Friday Morning Open Thread

For those of you not interested in Joran van der Sloot's sentencing, and with BTD out for a few more days, here's an open thread. All topics welcome.

< Feds Warn 23 Colo. Marijuana Dispensaries to Shut Down | Joran Van Der Sloot Sentenced to 28 Years >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "The King of Bain" (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 07:05:58 AM EST
    Four Pinocchios by the Washington Post.

    Romney may have opened the door to this kind of attack with his suspect job-creation claims, but that is no excuse for this highly misleading portrayal of Romney's years at Bain Capital. Only one of the four case studies directly involves Romney and his decision-making, while at least two are completely off point. The manipulative way the interviews appeared to have been gathered for the UniMac segment alone discredits the entire film.

    Newt's a liar - who woulda thunk it?

    Romney has rightly opened himself (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:11:23 AM EST
    up to scrutiny with the touting of his successful businessman credentials.  He claims that his whole life has been in the private sector, skipping his time running for office, and, of course, his one-term as Massachusetts governor (which seems to be be off limits for his campaign since it may conjure up thoughts of moderation by primary voters).   As for Bain, it is a capitalism vulture, but that is what it is supposed to be, and, Romney's job was to look out for investors and himself, not necessarily in that order.   The real, but less flashy question, is how does that type of business success translate to the presidency--other than providing evidence of success in a chosen field.   Calls to run the government just like a "business" are cringe-worthy.

    Newt (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:11:41 AM EST
    is worse than a liar. He's a baby. Like Harry Truman said if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    wow (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:14:53 AM EST
    someone is being misleading in a political campaign?  what next?

    I think I will just go back to bed.  I no longer have a reason to live


    HuffPo (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:24:14 AM EST
    . . . that is exactly what Gingrich has done, and done with astounding thoroughness, by acquiring the rights to a 28-minute attack documentary that's come to be known as "King Of Bain." Made "by former Romney supporters," the result is a potent polemic -- combining Ken Burns' style, the darkness of the "Daisy" ad, and a bottomless reservoir of immutable rage -- that paints Romney as a dark-hearted, vicious-minded, boodle-craving technocrat-privateer. It very trenchantly depicts the lives of ordinary people faced with declining job prospects and mounting expenses. It decries the indifference of Romney's brand of capitalism, and puts a human face on income inequality. If you wanted to mount an argument against corporate personhood on the grounds that a corporation cannot have a moral compass, this will do the trick.

    wow: this is being distributed by a Republican, not a Democrat. Purchased by a Gingrich super PAC, not MoveOn.org. And it's not been slapped together -- real care and real research went into this. But while plenty of GOP establishment types have a range of negative feelings about Romney -- from distrust to derision -- it's perfectly understandable that they'd blanch at the sight of this video

    It really is satisfying to see them hoisted on (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:12:37 PM EST
    their own petard. I doubt the Dem PACs would have even made such a video.

    I think they probably might have (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:31:08 PM EST
    but it would have been far less effective.  and when you add in all the video of Newt, Perry and Palin you get something quite potent.

    and I am not so sure it will not hurt him with gop voters.  he will probably still buy the nomination but he is damaged goods now and even republicans are talking about the fact that he is damaged goods.

    'scuse me while I do my happy dance.


    and this (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:32:43 PM EST
    quoted from fdl is the best and most important part

    Gingrich, by using that intuition to attack Romney, is also putting his entire party's economic message on trial.

    Just couldn't help himself (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:20:35 PM EST
    And why (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:30:59 AM EST
    Newtie is backing off the attacks, as I predicted, once he got heat from the powers that be.

    And a major backer of this ad is also backing off.

    Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson is distancing himself from the "King Of Bain" ads he helped fund by donating to super PAC supporting former House speaker Newt Gingrich. "He's not been involved in the strategies and the tactics," a source close to Adelson told the Las Vegas Sun. "I don't think anybody with an ounce of credibility would say Mr. Adelson is anti-capitalism or anti-business or even anti-Romney."

    This is getting all so predictable.  It's fun to sit back and laugh at those hangers-on who still see Newt or the Rickys as threats.


    back off? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:37:55 AM EST
    thats great.
    ok.  lets just put allllll this toothpaste back in the tube.

    good luck with that


    And yet (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    Romney is still up (average) by almost 10 points in SC, as of yesterday, and the Republican voters of SC are liking him better - especially more than they did 4 years ago.

    No matter how many backyard barbeques he attended or backs he slapped, Romney just did not seem to fit in [in 2008]. And it was not just because of his religion.

    "Everybody thinks it was the Mormon thing, but it wasn't," said Wesley Donehue, a South Carolina consultant and member of Romney's 2008 team. "It was a combination of Mormon, northeastern governor, flip-flopper, and the fact that he's just so good-looking. So it was a combination of all four of those things that really made people here take a step back and say, `I really don't know about this guy. I don't think I can trust him.' "

    Four years later, South Carolina appears to have warmed to Romney considerably.

    For one thing, the perception of inevitability among GOP voters who are most interested in seeing President Obama defeated may outweigh any cultural barriers still in Romney's path following his victories in Iowa and New Hampshire. (He has a solid lead in the state in the RCP Average.)

    But momentum isn't the only thing on Romney's side.

    For a host of other reasons, the former Massachusetts governor appears to be a much better fit for South Carolina than he was four years ago.

    According to Donehue, who is neutral in the race after a stint working for Michele Bachmann, the reason for Romney's revitalized hopes here has more to do with a comfort level South Carolina Republicans have developed with him over time.

    "Voters here have had four years to get to know him, so I think he's really started to bridge that trust gap because he's not new anymore," Donehue said.

    It is not going to hurt him with GOP voters (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    much at all. that's what makes it so dumb for them to do. It will hurt him most with general election voters.

    Just watched Colbert's "announcement" (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:20:49 PM EST
    from last night.  Have concluded Romney grits his teeth when he smiles--if that seeming smile is actually a smile.  

    that was priceless (none / 0) (#136)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:18:56 PM EST
    I love how he is pointing out the ridiculousness of the whole PAC - candidate 'non-coordination' thing. His lawyer is always so good in those segments too.

    How do you know? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:26:20 PM EST
    I'm not being snarky here but you would THINK it would hurt him with general election voters but then people were screeching about how the 3:00 a.m. ad had damaged Obama and maybe it did but not enough to lose the election. We'll only know if this stuff is damaging in hindsight.

    You are right - pure speculation (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:17:37 PM EST
    Could help enough with the GOP base to offset anyone else that is turned off. Who knows?

    I dont know (none / 0) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:58:22 PM EST
    I assume that was for me.
    but when you have republicans openly talking about how even if he wins the nomination he is damaged goods its a pretty good indication.

    Mitens is getting chewed up pretty good (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:07:40 PM EST
    And the Dems haven't even lifted a finger.

    I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today while in the car--I hadn't done that in years....

    Rush soounds dispirited.    And the confusion and and almost resigned apathy of his listeners who call in is palpable.....

    They have rotten candidates and know it...

    Rush went on and on how he knows why the Republicans want to nominate a good debater.....They just want to whoop Obama's arse in the debates--even if they lose the election.  Rush actually said that is how many of his listerners are thinking.  

    Many Republicans just want an intelligent person to hold up conservative values and have been stung by all the talk about how stupid W was......And now they have these clowns....

    There is real confusion and lack of excitement across the battle lines on the other side over there....


    What cheery Friday afternoon news! (none / 0) (#114)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    isnt it just? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:11:49 PM EST
    you know whats funny (none / 0) (#158)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:11:25 PM EST
    watching all the republicans who crapped on Newt when he was rising in the polls solemnly and with great sincerity talking about how disappointed they are in him.  and what a great leader he was.  and how they simply can understand why he is doing this.


    they cannot say Newt didnt warn them.
    he warned and warned and you would think that it might have occurred to them when they were describing him as a hand grenade and such that he could blow up in their faces.



    and the best part (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:18:45 PM EST
    the very most hilarious part
    is that if Romney had just ignored him and left him alone there is about 99.9% chance that he would have imploded and self immolated like he always does.

    Willards decision to drop millions in nasty personal adds on him will in retrospect be seen I believe as a huge miscalculation.


    FireDogLake (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:06:00 AM EST
    The full 30-minute attack ad called "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" is out, and it is really hardcore. Dolloped with a hint of xenophobia (Romney speaks French in the film twice), the film features the roadkill from the freight train of vulture capitalism, the workers who had the misfortune of getting caught up in a Bain Capital leveraged buyout. Romney is portrayed as such an unyielding greedhead that Gordon Gekko would blanch.

    Newt Gingrich has really opened a Pandora's box here. Conservatives have been allowed to skate by with their Randian worship of Wall Street titans for a long time. Gingrich is appealing to a white working class voter that, in the South at least, votes Republican. And he's doing it with an economic populist message, at least as far as he has pointed his attack at Romney. All the polls show that the public has an intuitive revulsion to the style of capitalism that has been practiced in this country for the past thirty years. Gingrich, by using that intuition to attack Romney, is also putting his entire party's economic message on trial.

    Romney speaks French in the film (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:09:16 AM EST
    and on that subject New goes in for the kill

    OMG he speaks french


    Too bad (none / 0) (#198)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 08:59:14 AM EST
    I would say that says more about them (none / 0) (#199)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 09:48:24 AM EST
    than the issue.  but I did like this paragraph

    "It's the Mormon thing, that and the Northern thing along with the wealth issue," said Steve Moss, a retired banker who three years ago became the state representative for the region.

    I am not a fan of Newt (none / 0) (#15)
    by loveed on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:32:35 AM EST
    but I like him attacking Romney. This hits Romney really hard, his business career is the only thing he has going for him. The unemployment rate in SC is above 9%. There are companies that was closed by Bain in SC.
     First Romney and the repub. party are hypocrites. What they did to Newt in Iowa was a new low. He gave them fair warning to play nice. They treated him like trash.
     Now Romney and the repub.party wants to whine about Newt. If they did not know this is how he would respond, how naive.
     Newt & Perry know they cannot win. But there going to taking Romney with them.
     Romney driving all over the country with the dog in a cage on top of the car, is far worse.

    Mitt and the dog (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    As Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, it was more than putting his dog on the roof.   The dog became so pertified that it lost control of its bowells.  Mitt just washed the dog and the car put the dog right back up there.....

    It was knowing his dog was terrified and still putting him on the roof.....


    Has he ever explained (none / 0) (#124)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:47:19 PM EST
    his reasoning regarding "Dog-Gate?"

    I believe (none / 0) (#126)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:52:19 PM EST
    that's the "Doggie-Crate" conspiracy.

    Roger that (none / 0) (#134)
    by smott on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    The "air-tight" thing sounded odd - how would the poor pup breathe?

    But he said the dog spends lots of time in the kennel - likely true - but NOT on top of a 60-mph moving vehicle. COme on.

    Honestly that whole thing creeped me out in a "I now know everything I need to know about this guy" kinda way.

    The interviewer did not press the point about the panic-pooping.  Just let Mitt off the hook. At least in the clip I saw....


    And his family just went along with it? (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    What planet are those people from?

    My husband would have as much luck putting one of our dogs in a crate bungeed to the roof of our car, as he would sprouting wings and flying.


    Thanks, all (none / 0) (#144)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    Looks like it was a case of incredible stupidity rather than cruelty, or sadism.

    Don't think the pooch cared about the "why."

    He said something about, "it's just like riding in the back of a pick-up" which, if the interviewer did his job, would've followed up with, "and that's just as stupid!"

    Drip, drip, drip; all these types of things are adding up to hurt him in his area of maximum vulnerability: His complete aura of being "out of touch" with 99% of humanity.


    Each has his own planet. (none / 0) (#153)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    I'm still hung up on Rezko. (none / 0) (#157)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:10:42 PM EST
    now its (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:00:42 AM EST
    actually (none / 0) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:56:50 PM EST
    its the guy who wrote a book on Condi Rice

    NY Times asks incredible question (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kmblue on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 07:50:03 AM EST

    When I say journalism (my former job) is dead, this is why.

    Take a look at the comments--they're blistering.

    Um, yes (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:34:54 PM EST
    Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another?

    It is called only writing verifiable fact.

    Definitely a comment section worth reading on that one.


    And in the followup column (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:37:21 PM EST
    the fool Brisbane only dug in deeper.  Did you see in it the reply from editor Abrahamson in that one? and yet more comments from readers as appalled as are thee and me -- and his editor.

    The clock is ticking for Brisbane, I bet.  But he probably, sadly, was telling a truth, too, about the NYT and msm mindset.


    maybe I didn't make myself clear (none / 0) (#11)
    by kmblue on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:14:58 AM EST
    A firestorm is raining down on the NY Times because of the blog post, by a NY Times Editor, that begins thusly:

    I'm looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge "facts" that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.

    I thought the job of journalists was to seek and report the truth, instead of being stenographers.


    Best comment I read (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by smott on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:35:38 AM EST
    ....had to do with the sneaky use of "vigilante".


    I also think "Truth Vigilante" is a great sort of Orwellian phrase - ah, so now someone who bases their thinking on facts and confronts people knowingly spreading falsehoods with factual information to the contrary isn't just an "honest person", they're a Truth Vigilante. Next stop - Truth Terrorist.


    Out of the park.


    Wilson said it best: "To control newspapers (none / 0) (#190)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:44:55 PM EST
    Flood them with facts."

    That was President Wilson and the printed word wholly comprised the "media."

    It still works.


    Exceptionalism in Afghanistan (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:46:45 AM EST
    RawStory, Friday the 13th

    CNN quoted an unnamed US Marine official as saying the military branch was "confident" the troops in the inflammatory video were from the 3rd Battalion 2nd Marine Regiment, based at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

    The unit deployed to Afghanistan, mainly in Helmand province, in early 2011 and returned in September or October, CNN reported, adding that two of the culprits had been identified but their names were not being made public.

    The video appeared to show four servicemen urinating on three bloodied corpses, and one of the men, apparently aware he was being filmed, saying: "Have a great day, buddy," referring to one of the dead.

    Panetta is "utterly deplorabled",  Hillary Clinton is totally "totally dismayed", Karzai is "deeply disturbed", the Afghans are dead, the soldiers are probably quaking at the prospect of a slap on the wrist, and the rest of the world is impressed all to hell.

    My reaction to the photo was (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:42:21 PM EST
    similar to that expressed by Secretary Panetta and Secretary Clinton.  But, I was also surprised by the reaction from guys at the gym....such as, well, they do terrible things to our guys, too.  Sure hope that this was a very, unrepresentative group, but it will be interesting to observe the wider response.  An encouraging thought, however, from the same gym guys was that we need to get out of Afghanistan, now.  

    I think when people start to (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:54:41 PM EST
    get situational and comparative about these things, looking for ways to diminish whatever the acts are as just being part of the whole war-is-hell thing, they might want to get in the Way Back Machine and try to remember - or Google it if they weren't old enough at the time to have a memory about it - how we felt when our dead soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

    Is urinating on the dead worse than dragging them through the streets?  Not really the point, is it?  And it's not like there haven't been other instances of US military doing worse than urinating.

    Yes, war is hell, but apparently the people who put together the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of war dead thought it important to inject some semblance of humanity into what is generally a less-than-humane engagement.

    Not that it's helped end war or teach anyone about the finality of death and the horrors of war, or anything, but at some point, we have to decide what kind of people we want to be.  

    Just my two cents.


    Agreed. And, if the matter of (none / 0) (#141)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:22:47 PM EST
    desecrating the Taliban fighter's corpses is to be chalked up as a ho hum event of war, a part of and not apart from the necessary killing of war, concern should at least  exist that such behavior is neither to the benefit of the counter-insurgency objectives nor to the well-being of the Marine's own colleagues.  Karzai is difficult enough without the overlay of inflammatory images spreading throughout Afghanistan.

    Moreover, the action of the Marines puts civilians, needlessly and counterproductively, in jeopardy all over the world.  As we know, burning of a Koran by some Florida preacher resulted in many killed including seven UN staff members in Mazar-i-Sharif.   Should these Taliban fighters turn out to be Afghan basket-weavers and poppy pickers, after further investigation, it will not help matters either.


    As was said to Scarlet (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

    Not that should be a shock to anyone around here.


    Not remotely surprising (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:53:18 PM EST
    Good to know you set the bar so low for acceptable behavior in the US military.  Guess you won't have any room to complain when the bodies of American soldiers are desecrated.

    If We Worried About Actual Living People this... (none / 0) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    ...much.  It's a really stupid thing to do, but would I rather have some guys wiz on me or kill me ?

    I get the outrage, but it's misplaced, we are making 100 times the fuss over wizzing then the killing.  Just more war insanity IMO.

    Pretty sure you can't disrespect someone more then ending their life.  Yet all the fuss is about urination, which is gross, but a hell of a lot better then the happenings at Gitmo.  But here is our press to tell us what we should be hyper-offended over.


    I think we are probably on the same page (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    although I think we might disagree over what we would go to war for.

    My position has always been that once we decide to wage war then we should use all our capabilities to win it as rapidly as possible with as few US causalities as possible. If that means convincing the enemy that we have zero respect for them while killing them and destroying their "infrastructure" and society, so be it.

    That's what we did in WWII. And that was the last shooting war we have won.


    I think Desert Storm was (none / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 07:20:10 PM EST
    necessary but caused by a misunderstanding by Saddam that we were too weak to interfere or else we "approved" although why he would think that I do not know.

    Nevertheless, once he threatened the stability of the oil market by invading we had no choice but to respond. I was in favor of taking Saddam out. One of the arguments was that if did so then the region would be destabilized and fall under the influence of Iran. That appears to have been correct, but years ahead of its time.

    Bush II did what he had to do based on the information he had. We have completely botched the "peace."

    I saw no national interest and was opposed to the war in Kosovo and told my elected "reps" that in no uncertain terms. But when the war started I shut up and supported the troops.


    I don't find much to disagree (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:08:48 PM EST
    with you. Desert Storm was a military success but a disaster in that we didn't finish the job. That led to Saddam tweaking the tiger and Bush's decision that Saddam had to go.

    And the only way you can "nation build" is to completely wipe out the past and start over. We did that in Germany, more so in Japan, with very good results. If we didn't want to establish a secular government in Iraq, and we didn't no matter how everyone wants to put a good face on it, then we should have just wiped out Saddam, made sure there were no WMD's, took enough oil to pay us for our trouble and went on our way.

    Instead we have mucked around a lot and accomplished little of lasting value. Sooner or later we will have to change the ME or pay the price.


    What this post reveals about your (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 10:20:58 AM EST
    personality and mental machinations, well I'm glad my stomach is only on coffee so far this morning.

    Local public radio station noted none of (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:44:33 AM EST
    the marines is from Camp Pendleton!

    yeah.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:13:00 PM EST
    everybody is frantically distancing themselves from it, I guess...

    It is horribly shameful (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    If all four are snipers too, well they don't let just anyone be a Marine sniper.  You have undergone a lot of training, you aren't a noob or a rube.  That is why everyone is talking about the command environment these guys were serving in.  Something does not add up.  They are being so quiet too, not releasing any names even yet.  Someone is investigating this all to hell, heads are going to roll probably because there is a larger story behind these guys thinking that what they were doing was okay and that they could get away with it.

    the command environment , (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:36:28 PM EST
    and the culture they create (and are responsible for) is most likely the problem I imagine. Guys don't don't something like this unless this kind of thing is, if not encouraged, at least tolerated?

    Agree (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:37:28 PM EST
    And that command environment (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:42:16 PM EST
    includes the CinC who is ultimately responsible. And so far not a word...

    He can't say anything Edger (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:50:08 PM EST
    If he says one word about their guilt, it can end his ability to prosecute them.  They are innocent until proven guilty with their command.  You can say anything YOU want.  The President cannot, until they have been tried.  He must remain neutral or lose his ability to prosecute them.  They have some rights too.

    There is a tell for you in the future though (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:55:08 PM EST
    If someone up the command chain is really shooting their mouth off about an incident like this, they could be attempting to make the soldiers unable to stand trial and have the incident fully investigated.  That would also mean that there would be no investigation that led to people being found guilty that would later be made public.

    That would be irresonsible as hell (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    and make it even clearer what that "command environment" mindset is.

    Two more paragraphs from the RawStory article...

    The Pentagon says it has not yet verified the footage, which has been broadcast by leading Afghan television station Tolo News and posted on the Live Leak website.

    The Taliban, who have made recent moves toward talks to end 10 years of US-led war in the impoverished country, described the apparent abuse as "an inhumane and savage act by the American soldiers in Afghanistan."

    The Taliban has said that this video (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:17:30 PM EST
    will not undermine our current talks with them thankfully.  Did someone put this video on youtube though attempting to single-handedly undermine our talks with the Taliban?  That is a question that I ask myself.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    The youtube I linked to was a 34 second video uploaded to youtube by Apna Daydal, who graduated from the University of Oxford, but it was first made by LiveLeak.

    But CNN also did a broadcast in which they repeatedly showed still photos from the video.

    And if you google marines pi$$ing youtube you get about 47 MILLION search results.


    They have tracked down the original uploading (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    though and youtube account.  The original posting was deleted along with the account, but I can promise you they are looking for who put that original up and all the particulars.

    It all comes back (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:52:13 PM EST
    to that command environment though. Great Karma....

    The thing (none / 0) (#156)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:07:57 PM EST
    that is overlooked,or rather, ignored, is that the stress level of these M.E. wars is substantially higher than previous wars. Since the environment our soldiers are placed into is insane the first goal in their training is to make them insane also.

    Take insanity trained soldiers, place them into an insane situation, then stand back and be "shocked" at the outcome.


    Since Bush left office (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 07:12:18 PM EST
    The Obama administration has become very concerned about the stress level.  No more deployments over a year now.  After this next batch goes to Afghanistan this month, no more deployments to combat zones for anyone longer than six months.

    My spouse was in an off the charts stress slot when he went to Afghanistan two years ago when Obama really booted up Afghanistan, and he was only slotted for six months.  When the meltdown over the doctor wanting to amputate Josh's feet took place, his command told him that they would send him home if he needed to go.  Because of the critical thinkers at TalkLeft though, even though I was hurt and shocked I stayed able to track with life in general and the horror passed for me (so I guess you could say that even TalkLeft has done its part for Obama's forces).

    At that time Special Forces on the ground were only slotted for 3 month tours though because of the stress.  The Obama administration has made direct pointed efforts to tone down the stress big time that our soldiers must survive and function in.


    Maybe a better alternative (none / 0) (#165)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:27:58 PM EST
    would be to finally give up on insanity as a driving strategy for foreign policy, and go with sanity for a few decades instead....

    I'll presume your question was <snark>:) (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 05:09:07 PM EST
    But, remaining on the subject of insanity, the eternal question encompassing the so-called civilized, capitalist, free enterprise societies, euphemistically labeled, democracies, is, "why do the 99% stubbornly, and consistently, support, and vote for, the 1%?"

    The question is not so much, "why," the answer being quite simple, but why the subject is not on the top of our current debate, that being the rapidly expanding spread between the "haves," and the "have-nots?"

    I caught just a couple of minutes of the Anti-Romney tape where some women were tearfully relaying their unfortunate circumstances after a Bain takeover: unemployment, loss of health care, etc, etc. So, where was the narrator screaming, "So, why do you continue to vote, over and over again, for the Party that's doing that to you?"

    I'll have more to say about this topic a little later, but this is enough for now.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 05:34:45 PM EST
    Well, I do raise that question often here, in various ways. And it upsets most when I do. I suppose if we could first convince everyone to throw out their TV's that would be a  good start.

    Consensual reality is a very powerful thing, isn't it? Or to put it another way, it's difficult for people living in "the matrix" to realize there is a matrix?


    or matrix-es............n/t (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    "an inhumane and savage act" (none / 0) (#193)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:03:23 PM EST
    Yeah.  It's so much worse than killing the poor bastards.

    Our Secretary of State can apparently (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    speak out.  Is she the President's mouthpiece on this?  

    Possibly she can be if she does not say (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:26:27 PM EST
    she is speaking for him. She is not in the chain of command.

    Kind of like the super-PAC coordinating with the candidate.


    Opinion of her opinions as S. of State (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:29:02 PM EST
    seem to vary. Sometimes she is evil incarnate and acting as an outlier.  Sometimes she is the Pres.'s spokesperon.  

    thus the function (none / 0) (#101)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:47:44 PM EST
    of the "woodshed"

    apart from true gaffes (like David Stockton's in the early days of the first Reagan administration), all sorts of notions can be trial-ballooned via cabinet members & assorted other underlings, who can then be slapped down if the wind changes

    they can also (e.g. Sebelius) be "credited" with full autonomy regarding unpopular policy decisions in an election year


    She is not in the chain of command (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:43:11 PM EST
    that I'm aware of, but military actions directly affect her ability to do her work.  If she isn't in the chain of command maybe she is safe to come out blazing and not impede prosecution.  She may be speaking for many who cannot speak right now.

    These types of revelations do nothing (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    to improve the employment picture for former military personnel returning to the U.S. and civilian job prospects.  

    Unfortunately I would have to say that that (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:18:19 PM EST
    depends on the employer.  There is a lot of blind hatred out there.

    Clay Pigeon (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:47:36 AM EST
    at WFMU has been covering OWS.  I found a segment from his recent show interesting (Dusty Show - Jan 12).  He interviews a 50 year old organizer who is trying to deal with sexual assault in the camps.  She's not getting a ton of support.  She says "I'm 50 years old and to think that I have to come in here and represent basic feminist values, which are so, you know, foreign to them, is amazing to me." "I'm not giving up because it's too important to give up, and we don't have a good alternative, so let's make this work."  Interview's at about the 10 minute mark.

    I admire her commitment.  The problems she's facing anger me but don't surprise me.

    Scary developments in India... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:07:10 AM EST
    Check out the Universal ID system they're rolling out.  National ID number tied to biometric identification...fingerprints (all 10), iris scan (both eyes), and face pic.  Not mandatory (yet), but if you're on the dole or want a bank account in India you will need to get numbered, printed, scanned, and photographed.  Surpised they're not asking for a dna swab.


    I can easily see something (none / 0) (#29)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:20:22 AM EST
    like that coming to this country soon, especially if the Repubs run the table this fall.  That and microchipping everyone who wants any govt benefits or who wants to vote in a federal election.

    It will be justified on nat'l security and efficiency in govt and business grounds, and of course to prevent voter fraud.

    Coming soon to a Big Brother Superpower near you.


    Totalitarianism... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:29:38 AM EST
    is a bipartisan affair I'm afraid...Brand D eats it up too.

    We've already got the number, they'd just have to tie it to biometric data, and it's all over baby.  

    I just hope the full-on dystopia drops after I'm dead.  Sorry kids.


    In India (none / 0) (#35)
    by smott on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    Huge portions of the population don't have bank accounts because they're living hand to mouth. Migrant workers living in tent cities. They make enough cash for samosa and a cigarette and a Kingfisher if theyre lucky.

    India doesn't even know its total population because so many are born in the plains areas and never see hospital to get a birth certificate.

    And given the incompetence of the govt to enforce anything I'll wait to see how well they enforce any of this....


    They wish they had tents to live in . (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:11:53 PM EST
    That would be an upgrade.  

    Blue tarps is what I saw. (none / 0) (#191)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:46:11 PM EST
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 12:57:04 AM EST
    Hope you're right... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:00:10 AM EST
    and the whole thing is an epic fail, for India's sake, and the worlds.

    But as India "advances" (regresses?), more will want bank accounts and access to social services, which means volunteering to be treated like cattle.


    Evangels will be all over this story (none / 0) (#40)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    as evidence the anti-christ is nearby. Gotta have the "mark of the beast" on the right hand or forehead to buy or sell, according to Book of Revelation. Many modern evangels interpret this "mark" as a computer chip implanted in the hand.

    I agree KD..is a might spoooooooky.


    The Sage of Capitol Hill (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:08:42 PM EST

    someone on teevee just called Luke Russert the sage of capitol hill.

    personally I think of him more as the dill of capitol hill

    Will you be here all week? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:11:07 PM EST
    I will (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:48:20 PM EST
    try the veal.  its excellent

    OK I found it. Shrek. (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    I'm going to call him Rosemary (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:36:10 PM EST
    Digby will probably do a riff on this. (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:12:42 PM EST
    Shill of Capitol Hill has a certain (none / 0) (#113)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:17:59 PM EST
    appeal, as well...

    shill works (none / 0) (#171)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 05:17:06 PM EST
    access its all about access

    Humorous video re the inventor (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    who died this week:

    The page turner

    I post this as a public service as capthowdy has suddenly become so serious!

    We gotta lighten that boy up (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:53:23 PM EST
    Gibbs swearing at the first lady&Jarret (none / 0) (#9)
    by loveed on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:07:52 AM EST
    I was not paying much attention to the book about the Obamas, until Michele gave her Interview. First she should have ignored the book. Every administration has ton of book written about them.
    Ask Bill & Hillary.
     I won't read the books. But this really bothered me. Robert Gibbs swearing at the first lady and Jarret. If this is true,why was he not fired. He has no respect for women.
     Michelle Obama talents has gone to waste. She has a Princeton law degree. She graduated in the 80's, when it was really hard for blacks to get into Princeton. She supported the family while Obama pursued his political career.
     What is her job, working in garden(or fields)and helping fat kids. Don't get me wrong this is important.But not first lady important
     Our young women needs a role modal. Her history is so important.Her struggle was harder than her husband. She truly understands whats it like growing up black in America.
     I have read how badly women are treated in this administration. But when the first lady or any women is treated like this in the work place,there should be big time ramifications.
     Gibbs continue to work for Obama reelection campaign. Shouldn't Obama be inviting him to a duel?

    The first lady chooses her areas of interest, love (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    Perhaps, we should defer to Michelle Obama's decision to emphasize what she does & be who she is. There really isn't any evidence to suggest that MO is being pushed to be  & do anything other than what she wants to do in the context of being First Lady.

    I appreciate her areas of emphasis.  And, I really appreciate that she is respected enough in her own right that "her man" doesn't have to challenge anyone to protect her honor. This mature woman can & does define herself...a good role model for young girls as well as for anyone observing.


    You really believe she is happy working (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by loveed on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:12:59 AM EST
    in the fields. She grew up in Chicago, I doubt she even had a garden.
     Our young women need a role modal. I don't think many young women want to work in the fields.
     Michelle worked really hard to get into Princeton
    only to be regulated to the fields. Hillary set the tone for first lady. You don't have to bake cookies.
     Gibbs is an a$$hole. You really think it OK for him to talk to anyone this way? But were talking about the first lady. The author was on cnn PM show last night. She said this happen in a meeting with others there, not just the three of them. " I don't give a f##k if she went to Princeton" to Valerie " Fu".
      He is her husband. Call me old fashioned, Gibb should have been punched in the mouth and fired. Not only is this disrespectful to his wife it's also degrading. How do other staffmembers respect her, when Gibbs is allow to talk to her in this manner? Plus this makes Obama look like a wimp.
     Michelle is a lady. But she should have taken off her earrings, and took him out herself.

    I'm inclined to agree, at least as to (none / 0) (#38)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:48:22 AM EST
    my first reaction.  I would have preferred to also read how an angry Obama confronted Gibbs later in the day and received a profuse apology followed by another directly to Michelle.

    Had this been JFK or Lyndon or Carter, the aide would have been cleaning out his desk by the end of the day.  Johnson then would have arranged for the IRS to audit him for the next five years and also managed to ensure the guy's next job would have been nothing beyond bank teller.  The aide would also thereafter have some not unreasonable concern about his physical safety.

    As for Michelle she was probably wise not to tear into Gibby in retaliation.  She's hamstrung having to avoid reinforcing the Angry Black Woman stereotype the RW created and so must be more careful than most FLs.

    Re her smarts and talents being underutilized so far, check.  She can partially make up for it by being a prominent public surrogate for her husband on the campaign trail this fall.  She needs to be much more visible else her WH days will be over.


    She will be fine (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:37:30 PM EST
    And, come now...we don't need the reversion to fists to defend the "little lady" stuff.  What an insult to MO that would be.

    You are right on about increasing her speaking engagements for this campaign. As a veteran of every manner of political speech, my fortune in hearing a speech by the First Lady during the 2010 senatorial campaign will be long remembered as she is quite the powerful speaker.  BTW, her widely communicated interests in eating healthy & growing healthy seemed to spur a lot of Denver metro suburban women to hear her that day...judging from comments around me then & news write-ups later that day.  Further, she was credited with a noticeable positive result in suburban votes for the Democratic candidate (Bennett) on whose behalf she spoke. A side note:  a number of women brought their offspring to share this event & hear about her thoughts on areas of mutual interest...and, they voted later.  Yes, the First Lady is one fine speaker, a person of integrity and a person of political smarts.  (I 'm thinking she knows how to handle second-hand reports of common cussing without the vapors & without making a mountain out of less than a molehill.)


    I think you're confusing (none / 0) (#115)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:21:17 PM EST
    me with another poster, except as I implied some later unfortunate physical repercussions to the aide in the hypothetical case of LJB.  Besides I'm not much for settling things with fists, and that's probably doubly true for the even-keeled to a fault Barack Obama.  I'm the guy for the profuse, sincere apologies followed by having the aide stay late for the next thirty days helping out the janitorial crew.

    Btw I'm also in favor of Michelle's promoting organic healthy food.  I probably expected more from her in advising on policy and/or personnel given her background and overall I think she's been too defensive about asserting herself in substantive ways and in being Hillaryed in the media.  But still she's been a positive for this admin; I just want to see more of her outside of her chosen FL duties and I don't want her holding back as happened in the midterm elections.


    Note (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:38:23 PM EST
    People never got the ironic twist of my name and we had a big debate where I tried to explain the stereotype and irony to a few people here to no avail.

    Nice to have the first lady break the Angry Black __ down for everyone. Makes it easier to explain.  Some people here thought I was nuts.  It stunk to have to explain the "joke".


    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:28:17 AM EST
    there's been a couple of stories about how badly women are treated in the Obama White House. But what did you expect when you have frat boys like John Favreau there? I mean this is a guy who had a picture on his facebook page of fondling a cut out of Hillary and nothing was done. Some women complained and Obama took them to lunch and apparently patted them on the heads.

    Why is swearing at women (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:36:15 AM EST
    any different than swearing at men?  An inquiring feminist wants to know.

    It's not, really (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:54:19 AM EST
    I would have sworn back at him, by the way.   ;-)

    I probably would have too (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:51:44 AM EST
    Just one word to let him know I could do the same thing, it isn't special.  I would have probably said something really rotten in a motherly voice too about using your words.

    On a different hand, I think it is okay for women to be strong enough to handle a swear word.  It is only a word that usually has little to do with the reality of the situation.  It can be used to vent frustration, which I can usually just blow off.  It can  be used in an attempt to belittle someone though too, and I want women to be able to dissect that and even point at the zero value and meaning and calmly peer back at someone during those events.

    I know that is a lot to ask though, because there is usually a lot of volume and energy behind it all too.


    reading about this (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:57:17 AM EST
    I found this

    men in the English-speaking world swear in public up to around 15 percent more frequently than women do [source: AdAge]. Women are typically held to a stricter standard. Society tends to make harsher moral judgments about women who swear.

    this must be the reason (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    everyone loves Dexters sister Deb.  I know its why I do.

    I cuss (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    I get away with it down here too. My husband says it is considered a part of my charm.  Sometimes though only a cuss word suffices, anything less is self victimization.  How can you run a couple of miles and not be able to cuss if something hurts? That is why so few women are into fitness down here, cuz their cusser is stopped up :)  And you get older, and more things start hurting more often :)  Phuck man!

    Now I'm wondering. What were Gibbs' (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:06:54 PM EST
    exact words.  Do we know?  

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:46:29 AM EST
    I would have said the same, but it's much more meaningful coming from you. Of course dropping the drunken sailor act completely (there I go stereotyping sailors) would be better.

    So Everyone Who Has Ivy League... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:22:08 AM EST
     ... who doesn't ____, is wasting their talents ?

    I for one happen to think educating kids about nutrition is extremely important.  Her influence has been directed at childhood obesity, families of veterans, and the homeless.  And from what I can tell, she is dedicated to making sure her children live a life of as much normalcy as possible.

    I don't mean to speak out of turn, but to me feminist means women doing whatever they F they want, and the fact is neither of us know if that is true.  But I would take that gig any day of the week and I would never consider helping people a waste of talent.

    If only her husband would get on that page, much of the needless suffering could be eliminated.

    And I also think in this day and age we don't fire people for swearing.  It's in appropriate and unprofessional, but not a firable offense.


    Swearing in the workplace is pretty common (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:47:12 PM EST
    these days anyway, by both sexes. In no way a firing offense on its own.

    A coworker had his 10 yr old girl in a meeting on 'take your daughters to work day'. It has been known since as the day she learned rats have a*es and god does give a da*.


    The reality is (4.25 / 4) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:29:23 AM EST
    The Democratic sexist powers that be don't like a working first lady any more than the Republican sexists do.  

    They sat her down, they shut her up.  They turned her into their cookie-baking bimbo.  She accepted it because she'll come out on the other side a very wealthy woman.


    So tell me (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    Are you saying Michelle is a spineless wuss that has no ability to stand up for herself, and welcomes her role as a sellout of everything she believes in so she can cash in down the road like a high class hooker?

    I think the reality is far more likely (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:46:35 PM EST
    to be the First Lady identifying an area of interest and advocacy in which she can fully engage without encroaching on the president's political territory, because - like it or not  - the powers of the presidency do not vest in his or her spouse.

    Given the vast scope and reach of the president's power, there isn't a whole lot she can fully engage in that doesn't cross that line.  Like it or not, the First Lady becomes something akin to a First Mom, engaging in areas the involve children, education, nutrition, literacy, and so on.  Because who is going to object to people eating healthier, to children getting a better education, to raising the literacy levels?

    She does what she can do, within the confines of the title.  

    And, if memory serves, Michelle didn't just automatically give her approval to her husband to run for the presidency, because he knew how circumscribed her life would become, and she knew she would have to be fully accepting of that in order for it to work.

    I think it might have been Jackie Kennedy who began to put some cracks in the First Lady mold, opening the door to succeeding First Ladies to be more than ornamental hostesses, to have some voice and say some things that mattered.

    Each First Lady since has made her mark in some way, and I have no doubt that people will look back on the things Michelle Obama has done, has spoken out about, has worked for, and find much to respect her for.  

    For my money, if she is successful in helping guide two young women to the threshold of an adulthood of intelligence, accomplishment, dignity, grace and a respect for the value of public service, she will have done a job for which she rightly deserves commendation.


    Wow. Just . . . wow. (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:42:58 PM EST
    Jackie Kennedy broke out of the ornamental mold, and was the first to do so?

    Eleanor Roosevelt ought to come to mind.  

    Not that even she was the first First Lady to do so.


    doh! (none / 0) (#172)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 05:23:24 PM EST
    thanks for that timely reminder . . .

    Of course Eleanor Roosevelt should (none / 0) (#180)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 06:15:40 PM EST
    come to mind - my bad for leaving her out - but for one, I wasn't alive when Eleanor was First Lady, hence I have no memory of her contributions (maybe commenting-while-working isn't the way to go, huh?), and for another, Jackie had the advantage of television, affording her the opportunity to go into millions of homes in a way First Ladies either didn't have the advantage of, or chose not to exploit.  As an aside, I notice you didn't mention Mrs. Truman or Mamie Eisenhower - so there were a number of years after Eleanor when the First Lady kind of faded into the wallpaper - or am I wrong about that, too?

    The purpose of my comment, actually, was not to be given an "F" in history, but to make the point that First Ladies have always had to work within limits that they did not get to define, so expanding those limits has come slowly - and clearly, it has been more important for some First Ladies to push those boundaries than others.

    Working within limits we have had no say in defining is not something new, but there has obviously been more evolution in that area in the private sector than within the walls of the WH, which is why it may look and feel like a step back to see a strong, intelligent, accomplished woman - which Michelle Obama certainly is - take on what appears to be a subservient role.

    [Will you let me know how long I have to sit in the corner?]


    In my class, you would go to the front (none / 0) (#182)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 06:45:56 PM EST
    No corner for your very perceptive, heart-felt observations, Anne. Especially, now that we have added in Hillary Clinton's muse & model, Eleanor Roosevelt, and the others. (y'know, I still remember the press-beatup that Roslyn Carter endured for having the temerity to sit in on Cabinet meetings.)

    There is progress. And, it takes strong women like Michelle Obama and so many of her predecessors to take those steps. What is so heartening here is that so many sense the sheer import of a First Lady being able to frame her own role. Frankly, at first, I wanted MO to come on with all kinds of "meaningful" initiatives...at first.... And, then I looked & realized that the definition she is outlining is so important for so many in the context a First Lady is necessarily given. Think President Kennedy's long-remembered Fitness Challenge for starters. I'm glad to see this First Lady act with confidence, depth, & purpose.

    Thank you, Anne.


    You can come out of the corner (none / 0) (#196)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:16:20 PM EST
    to hie thee to a library for some fine books about our First Ladies, many a marvelous woman among them, some who actually had careers, even before ER.

    One of many things I liked about ER, though, was that she did not stop her career when in the White House.  Well, she had so many careers that she had to cut back on a couple of them to be FDR's "legs," as he said, to go where he could not go.

    But she continued her column, her radio work, and more, and I would have hoped that example would have allowed her successors to do so.  Sadly, not so.  However, others have emulated ER to an extent in also being advisors to their spouses -- although none have matched her ability to staff the federal government with her longtime political allies, as politics had been another of her careers.  To her, we owe the first woman on the Cabinet, the first "black Cabinet," etc.

    I actually would put Jackie Kennedy low on the list of First Ladies in your lifetime who had significant influence in the White House in that way -- although I applaud her for what she did in historical preservation of the White House and in other contributions to arts and culture.  Then again, we never got to see what she could have done in a second term, sadly.  That frees First Ladies, too.


    This TeresaInSnow2 Comment is the most (none / 0) (#133)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:05:27 PM EST
    ridiculous comment you will read today.

    No need to wait to give the award.


    well, this is the party line (none / 0) (#163)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:19:57 PM EST
    in certain quarters, where Michelle Obama ends up being branded a "bimbo" if not worse

    i wonder whether this exchange, buried in a thread from earlier this week, an exchange on the topic of what that "party line" embodies, has a place in today's conversation


    Mrs. Obama (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:54:58 AM EST
    is a graduate of Princeton (A.B.) and Harvard Law (J.D.).

    What a waste of talent (none / 0) (#28)
    by loveed on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:14:55 AM EST
    I think she has talent (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by sj on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:29:58 AM EST
    and intelligence.  And she has ambitions for her family.  But, even in light of a pretty distinguished personal career, I'm not sure she has that much personal ambition.  I think back to Valerie Jarrett's job offer that Michelle insisted her fiance approve before accepting.  It seems she's always put his interests first.  Nothing wrong with that, just don't expect her to be what she is not.

    I do not look at it that way, (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:32:58 AM EST
    first of all, in my view, education, in general, is not wasted.  And, in the case of Mrs. Obama, it would seem that her generalized and specialized education and training are put to use in the plethora of demands and expectations that Americans seem to impose on presidential spouses.

    Did you really just type that? (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    As if raising the next generation of women who know their worth too isn't probably the single most important task any woman can do?

    Isn't that io to the First Lady herself (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    As Michelle Obama said--and, this is paraphrasing--"who knows what I'm feeling...or, for that matter, what anyone is feeling.".

    I would say that trying to mold her into what we might want her to be, and without regard to what she herself wants, is a sign of disrespect.  The real waste would be if she has to sell herself out to appease a purported image of what she must be.  We could trust that she is intelligent enough to know what she wants?


    Wasted? She had a very successful career (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:18:28 PM EST
    pre-WH years, and her talents helped propel them into the WH. She can write her own ticket after the WH. And from what I can tell she is making the most of her time in the WH, within the boundaries she herself has set up. She has not wasted a thing.

    Curious as to What She Should be Doing... (none / 0) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    ...that would be worthy of your praise ?

    I don't know what she want to do (none / 0) (#122)
    by loveed on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:45:31 PM EST
     Michelle is the first black first lady. When his presidency ends and history is written, will she stand out,will she make a mark?
     I think we should all treat each other with respect. On any job where insubordinate disrespect the boss or his wife, there usually fired. Because it the right thing to do.
     I laugh at all the racist claims made. Because so many people use as an excuse. But in this case I can't figure out if Gibbs is a racist,or have no respect for women. White men (not all,but enough) had no respect for black or white women. They think they can say any and do anything.
     Maybe I'm from a different generation, but when you use the f-word to someone wife or co-worker, someone should be fired. It's disrespectful, and boundary have be cross.
     People will always make excuses for Obama. I guess his re-election is more important than the honor of the first lady.



    Obviously a Different Generation (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:07:41 PM EST
    Those are some pretty big stokes you are painting about white men, ridiculously big.  And then you laugh at racism claims, I don't really care, it's clear you are out-of-touch, but how is this not racist and sexist ?
    White men (not all,but enough) had no respect for black or white women.

    I, and others, think she's doing a damn good job, but you seem to think she should be ____.  Anytime you feel like mentioning what she should be doing, please do.  Because we are kind of at a stand still until you decide what is best for her.

    And get over the swearing, it's not a fireable offense.  It may not be kosher, but where I work, it happens from time to time, just like someone yelling.  It looks bad on them, but really, don't have better things to worry about then an occasional bad word.  You seem to be the only offended by it.


    I am 58yrs. old (none / 0) (#186)
    by loveed on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 07:21:38 PM EST
     White men not all think they can say and do what ever they want to women. Why do you think we have sexual harassment laws.
     It use be a part of every women job to make the coffee. Unequal wages is a given even today.
     I have a lot of respect for Michelle. When she went to Princeton this was still a very racist country.
     It was hard for black men, but double for black women.She had to work harder for her degrees,her grades had to be better.
     Maybe next month we can all get together and have a honest discussion about race. We can  bring our life experiences.
     I don't think she worked this hard, to have some a$$hole talk to her in this manner.
     Name me any other first lady,that and aide would talk to her in this manner.It's funny how you can't tell a dirty joke, because someone may be offended. But it's alright to say FU to Michelle & Valerie.
     This is a lack of respect plain and simple. And maybe even racist.

    loveed, it was unseemly (none / 0) (#187)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 07:51:22 PM EST
    for Robert Gibbs to speak of the first lady in such a disrespectful manner

    but actually i don't think he said "FU" to her or to Jarrett - here is a portion of the NY Times excerpt:

    [A]t [Rahm] Emanuel's 7:30 a.m. staff meeting . . . , [Valerie] Jarrett announced that the first lady had concerns about the White House's response to [claims made about the first lady in a new French] book. . . .

    . . . Mr. Gibbs yelled, adding expletives. He interrogated Ms. Jarrett, whose calm only seemed to frustrate him more. The two went back and forth, Ms. Jarrett unruffled, Mr. Gibbs shaking with rage. Finally, several staff members said, Mr. Gibbs cursed the first lady -- colleagues stared down at the table, shocked -- and stormed out.

    Michelle Obama was not in the room when Gibbs said whatever he said

    & i hope we can have an honest discussion here at TL about race (or, as i would say, about racism, the only term that is actually needed)


    Not so, loveed (none / 0) (#183)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 06:53:14 PM EST
    Michelle Obama herself has spoken on the subject of her relationship with the President's staff...including Robert Gibbs.  She notes, with sincerity, that she & the President are close personal friends with the Gibbs family.

    I hear your concern about perceived disrespect; but, I'd suggest it is misguided. My trust is with Mrs. Obama. She has indicated that people get upset & say things they don't mean, etc....very openly, she said exactly that in this week's TV interview. That is adult; it is mature. It is acceptable and certainly very understandable.

    My question to you: Why the hang-up? While I understand your previous supportive comments about Repubs, why the hangup with the First Lady? Seriously.


    She confirmed this conversation (none / 0) (#188)
    by loveed on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:40:16 PM EST
      took place. In my original post, I felt she should not have done this interview. Until she gave the interview, I paid no attention to the book. She basically validated the whole book.
     I have so much respect for Michelle. She should be a role model to all young women,especially young black women.  If you ask young women what are Michelle interest, they don't know.
     I don't think her story has been told.In a fair world Michelle would be president. She had more experience. And she has lived as a black person in America all her life.
     If this type of language is flowing freely in the WH, it should stop. It promote an atmosphere of disrespect. This was not a private conversation.
     One of the reasons I don't like rap music, because of the language use toward women.
     I don't support the repub.or the dem party. I just think Huntsman is the most qualified candidate.

    Well.... (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:00:16 PM EST
    Some of us have different takes. The fact that MO did an open, expressive interview, IMO, stands her in good stead. She looked poised, confident, & very knowledgeable...and, she seemed to take this cussing kerfuffle with a grain of salt. That is what I saw; and, good for her.

    I hear what you are saying about the underpinnings of certain rap music. Lots of anger toward women there. But, that really is another topic.

    As for Huntsman: Your loyalty there is, of course, admirable. But (and, of course, its not over til its over) he looks to be out soon.  My guess has always been that this was an establishment-of-credentials-introduction for the next go-round four years from now. (I think that he is correctly making the assumption that the Repubs are in for a big realignment after a 2012 loss, and--in such realignment--he stands to gain a lot.)

    Oh, also: I'm even older than you. What I experienced in the workplace 30 and more years ago--as an example--was a lot worse in terms of behavior than what may concern you about Gibbs now.  Not to say that mouthing-off is acceptable or smart...just to say that the animosity back then was quite bad, open, and obvious.  


    I always wondered (none / 0) (#148)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:54:03 PM EST
     about Obama's propensity towards smarmy, irritatingly smirking, "wise ass" jerks as key aides and confidantes?

    In today's visual/optic "flash" media, why would you choose, instantly recoiling, reflexively repugnant, characters like Gibbs, Geithner, and/or Favreau as the "faces" for your Administration?



    W2 Time... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:15:01 AM EST
    W2's arrived...finally!  A W2 delayed is a return delayed, federal and state processing centers better hop to it, I need cashish para viajar.

    2011 Damage...2 grand for SS, party on old folks.  7 hundo Medicare, a couple hits of aspirin on me.  That covers the good stuff;)Federal income tax...56 hundo.  Further dispelling the myth that those who make under 50k pay no income tax.  Why does this feel backwards?  Shouldn't it be 56 hundo for the sick and the old and 27 hundo for the feds?

    And lets not forget NY State...another 17 hundo.  The bastards discontinued the state short form, subjecting people like me to an extra 2 pages of blank lines and over-complication.  Who is the tax wizard who came up with that one? Stupid stupid stupid. Ah well, just gimme real roulette and blackjack poker at Aqueduct and I'll forgive ya Empire State;)

    Combined over-payment/interest free loan 14 hundo.  Huasteca Potosina here we come!

    For Income Tax (none / 0) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:52:01 AM EST
    For that damage you should look to your return.  What is withheld is not your liability.  You should get some of those 56 units back.

    I mention this because I think the argument/myth about not paying tax is word play.  What they mean to say is that those people don't own any money at year end, or due a refund.  And using republican logic, that means they didn't actually pay.

    I have paid taxes for 23 years and never, ever had a zero liability.  And some of those years were pretty damn lean and I paid every year, like my equally broke friends.  I find it very hard to believe that I/we were some bizarre exception and unlike the rest of the country, we paid taxes on small incomes.

    Now I never owe at the end of the year, so I have never physically had to pay,  and I assume I am in the "Don't Pay Taxes" category.

    Or they are just flat out lying, which is probably more likely.  I hope our resident republican can chime in.


    64 hundo withheld... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:00:55 AM EST
    I get 8 hundo back...56 is the net damage.  

    I could probably get that down if I longformed and searched for deductions to take, but I just can't be bothered.  1040EZ for me, I'll pay a premium;)  

    I will say the IRS makes this unpleasantness much easier than the NY State Dept. of Taxation does, 1 page vs. 4 pages.  There is no reason for a state income tax form to be 4 pages unless your deducting for shoelaces.  Even the old short form they discontinued was 2 pages, still 1 too many.  


    I use Turbo Tax and really if I did not have (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:54:27 PM EST
    a mortgage I would have only charitable deductions, which you can do with the short form. Probably not worth your effort. Most of the deductions like medical,etc have to be over 7% (might not be the exact number) of your income before they are deductible.

    So rest assured you are probably doing the best you can.


    Isn't kdog "over-withheld"? Adjust the (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:09:31 PM EST
    withholding.  Don't let the government have your money for free.  Etc.  etc.  etc.  

    Ditto ruffian... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    I definitely don't wanna have to buy a money order for the IRS...I over-withhold as well.

    It's nice to get that extra check yearly, even though it is my money Uncle Sam was holding, it feels like hitting a number...classic self-delusion;)  


    I ahve had to do it, and it is paaainful (none / 0) (#130)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:57:48 PM EST
    So now I am extra cautious!

    Yes, that is true (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    I meant in the sense of not missing out on anything by doing the short form vs the long form.

    I over-withhold too, more or less on purpose, to make extra sure I do not owe. With interest on savings less than 1% these days, having them save my money is not a big deal - since I would spend it rather than save it anyway. I'd rather have the big check once a year to offset the time I take off at the holidays.

    ...and finance unexpected car repairs....


    Oh yes. And that. So, it is repairable? (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:25:08 PM EST
    Waiting for the call as we speak.... (none / 0) (#131)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    warranty might come through after all.

    It is definitely fixable, the question is how much and who pays. After I threatened to take it to another shop the service manager said he would use his special 'talk the customer off the ledge fund' to keep the price down if the warranty will not come through.

    We shall see....


    Free Money ? (none / 0) (#90)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:34:02 PM EST
    Lets see, 8 bills over a year, so average monthly balance of $400 X current interest rate, 1% would be good.

    4 whole dollars... versus the banks having that same free money, tough one.  And if kdog doesn't bank it, which I doubt he would, it saves him -0-, so it would be pure spite.


    $800 might morph into two trips to (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:38:00 PM EST

    Ruffian (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:43:52 PM EST
    Tax tip.  Every other year file w/o itemizing.

    Then you can take two years worth of property tax when you itemize, and not lose anything when you take the standard deduction.  Like this year, pay your prop taxes after the 1st of the year, next year pay them before the first. Just make sure they are paid twice in 2012.

    Then on your 2012 return, you get two years worth, the following year use the standard deduction.  It's a sizable savings if your only real itemization is taxes.


    Intersting - thanks! (none / 0) (#129)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:57:18 PM EST
    Right now the mortgage company pays the property taxes - can I take that job away from them so I can time the payments that way?

    But wait...that makes sense if I were (none / 0) (#149)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:55:29 PM EST
    lucky enough to have my mortgage paid off...alas, that is my major deduction, rather than the property taxes.

    At Least Run the Numbers (none / 0) (#164)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    You can always tell your bank to pay it a week or two earlier/later.

    I am on an arm, and once interest rates plummeted my mortgage deduction damn near ceased to become a deduction.  I claim that every other year when I itemize.  So you lose that deduction every other year, but gain the standard deduction those years.  If interest paid is lower then the standard deduction, run the numbers.


    In addition (none / 0) (#169)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:52:25 PM EST
    when you get down to where the mortgage interest barely makes the mark to itemize, you can pay the 2 Property taxes in one year as suggested by Scott and also make 13 mortgage payments by paying the month of January in December thereby increasing your deduction this year and taking the standard deduction the next.

    thanks both of you (none / 0) (#177)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 06:08:09 PM EST
    I will keep that in mind in the happy days ahead as my interest payments decrease.

    Actually, I think that as far as Fed income tax (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    liability goes, they are right. As much as I hate the GOP, I don't think they are playing word games by equating 'not paying taxes' with just not owing any more at years end. I think with the earned income tax credit these days there is a certain (small) level of income that does end up free from Fed income tax liability.

    What they are glossing over is the FICA, state taxes, sales taxes, etc that everyone pays, regardless of income.


    No Way... (none / 0) (#91)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    ...the claim is around 50% of people pay no taxes.

    thanks for the reminder (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:59:17 AM EST
    need to make sure all the right people have the new address

    Just so you know, the IRS does not start (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:50:49 PM EST
    processing returns till the 17th...but you can get yours at the head of the queue, like I did last weekend. Was also hoping for a quicker turnaround.

    Paychex... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:15:14 PM EST
    is off the hook then, good to know.  

    As to the mysterious non-taxpayers the right references, I still don't see anybody in the 35-50 range paying no federal income tax, even availing themselves of every deduction available.
    You'd need to have 20 dependents or something.


    Probably right about the 'no taxes' (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:24:54 PM EST
    I think the cut-off I read was around 20k or so. I will see if I can find it....

    I don't know who could begrudge anyone making 20k that money. (Well, I guess I do)


    For the EIC thing... (none / 0) (#93)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:39:36 PM EST
    it is pathetically low, if you make more than 13,660 single you are ineligible.

    13,660!  I'd love to know the planet the people who come up with these income thresholds live on.


    Family of 4, making 50K or less (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:40:10 PM EST
    ends up with no Fed Income tax liability. Here is a http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns/business-personal_finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-t ax/#.TxCG34HNlrs good article about it], which lists some of the reasons - increased deductions for dependents, and other tax credits.

    Fine with me, but many object.


    That is Shocking (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:51:12 PM EST
    I always thought they were playing games.

    50% of people are in 4 person families that make less then $50 is even more shocking.

    Thanks for the link.


    Yes, that is the shocking part to me (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:01:25 PM EST
    How many people live on so little money, and I have the nerve to whine about my problems.

    Fine by me too... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:28:47 PM EST
    Being childless is it's own reward, Uncle Sam can have the 56 hundo if the only way to keep it is to have 4 bloody kids I can't afford to bloody feed;)

    We went through this (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:54:29 PM EST
    a few years back... If I remember the point was that a family of four doesn't pay any taxes on about $38200 but I don't remember all the assumptions.

    Being single you get a total of $3700 personal and $5800 standard deduction, assuming no other deductions....


    Football Picks (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:29:15 AM EST
    More of a wish list...

    San Fran
    Green Bay

    I think the Texans have probably the best bet of all the game in pulling an upset.   Their D is better and they can put up points, what really scares me is a rookie 3 string QB against the Ray Lewis D.  If Yates doesn't turn it over, they will win IMO.

    I want/need Tebow to win doe the AFC championship is in Houston and of course to play the Broncos.

    As a lifelong Packer fan, Brees is my only worry in the NFC, so better they be eliminated.

    Instead of watching the 49ers/Saints... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Dadler on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    ...I have to use my USF season tickets to watch the Dons play Pepperdine at War Memorial Cracker Box, er, Gym.  Nice gawdame timing!  B-Ball game's on TV, which is why they can't move the gametime probably, so I may skip it, but I've missed two others because of travel, and I love my hoops.  Probably be me and ten other people there.  Still, I have a feeling that football game is gonna be a great one.  Saints performance on the road is so noticeably below their Superdome/Anydome output, and the Niners defense so stout, I just feel like it's gonna be a classic playoff battle.  That said, logic says the Saints, but that's why they play the games.

    Anyone else had some Agave wine out there? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:51:40 PM EST
    I want more!

    who me? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:38:51 PM EST
    Gingrich Calls for Pro-Gingrich Super PAC to Pull / Edit King of Bain

    dont blame me.  I called on them to immediately put all that nasty toothpast back in the tube.

    am I the only one (none / 0) (#168)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:45:47 PM EST
    who thinks that the suggestion they paid, what, 40,000 for this film and cut and aired multiple attack ads from it without knowing what was in it strains credulity?

    Is he allowed to call for them to do anything? (none / 0) (#178)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 06:11:19 PM EST
    Isn't that coordination? I suppose it is a rhetorical call, like when they call for the other candidates to pledge something or other.

    I love how the news reports about this flap (none / 0) (#179)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 06:13:15 PM EST
    rarely point out that it is not actually supposed to be Gingrich's campaign doing this, and not technically his PAC. No one believes that, or will even give lip service to believing it. Too funny.

    you know (none / 0) (#181)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 06:34:58 PM EST
    I finally read the post thing and I have to say I think the howls about inaccuracies are perhaps a bit overwrought.
    he only seems to take issue with three of the four vignettes and the one that seems to get the most media play is the UniMac one about which this is said:

    In fact, Mike Baxley, who was interviewed for the film, said that he and his partner had "absolutely no idea" that the interviews were for a film about Romney and Bain. He said they thought they were being interviewed for a documentary about the factory closing.
    "They said they wanted to know what it was like when the factory closed down," he said, and he, his partner and his partner's wife agreed to interviews after "they flashed a little money at us." (Baxley, a Republican who said he had not yet thought much about the nomination contest, declined to reveal the amount.)

    first, how much difference does it make if they knew why they were being interviewed?  they have a different version of the story for different occasions? and second how surprising is it that a republican, seeing what this has wrought, would want to back peddle if for no other reason the scorn of his neighbors?

    the one thing that seemed to be off to me was in the KB Toys one.

    Here again, the chronology is off. Bain Capital did not buy KB Toys until late 2000, more than a year after Romney left for the Olympics. But the film states, "Romney and Bain bought the 80-year-old company in 2000, loaded it with millions in debt."

    fair enough he was already gone.  it goes on to site some quotes they say are taken out of context about terms like "creative destruction".  fine but you should read it.

    I find the DDi one interesting.  

    The segment tries to tie Romney to Wall Street games-playing by focusing on allegations that Lehman Brothers pumped up the stock of DDi, allowing Bain Capital to sell its shares for big gains,

    goes on the say this

    It sold many of its shares for at least $93 million and received a $10 million management fee, but the newspaper said Bain retained a 14 percent stake in the firm that was wiped out when DDi filed for bankruptcy during the dot-com bust. (The film suggests Bain had sold all of its shares, saying it had "dumped the rest.")

    and finally this

    Romney, who again was by then involved in the Olympics, also invested some of his own money in DDi and sold it before the stock crashed, the Boston Globe reported in 2003.

    you decide.

    it really is worth a read.


    this thread is about full (none / 0) (#194)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:06:36 PM EST
    Here's a new one