a living wage. Give everyone access to healthcare and an education. After a few decades, like the rich had, then we can talk about “fair and balanced”. Until then, leave the Middle Class alone!
IT'S OUR TURN!
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/11/i-dont-give-tinkers-damn-about-fiscal.html
I Don’t Give a Tinker’s Damn about the FISCAL CLIFF!
The so-called Fiscal Cliff is a political creation...the cousin to Starve the Beast. I don’t know why they think everyone is so dumb. We print our own currency, set the interest rate and owe a third of the debt to ourselves. Can I rant a little? Everytime I hear politicians say the approach to solving the deficit should be “fair and balanced”, I want to spit. There was absolutely nothing fair and balanced about its accumulation. The rich made out like bandits, while the Middle Class struggled.
But, you hear it all the time...”everyone has to sacrifice”. Really? Well, the Middle Class has been sacrificing for decades. Now, all of a sudden, it is fair for “everyone” to feel the pinch? I don’t think so! The Middle Class has been slapped, punched and kicked long enough. The rich have extracted the national treasury and refused to invest in the country and the Middle Class owes them something more? The so-called job creators, created no jobs. They just took their tax-cuts and ran. Not because they are uncertain...because they are greedy, heartless and unpatriotic.
The Middle Class stood in unemployment lines, suffered the humiliation of food stamps and food pantries, dropped out of college or couldn’t go, moved back home, suffered through illness without medical care, watched the value of our homes diminish, moved into our cars and onto the streets. We already went over the cliff. We are broke and we should sacrifice more?
I DON'T THINK SO.
To whom much is given, much is expected; and that is as it should be. The rich reaped all the benefits of the downturn, so let them finance the upturn. Raise taxes on the rich and give the Middle Class the tax cuts for a change. Raise the minimum wage to $12.00 an hour, so anyone working can earn a living wage. Give everyone access to healthcare and an education. After a few decades, like the rich had, then we can talk about “fair and balanced”. Until then, leave the Middle Class alone!
IT'S OUR TURN!
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/11/i-dont-give-tinkers-damn-about-fiscal.html
November 28, 2012
The CIA is just one of 17 agencies and organizations that make up the U.S. Intelligence Community. Charged with collecting information that reveals the plans, intentions and capabilities of our adversaries, agency analysis provides insight, warning and opportunity to the decision-makers charged with protecting America. The Benghazi debacle falls squarely in the lap of the CIA.
Is it a matter of honor?
The idea that Ambassador Susan Rice should become the object of such harsh criticism for the Benghazi foul-up is asinine. She is neither responsible for the conclusions posited by Intelligence, nor the security of our Embassies. Benghazi was an Intelligence failure, specifically CIA. General Petraeus was the Director of the CIA and should therefore be accountable for the agencies missteps, not Susan Rice. The idea that General Petraeus, as a matter of honor, resigned because of an extramarital affair strikes me as ridiculous. He was no longer in the military and the affair ended months before he was installed as Director of the CIA. Clearly, General Petraeus felt his honor was in tact as long as his affair was a secret.
Frankly, I think revelations about the affair served as a timely cover for General Petraeus to resign in the wake of the Benghazi screw-up that should have pointed directly to him. It’s a distraction. Benghazi isn’t just about sullying the foreign policy record of President Obama, it’s also about preserving the legacy of a storied Four-Star General. And who better to defend his legacy than a war victim who has been dubbed a war hero? The Benghazi attack should call into question the competence of General Petraeus. That isn’t to suggest that he was not a transformative military man, but military men execute orders. Is it possible that as a Director of an Intelligence organization, he simply wasn’t as effective and percipient as we would expect? How is it that during such a catastrophic CIA failure, he has completely escaped scrutiny?
Was the Benghazi attack spontaneous or planned?
A Defense Department official testified that:
“...there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."
While, CIA’s acting director, Michael Morell, testified that
“Benghazi agents never requested Europe-based special operations teams, specialized Marine platoons, or armed drones on the night of the attack.”
According to Rep. King, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, General Petraeus contradicted his original testimony. In his original testimony (September 14), Petraeus had focused almost exclusively on the YouTube video as the prime motivator for the attack. In later testimony (November 18), Petraeus told the committee that he knew "almost immediately" that the attack was the work of an al-Qaeda affiliated militia called Ansar al Sharia and that the "overwhelming amount of evidence said this was a terror attack."
Now, I’m not Sherlock Holmes, but if it was a “planned attack”, how was a covert operation caught totally off-guard? The fact that it was, lends credibility to the argument that it was a spontaneous attack. And if General Petraeus knew “immediately” that the attacks were the work of an Al Qaeda affiliate, why didn’t he say so? And since he failed to, why, like Ambassador Rice isn’t he being lambasted for misleading Congress?
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/11/the-benghazi-questions-no-one-is-asking.html
The Benghazi Questions No One Is Asking
The CIA is just one of 17 agencies and organizations that make up the U.S. Intelligence Community. Charged with collecting information that reveals the plans, intentions and capabilities of our adversaries, agency analysis provides insight, warning and opportunity to the decision-makers charged with protecting America. The Benghazi debacle falls squarely in the lap of the CIA.
Is it a matter of honor?
The idea that Ambassador Susan Rice should become the object of such harsh criticism for the Benghazi foul-up is asinine. She is neither responsible for the conclusions posited by Intelligence, nor the security of our Embassies. Benghazi was an Intelligence failure, specifically CIA. General Petraeus was the Director of the CIA and should therefore be accountable for the agencies missteps, not Susan Rice. The idea that General Petraeus, as a matter of honor, resigned because of an extramarital affair strikes me as ridiculous. He was no longer in the military and the affair ended months before he was installed as Director of the CIA. Clearly, General Petraeus felt his honor was in tact as long as his affair was a secret.
Frankly, I think revelations about the affair served as a timely cover for General Petraeus to resign in the wake of the Benghazi screw-up that should have pointed directly to him. It’s a distraction. Benghazi isn’t just about sullying the foreign policy record of President Obama, it’s also about preserving the legacy of a storied Four-Star General. And who better to defend his legacy than a war victim who has been dubbed a war hero? The Benghazi attack should call into question the competence of General Petraeus. That isn’t to suggest that he was not a transformative military man, but military men execute orders. Is it possible that as a Director of an Intelligence organization, he simply wasn’t as effective and percipient as we would expect? How is it that during such a catastrophic CIA failure, he has completely escaped scrutiny?
Was the Benghazi attack spontaneous or planned?
A Defense Department official testified that:
“...there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."
While, CIA’s acting director, Michael Morell, testified that
“Benghazi agents never requested Europe-based special operations teams, specialized Marine platoons, or armed drones on the night of the attack.”
According to Rep. King, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, General Petraeus contradicted his original testimony. In his original testimony (September 14), Petraeus had focused almost exclusively on the YouTube video as the prime motivator for the attack. In later testimony (November 18), Petraeus told the committee that he knew "almost immediately" that the attack was the work of an al-Qaeda affiliated militia called Ansar al Sharia and that the "overwhelming amount of evidence said this was a terror attack."
Now, I’m not Sherlock Holmes, but if it was a “planned attack”, how was a covert operation caught totally off-guard? The fact that it was, lends credibility to the argument that it was a spontaneous attack. And if General Petraeus knew “immediately” that the attacks were the work of an Al Qaeda affiliate, why didn’t he say so? And since he failed to, why, like Ambassador Rice isn’t he being lambasted for misleading Congress?
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/11/the-benghazi-questions-no-one-is-asking.html
November 28, 2012
A Republican senator on Wednesday praised U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice during an interview on CNN, saying Rice is a “very smart, very intelligent woman” and that she shouldn’t be held responsible for the misleading information she presented on the Benghazi terror attacks during her Sept. 16 Sunday show appearances.
Republicans led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) had led an all out assault on Rice over the past several weeks, suggesting that she deliberately misled the American people when she said the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans was sparked by a demonstration against an anti-Islam video (Rice said yesterday that there was no demonstration). Because of the dust-up, McCain called Rice “not very bright” and a group of House Republicans called her “incompetent.”
But Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) doesn’t believe that to be the case. While Isakson told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien this morning that the administration needs to answer questions about what happened in Benghazi, he added, referring to Rice, “what you don’t want to do is shoot the messenger.” Rice “is a very smart, very intelligent woman. I know this Ms. Rice, I think she’s done a good job as Ambassador to the U.N.,” Isakson said:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/28/1248781/isakson-susan-rice-libya/
GOP Senator Praises Susan Rice: Don’t ‘Shoot The Messenger’ On Benghazi Intel
A Republican senator on Wednesday praised U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice during an interview on CNN, saying Rice is a “very smart, very intelligent woman” and that she shouldn’t be held responsible for the misleading information she presented on the Benghazi terror attacks during her Sept. 16 Sunday show appearances.
Republicans led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) had led an all out assault on Rice over the past several weeks, suggesting that she deliberately misled the American people when she said the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans was sparked by a demonstration against an anti-Islam video (Rice said yesterday that there was no demonstration). Because of the dust-up, McCain called Rice “not very bright” and a group of House Republicans called her “incompetent.”
But Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) doesn’t believe that to be the case. While Isakson told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien this morning that the administration needs to answer questions about what happened in Benghazi, he added, referring to Rice, “what you don’t want to do is shoot the messenger.” Rice “is a very smart, very intelligent woman. I know this Ms. Rice, I think she’s done a good job as Ambassador to the U.N.,” Isakson said:
SAKSON: Well if she is then she come before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We’ll get the answers to questions and quite frankly, if we don’t get some resolution for the questions regarding Benghazi and the death of Chris Stevens, then I doubt very seriously that she would be confirmed but if we get the truth – what you don’t want to do Soledad is shoot the messenger. She read what she was told to read on those days and those five interviews on that Sunday right after Benghazi. …
She’s become the focal point because she was put on the tip of the spear by the administration. She is a very smart, very intelligent woman. I know this Ms. Rice, I think she’s done a good job as Ambassador to the U.N.
She’s become the focal point because she was put on the tip of the spear by the administration. She is a very smart, very intelligent woman. I know this Ms. Rice, I think she’s done a good job as Ambassador to the U.N.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/28/1248781/isakson-susan-rice-libya/
November 28, 2012
Are Republicans Pushing Kerry For SoS Over Rice So They Can ReElect Scott Brown For His Senate Seat?
Did Senator Barrasso let the cat out of the bag this morning on Jansing and Co.?
Is this their plan? To remove Senator John Kerry from his senatorial seat by nominating him for Secretary of State over Susan Rice?
These are distorted, trumped up charges against Susan Rice. These weasels and their motives need to be EXPOSED!
Here is Sen. Barrasso making his pitch for John Kerry saying his nomination would " sail through in the nominating process "..
November 28, 2012
Langer Research for ABC News/Washington Post (PDF). American adults. 11/21-25. ±3.5%.
Overall, do you support or oppose...
...raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 a year:
Support: 60
Oppose: 37
...reducing deductions people can claim on their federal income taxes:
Support: 44
Oppose: 49
...raising the age for Medicare coverage from 65 to 67:
Support: 30
Oppose: 67
PDF:
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1144a3FiscalCliff.pdf
These numbers once again show that the path forward is abundantly clear: let the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 expire, keep major cuts to Medicare benefits off the table, and don't use tax reform as an excuse to take away middle-class tax benefits. In other words, Americans support President Obama's approach—not Mitt Romney's and certainly not the Republican Party's. Given that President Obama won the election, that's not exactly a shock.
The key thing to remember is that Congress doesn't need to do anything in order for Bush's upper-income tax cuts to expire—under current law, they end on December 31, 2012. The question is whether House Republicans will extend tax cuts on all income below $250,000 or whether they'll hold those those tax cuts hostage as punishment for the expiration of the high-income cuts. Given that 60 percent of Americans—and four in ten Republicans—support ending the high-income tax cuts, it's hard to imagine Republicans will ultimately choose to go down that path. If they do, it would be political suicide, but even if they don't, they still need to deal with the fact that their other ideas—especially proposing major cuts to Medicare—aren't exactly popular either.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/28/1165281/-Poll-Strong-support-for-Obama-s-tax-plan-opposition-to-GOP-plan-to-cap-deductions-and-cut-Medicare
Poll: Strong Support for Obama's TAX PLAN, Opposition to GOP Plan To CAP Deductions And CUT Medicare
Langer Research for ABC News/Washington Post (PDF). American adults. 11/21-25. ±3.5%.
Overall, do you support or oppose...
...raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 a year:
Support: 60
Oppose: 37
...reducing deductions people can claim on their federal income taxes:
Support: 44
Oppose: 49
...raising the age for Medicare coverage from 65 to 67:
Support: 30
Oppose: 67
PDF:
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1144a3FiscalCliff.pdf
These numbers once again show that the path forward is abundantly clear: let the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 expire, keep major cuts to Medicare benefits off the table, and don't use tax reform as an excuse to take away middle-class tax benefits. In other words, Americans support President Obama's approach—not Mitt Romney's and certainly not the Republican Party's. Given that President Obama won the election, that's not exactly a shock.
The key thing to remember is that Congress doesn't need to do anything in order for Bush's upper-income tax cuts to expire—under current law, they end on December 31, 2012. The question is whether House Republicans will extend tax cuts on all income below $250,000 or whether they'll hold those those tax cuts hostage as punishment for the expiration of the high-income cuts. Given that 60 percent of Americans—and four in ten Republicans—support ending the high-income tax cuts, it's hard to imagine Republicans will ultimately choose to go down that path. If they do, it would be political suicide, but even if they don't, they still need to deal with the fact that their other ideas—especially proposing major cuts to Medicare—aren't exactly popular either.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/28/1165281/-Poll-Strong-support-for-Obama-s-tax-plan-opposition-to-GOP-plan-to-cap-deductions-and-cut-Medicare
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
