The Town Hall with President Obama and Willard Romney

A video that is self-explanatory

Democratic National Convention: Day One, Post 2

hat tip -The Obama Diary:

Some pictures from Charlotte along with some videos.

Read more »

Democratic National Convention - Day One, Post 1

hat tip -The Obama Diary:

The President visited Norfolk, Virginia....and some DNC speeches from tonight.

Read more »

Romney Calls America a "Company"

His Freudian slip tells you about their frame of mind. When will they understand that running a Country is not the same as running a company. The U.S. is not a corporation.




I only followed a portion of the Republican Convention. The major media outlets seemed to allow the lies to go unchallenged. Even NPR failed to fact-check any of the claims, once the various speeches were over. Blogs like this one try to provide some fact-checking... but shouldn't the media be doing this? I have basically lost my appetite for the whole process. Makes my stomach turn.

The President's Speech on the Economy, where he presents a CHOICE for the American people

Watch President Obama's Ohio Speech on the Economy

Super Tuesday Results for the GOP Clown Car

Willard Romney won:

Massachusetts
Vermont (right there in New England
Virginia (where he and Ron Paul were the only two on the ballot)
Wyoming
Idaho
Alaska
Ohio*** The asterisk is because I think the following as lamh35:

I'm beginning to think that the last OH vote numbers are taking so long because they are trying to "find" enough votes to put Romney over the top.

How can they give vote totals to reporters, but not the state elections dept?

Just call us cynical, but after the ' 8 vote win in Iowa 'for Willard that wasn't.

And, the ' let's not count 3 COUNTIES in Maine' because Willard was winning.

to the ' We'll just turn away 1,500 people in Washingston state' - just cause.

Color me cynical about anything ' close' for Willard.

Bottom line: Willard outspent Little Ricky 5-1, and this was the best he could do- a dubious and questionable 1% point win.

Newt Gingrich won:
Georgia (his home state)

Rick Santorum won:
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee

. The evangelical problem is deep, as tonight demonstrates. Ryan Lizza notes:

Romney has lost evangelicals in every contest—and by an average of fifteen points. His best showing came in New Hampshire, where he lost the evangelical vote by nine points, and his worst came in Iowa, where he lost it by twenty-four points. Romney has been running for President for six years, and yet his share of the evangelical vote has declined in most states, compared with his showing in 2008.

It dropped by ten points in Iowa, eight points in South Carolina, seventeen points in Florida, ten points in Arizona, and five points in Michigan. In New Hampshire, there was modest improvement (one point), and in the low-attendance contest in Nevada, some significant improvement (eight points).

How many times folks gotta say it:

The Evangelicals ain't having no parts of the Mormon.

It's the elephant in the room that the MSM refuses to acknowledge.

The next contests for the GOP are:

Kansas - So backwards they wrote a book about them - What's the matter with Kansas? - you see them going for Willard?
Alabama- You see these folks going for Willard?
Hawaii- eh
Mississippi- you see these folks going for Willard?
Missouri - where Santorum whooped Willard already

And, who was the REAL winner of Super Tuesday?


President Barack Obama laughs during a meeting in the Oval Office, Jan. 24, 2011.
---White House Photo by Pete Souza

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive" - aka, why the GOP KNOWS THEY ARE IN TROUBLE

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive."

I've made no secret that I think the President's campaign should put it on t-shirts, bumper stickers and mugs.


How good is this slogan, and the simpleness cuts to the heart of the GOP?

Well, remember, when Osama was first killed, the GOP tried saying that it wasn't that important. That somehow George ' I don't think about him very much' Bush should get the credit.

ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to deny this President the respect for having the guts to make the call.

That call could have easily turned out like Iran in 1979, or Somalia (Blackhawk Down). But, it didn't, and it kills them. They then had the clown car come out with the 'President is an appeaser' meme, but POTUS cut that down, but quick.

" Ask Osama Bin Laden and Al Qeda if I'm an appeaser. Contact them...whoever's left."

KAPOW!!

President Barack Obama has gutted and ripped away from them the whole ' Democrats can't keep us safe', and they can't stand it.

So, instead of it not being important that Bin Laden is dead.....the right was testing out a new meme last week.

From The Maddow Blog:

The depths of Hannity's imagination
By Steve Benen
Wed Feb 8, 2012 1:16 PM EST

On his program last night, Fox News' Sean Hannity talked with Republican pollster Frank Luntz about President Obama's re-election prospects, and as part of the discussion, the host shared a unique insight into the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last May.


"I think they have a foreign policy that has shown a lot of weakness," Hannity said. "I know the president will say, 'We got Bin Laden,' putting that aside. The public does give him credit for it, but it wouldn't have happened if he had his way and I think that could be proven as well on tape."

Hannity didn't elaborate about this taped evidence, which is a shame. It's quite a provocative charge and I'm sure many Americans would love to hear about it.

The argument seems to be that if Obama "had his way," the strike on the al Qaeda leader "wouldn't have happened." Reality suggests Hannity has no idea what he's talking about.

Whereas the Bush/Cheney administration made a conscious, deliberate decision to deemphasize capturing the al Qaeda leader, Obama chose to shift the emphasis back.

[F]rom early in his administration Obama was focused on killing Osama Bin Laden and that he was involved in the process throughout. In June 2009, Obama directed his CIA director to "provide me within 30 days a detailed operation plan for locating and bringing to justice" Osama Bin Laden. By August 2010 intelligence officials had identified the suspicious compound where Osama lived.

It was Obama who instructed the CIA to make targeting bin Laden a top priority, breaking with his predecessor. It was Obama who oversaw five national security meetings to oversee plans for this operation. It was Obama who chose this mission, made final preparations, and gave the order.

If Hannity has proof to the contrary "on tape," it's unclear why he hasn't aired it.

Hannity's LIE.



Now, the rest of the MSM has let this LIE go unchallenged...except for Ed Schultz. He's confronted it head on.

Schultz challenging Hannity's LIE - DAY ONE

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read more »

Clint Eastwood Makes Obama's Day

From The National Journal:

Clint Eastwood Makes Obama's Day
By George E. Condon Jr.
February 5, 2012 | 10:04 PM

President Obama's ad-makers may have to pay royalties to Clint Eastwood after a remarkable two-minute Chrysler commercial that aired on the biggest of all stages - the Super Bowl - and gave a pretty good preview of what the president's reelection commercials might look like. At the very least, the ad and Eastwood's powerful narration make it much, much more difficult for Republican front-runner Mitt Romney to keep pushing his line that Washington should have let the automakers go into bankruptcy.

And don't think that Team Obama wasn't watching the Super Bowl along with millions of other Americans and immediately grasped the boost they could get from the commercial. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer quickly tweeted "Saving the America auto industry: something Eminem and Clint Eastwood can agree on." Senior strategist David Axelrod tweeted "Powerful spot. Did Clint shoot that, or just narrate it?" Former White House aide Bill Burton tweeted, "Clinton Eastwood #winning."


.....................................


With 30 second spots selling for $3.5 million, the commercial cost Chrysler an estimated $14 million and was kept under wraps by the automaker, which, with the help of the Obama administration, has come back from the dead after being counted out in 2009. And one can only guess what the automaker paid Eastwood. Whatever, it was worth it for it was a master stroke. The 81-year-old actor has told interviewers he has always voted Republican for president, though he has endorsed some Democrats in California and has praised libertarians.

The commercial itself was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" commercials, though with the famous Clint Eastwood tough guy touch. Shown shortly after Madonna's halftime performance, it began with the silhouette of Eastwood, walking in the dark and recognizable only for his gravelly voice. "It's halftime. Both teams are in their locker room discussing what they can do to win this game," he says. "It's halftime in America, too." With scenes of an iconic front porch and a city skyline," he continues, "People are out of work and they are hurting. They are all wondering what they are going to do to make a comeback. And we're all scared because this isn't a game."

With more every day scenes flashing on the screen, Eastwood adds, "The people in Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together. Now Motor City is fighting again." With the music punctuating his remarks, Eastwood goes on: "I've seen a lot of tough eras, a lot of downturns in my life. Times when we didn't understand each other. It seems that we've lost our heart at times. The fog of division, discord and blame, made it hard to see what lies ahead." As scenes of protesters give way to black and white photos of kids and firefighters, Eastwood builds, "But after those trials, we all rallied around what was right and acted as one. Because that's what we do. We find a way through tough times. If we can't find a way then we'll make one. All that matters now is what's ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together?

At this point, viewers see Eastwood in the light. "And how do we win? Detroit is showing us it can be done,. And what's true about them is true about all of us. This country can't be knocked out with one punch." To conclude, a close-up of Eastwood fills the screen. "We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines. Yeah, its halftime America and our second half is about to begin."

All that was missing was him turning to Mitt Romney and challenging him to "make my day."

'The Obama Doctrine'? - The President's Speech in Kansas Today

The President gave a speech today in Osawatomie, Kansas about Economic Philosophy....





"Look at the Statistics" : Obama Lays Down Marker On Income Inequality





TEXT OF SPEECH:

Good afternoon. I want to start by thanking a few of the folks who’ve joined us today. We’ve got the mayor of Osawatomie, Phil Dudley; your superintendent, Gary French; the principal of Osawatomie High, Doug Chisam. And I’ve brought your former governor, who’s now doing an outstanding job as our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius.

It is great to be back in the state of Kansas. As many of you know, I’ve got roots here. I’m sure you’re all familiar with the Obamas of Osawatomie. Actually, I like to say that I got my name from my father, but I got my accent – and my values – from my mother. She was born in Wichita. Her mother grew up in Augusta. And her father was from El Dorado. So my Kansas roots run deep.

My grandparents served during World War II -- he as a soldier in Patton’s Army, she as a worker on a bomber assembly line. Together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over a Depression and fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried -- no matter who you were, where you came from, or how you started out.

These values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy the world has ever known. It was here, in America, that the most productive workers and innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth, and every American shared in that pride and success -- from those in executive suites to middle management to those on the factory floor. If you gave it your all, you’d take enough home to raise your family, send your kids to school, have your health care covered, and put a little away for retirement.

Today, we are still home to the world’s most productive workers and innovative companies. But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefitted from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than ever before. But everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t – and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

For many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over the harsh realities of this new economy. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or sometimes even understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets – and huge bonuses – made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility across the system. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we are still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs, homes, and the basic security of millions – innocent, hard-working Americans who had met their responsibilities, but were still left holding the bag.

Ever since, there has been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity; balance and fairness. Throughout the country, it has sparked protests and political movements – from the Tea Party to the people who have been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It’s left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. And it’s been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women who are running for president.

But this isn’t just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make or break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that have stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for too many years. Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

Well, I’m here to say they are wrong. I’m here to reaffirm my deep conviction that we are greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Those aren’t Democratic or Republican values; 1% values or 99% values. They’re American values, and we have to reclaim them.

You see, this isn’t the first time America has faced this choice. At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world’s industrial giant, we had to decide: would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because some people thought massive inequality and exploitation was just the price of progress.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know is true today: that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It’s led to a prosperity and standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you want from whoever you can. It only works when there are rules of the road to ensure that competition is fair, open, and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for customers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children, or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe. And today, they still can’t.

In 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here, to Osawatomie, and laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”

For this, Roosevelt was called a radical, a socialist, even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight hour work day and a minimum wage for women; insurance for the unemployed, the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.

Today, over one hundred years later, our economy has gone through another transformation. Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere in the world. And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans.

Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where the workers were cheaper. Steel mills that needed 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100, so that layoffs were too often permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle. These changes didn’t just affect blue-collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs or the internet. Today, even higher-skilled jobs like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China and India. And if you’re someone whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don’t have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages and benefits – especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there’s been a certain crowd in Washington for the last few decades who respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If only we cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everyone else. And even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, they argue, that’s the price of liberty.

It’s a simple theory – one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. It fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.

Remember that in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history, and what did they get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class – things like education and infrastructure; science and technology; Medicare and Social Security.

Remember that in those years, thanks to some of the same folks who are running Congress now, we had weak regulation and little oversight, and what did that get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity, and denied care to the patients who were sick. Mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford. A financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.

We simply cannot return to this brand of your-on-your-own economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. We know that it doesn’t result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and its future. It doesn’t result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that’s enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.

Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top one percent has gone up by more than 250%, to $1.2 million per year. For the top one hundredth of one percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her workers now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade, the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about six percent.

This kind of inequality – a level we haven’t seen since the Great Depression – hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, it drags down the entire economy, from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity – that’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars they made. It’s also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. And it leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them – that our elected representatives aren’t looking out for the interests of most Americans.

More fundamentally, this kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise at the very heart of America: that this is the place where you can make it if you try. We tell people that in this country, even if you’re born with nothing, hard work can get you into the middle class; and that your children will have the chance to do even better than you. That’s why immigrants from around the world flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. A few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance fell to around 40%. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a 1 in 3 chance of making it to the middle class.

It’s heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work? That’s inexcusable. It’s wrong. It flies in the face of everything we stand for.

Fortunately, that’s not a future we have to accept. Because there’s another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country – a view that’s truer to our history; a vision that’s been embraced by people of both parties for more than two hundred years.

It’s not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America. It’s not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all society’s problems. It’s a view that says in America, we are greater together – when everyone engages in fair play, everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share.

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy?

It starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is, we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages or pollute as much as they want. That’s a race to the bottom that we can’t win – and shouldn’t want to win. Those countries don’t have a strong middle-class. They don’t have our standard of living.

The race we want to win – the race we can win – is a race to the top; the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers; the most advanced transportation and communication; the strongest commitment to research and technology.

The world is shifting to an innovation economy. And no one does innovation better than America. No one has better colleges and universities. No one has a greater diversity of talent and ingenuity. No one’s workers or entrepreneurs are more driven or daring. The things that have always been our strengths match up perfectly with the demands of this moment.

But we need to meet the moment. We need to up our game. And we need to remember that we can only do that together.

It starts by making education a national mission – government and businesses; parents and citizens. In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class. The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. Their income is twice as high as those who don’t have a high school diploma. We shouldn’t be laying off good teachers right now – we should be hiring them. We shouldn’t be expecting less of our schools – we should be demanding more. We shouldn’t be making it harder to afford college – we should be a country where everyone has the chance to go.

In today’s innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science, research, and the next generation of high-tech manufacturing. Our factories and their workers shouldn’t be idle. We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges, so they can learn to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries. And by the way – if we don’t have an economy built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won’t all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance. Because if we want an economy that’s built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering. This country shouldn’t be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all over the world that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America.

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, and communicate with the rest of the world. That’s why the over one million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed shouldn’t be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding our roads and bridges; laying down faster railroads and broadband; modernizing our schools – all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

Yes, businesses, not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there. But as a nation, we have always come together, through our government, to help create the conditions where both workers and businesses can succeed. Historically, that hasn’t been a partisan idea. Franklin Roosevelt worked with Democrats and Republicans to give veterans of World War II, including my grandfather, the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, a proud son of Kansas, who started the interstate highway system and doubled-down on science and research to stay ahead of the Soviets.

Of course, those productive investments cost money. And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everyone to do their fair share. If we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we’d never have to cut any spending. But we don’t have unlimited resources. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.

Today that choice is very clear. To reduce our deficit, I’ve already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law, and proposed trillions more – including reforms that would lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

But in order to actually close the deficit and get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. Most immediately, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that’s set to expire at the end of this month. If we don’t do that, 160 million Americans will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000, and it would badly weaken our recovery.

But in the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education, and research, and high-tech manufacturing? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country? Because we can’t afford to do both. That’s not politics. That’s just math.

So far, most of the Republicans in Washington have refused, under any circumstances, to ask the wealthiest Americans to go the same tax rates they were paying when Bill Clinton was president.

Now, keep in mind, when President Clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in Congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession. Instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs and we eliminated the deficit. Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century. This isn’t like in the early 50s, when the top tax rate was over 90%. This isn't even like the early 80s, when it was about 70%. Under President Clinton, the top rate was only about 39%. Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than you, millions of middle-class households. Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1%. One percent.

This is the height of unfairness. It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay a higher tax rate than somebody pulling in $50 million. It is wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. And he agrees with me. So do most Americans – Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.

This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare. It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get to the middle class, and the economy as a whole.

Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street. As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.

But part of the deal was that we would not go back to business as usual. That’s why last year we put in place new rules of the road that refocus the financial sector on this core purpose: getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and financing to millions of families who want to buy a home or send their kids to college. We’re not all the way there yet, and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way. But already, some of these reforms are being implemented. If you’re a big bank or risky financial institution, you’ll have to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail, so that taxpayers are never again on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes. There are also limits on the size of banks and new abilities for regulators to dismantle a firm that goes under. The new law bans banks from making risky bets with their customers’ deposits, and takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed CEOs, while giving shareholders a say on executive salaries.

All that is being put in place as we speak. Now, unless you’re a financial institution whose business model is built on breaking the law, cheating consumers, or making risky bets that could damage the entire economy, you have nothing to fear from these new rules. My grandmother worked as a banker for most of her life, and I know that the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals want to do right by their customers. They want to have rules in place that don’t put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing. And yet, Republicans in Congress are already fighting as hard as they can to make sure these rules aren’t enforced.

I’ll give you one example. For the first time in history, the reform we passed puts in place a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders, payday lenders or debt collectors. The man we nominated for the post, Richard Cordray, is a former Attorney General of Ohio who has the support of most Attorneys General, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the country.

But the Republicans in the Senate refuse to let him do his job. Why? Does anyone here think the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors? Of course not. Every day we go without a consumer watchdog in place is another day when a student, or a senior citizen, or member of our Armed Forces could be tricked into a loan they can’t afford – something that happens all the time. Financial institutions have plenty of lobbyists looking out for their interests. Consumers deserve to have someone whose job it is to look out for them. I intend to make sure they do, and I will veto any effort to delay, defund, or dismantle the new rules we put in place.

We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability. We should be strengthening them. Here’s another example. Too often, we’ve seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there’s no price for being a repeat offender. No more. I’ll be calling for legislation that makes these penalties count – so that firms don’t see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business.

The fact is, this crisis has left a deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. And major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit. At minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis, and working to keep responsible homeowners in their home. We’re going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house. The big banks should increase access to refinancing opportunities to borrowers who have yet to benefit from historically low interest rates. And they should recognize that precisely because these steps are in the interest of middle-class families and the broader economy, they will also be in the banks’ own long-term financial interest.

Investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed. A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share. And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules. That’s what will transform our economy. That’s what will grow our middle class again. In the end, rebuilding this economy based on fair play, a fair shot, and a fair share will require all of us to see the stake we have in each other’s success. And it will require all of us to take some responsibility to that success.

It will require parents to get more involved in their children’s education, students to study harder, and some workers to start studying all over again. It will require greater responsibility from homeowners to not take out mortgages they can’t afford, and remember that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It will require those of us in public service to make government more efficient, effective, and responsive to people’s needs. That’s why we’re cutting programs we don’t need, to pay for those we do. That’s why we’ve made hundreds of regulatory reforms that will save businesses billions of dollars. That’s why we’re not just throwing money at education, but challenging schools to come up with the most innovative reforms and the best results.

And it will require American business leaders to understand that their obligations don’t just end with their shareholders. Andy Grove, the former CEO of Intel put it best: “There’s another obligation I feel personally,” he said, “given that everything I’ve achieved in my career and a lot of what Intel has achieved…were made possible by a climate of democracy, an economic climate and investment climate provided by…the United States.”

This broader obligation can take different forms. At a time when the cost of hiring workers in China is rising rapidly, it should mean more CEOs deciding that it’s time to bring jobs back to the United States – not just because it’s good for business, but because it’s good for the country that made their business and their personal success possible.

I think about the Big Three Auto companies who, during recent negotiations, agreed to create more jobs and cars in America; who decided to give bonuses, not just to their executives, but to all their employees – so that everyone was invested in the company’s success.

I think about a company based in Warroad, Minnesota called Marvin Windows and Doors. During the recession, Marvin’s competitors closed dozens of plants and let go hundreds of workers. But Marvin didn’t lay off a single one of their four thousand or so employees. In fact, they’ve only laid off workers once in over a hundred years. Mr. Marvin’s grandfather even kept his eight employees during the Depression.

When times get tough, the workers agree to give up some perks and pay, and so do the owners. As one owner said, “You can’t grow if you’re cutting your lifeblood – and that’s the skills and experience your workforce delivers.” For the CEO, it’s about the community: “These are people we went to school with,” he said. “We go to church with them. We see them in the same restaurant. Indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys. We could be anywhere. But we are in Warroad.”

That’s how America was built. That’s why we’re the greatest nation on Earth. That’s what our greatest companies understand. Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest. It’s been about building a nation where we’re all better off. We pull together, we pitch in, and we do our part, believing that hard work will pay off; that responsibility will be rewarded; and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on.

And it is that belief that rallied thousands of Americans to Osawatomie – maybe even some of your ancestors – on a rain-soaked day more than a century ago. By train, by wagon, on buggy, bicycle, onfoot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country, and was determined to perfect it.

“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.” In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, or who he was talking to, all would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance.

Well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and changed in many ways since Roosevelt’s time. The world is faster. The playing field is larger. The challenges are more complex.

But what hasn’t changed – what can never change – are the values that got us this far. We still have a stake in each other’s success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule in our national life – the rule which underlies all others – is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.”

I believe America is on its way up. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Yesterday Was Election Day, and Some Positive Signs

hat tip-The Obama Diary


Well, yesterday was voting day. Here are the results:

From OHIO:







From TPM.Com

TPMDC
Ohio Voters Emphatically Reject Kasich’s Anti-Union Law

Eric Kleefeld November 8, 2011, 9:21 PM

Ohio Democrats, who got absolutely creamed in the 2010 elections, have now won a major victory over Republican Gov. John Kasich — massively winning a referendum to repeal Kasich’s anti-public employee union law.

With 19% of precincts reporting — which includes a significant chunk of the total ballots, due to early-votes being counted quickly — the bill known as SB 5 is losing by a margin of 63%-37%, and the “No” position has been projected as the winner by the Associated Press.

Pre-election polling showed the No campaign winning by over 20 points — and it seemed possible at time of writing that the final margin might even surpass this.

As TPM has documented, SB 5 has become a political poster child for Democrats pushing against Republicans, following the 2010 GOP wave, with the Dems and labor unions mobilizing while at the same time Kasich’s popularity tanked in the polls.

From Maine - this is good news against Voter Suppression 2012

1-08-2011 9:44 PM
AP: Maine Voters Say Yes To Same Day Registration

Voters in Maine have approved a ballot measure on allowing same day voter registration. The state had previously moved to require voters register no later than two days before an election. It was defeated 59 - 41 %.The state Republican Party had run ads urging the issue’s defeat, by suggesting that pro-gay rights groups supported it.

Read more »

Some videos about the GOP Clown Car

There's been a lot of craziness going around with the GOP Clown Car. But, Youtube is always there.

Here's Governor Good Hair. IF you can tell me what the hell he's talking about, good for you. I'll only ask..

Riddle me this, ladies and gentlemen...what would have happened to then-Senator Barack Obama if he had given a speech like this during the 2008 campaign season? You know the answer.



From Rachel Maddow:

Rachel Maddow shares video clips of a Rick Perry speech in New Hampshire in which the Texas governor and Republican presidential hopeful displayed bizarre and inexplicable speech patterns and mannerisms. This is a twofer-slamming Good Hair AND she sneaks in a slam of WILLARD as a bonus.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is one of Rev. Al's best segments -EVER.

I've said it before, I LOVE it when Rev. Al calls Mittens ' WILLARD'.

Cracks me up everytime.

Here's his segment - using himself as a double - on WILLARD, THE HUMAN PRETZEL.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read more »

Voter Suppression 2012: Today's Edition comes from Pennsylvania

From TPM.com:

A Foot On The Scale? Pennsylvania GOPers Propose Splitting State’s Electoral Votes
Eric Kleefeld September 13, 2011, 4:04 PM

Pennsylvania Republicans, who won the governorship and full majority control of the legislature in 2010, are now setting their sites on a major change — to the state’s Electoral College votes, which have been regularly won statewide by Democrats for 20 years, in the winner-take-all system used by nearly all the states.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that Gov. Tom Corbett and state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi are proposing that the state divide up its Electoral College votes according to which candidates carried each Congressional district, plus two votes for the statewide winner. The system is used by Maine — which, despite the system, has never actually split its four electoral votes — and by Nebraska, which gave one of its five votes to Barack Obama in 2008.

Pennsylvania, however, will have 20 electoral votes in the 2012 election. What’s more, the measure would give even greater meaning to the state’s redistricting for the House of Representatives, giving it a powerful effect over the presidency in addition to the House.

Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1992, and voted for Barack Obama by 55%-44% in 2008. Indeed, over the past 50 years it has only voted Republican in presidential landslides for the GOP: 1972, 1980, 1984, and finally 1988. While the results have sometimes been narrow for the Dems, it is a state that can be expected to vote Democratic for president in the context of a close national campaign, such as its votes for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

Had this proposed system been in place in 2008, when Obama won the state by a ten-point margin, he in fact would have only taken 11 out of the state’s 21 electoral votes at the time — due to a combination of past Republican-led redistricting efforts to maximize their district strength, and Obama’s votes being especially concentrated within urban areas.

UH HUH.

As I commented yesterday when I first read this story:

It's funny how when a BLACK MAN WINS BY PLAYING BY THE RULES...


then all of a sudden

THE RULES HAVE TO CHANGE.

Voter Suppression 2012: Back to Wisconsin Today

From The Cap Times:

Top DOT official tells staff not to mention free voter ID cards to the public — unless they ask



An internal memo from a top Department of Transportation official instructs workers at Division of Motor Vehicles service centers not to tell members of the public that they can obtain voter identification cards free of charge -- unless they know to ask for it.

Now, remember, they just passed one of those VOTER ID - VOTER SUPPRESSION LAWS in Wisconsin, where you can't vote without a STATE ISSUED ID.

The memo, recently obtained by The Capital Times, was written by Steve Krieser and sent to all state Department of Transportation and Department of Motor Vehicles employees on July 1, the same day employees were to begin issuing photo IDs in accordance with a controversial new Voter Photo ID law adopted earlier in the year.

As laid out in the memo, failure to check a box when applying for photo ID with the Division of Motor Vehicles will result in the payment of $28. Interviews conducted about the memo suggest the state is more interested in continuing to charge the fee, which is required for a photo ID used for non-voting purposes, than it is in removing all barriers and providing easy access to a free, photo ID.

"While you should certainly help customers who come in asking for a free ID to check the appropriate box, you should refrain from offering the free version to customers who do not ask for it," Krieser writes to employees.

Krieser, who was recently promoted to executive assistant to the DOT secretary, instructs staff that customers should "self certify" their eligibility for the free ID. They can do that, he writes, if they meet the documentation requirements; if they are at least 17 years old; if they have checked the correct certification box on the new forms; and, most significantly, if they are "asking for a product that is available for free issuance."

The law, passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Gov. Scott Walker on May 25, requires Wisconsin residents to present identification before they can vote. Republicans said it was necessary to combat voter fraud.

Acceptable forms of identification under the law include Wisconsin driver's licenses, certain student identification cards, passports, and voter identification cards for the thousands of residents who may not have any of those documents.

Democrats fought hard against the law, and the internal memo will likely provide further ammunition to charges that it is a modern-day version of the poll taxes once used to disenfranchise voters in the South, most of them African-American. Typically under those laws, citizens were required to pay to vote unless they had a father or grandfather who had voted prior to the abolition of slavery. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1966 that such laws were unconstitutional.

"It was clear to me from the beginning that people would be disenfranchised because of this law," says state Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, D- Madison, after reading a copy of the memo. "Now we have the proof that people are not going to be getting these IDs unless the say the ‘magic words.'"

Similarly, Scot Ross of One Wisconsin Now describes the memo as "the smoking gun" proving the legislation was always about denying people the right to vote. The director of the progressive advocacy group has for months disputed the GOP contention that the bill was needed to thwart massive voting fraud, citing the fact that fewer than two dozen people were charged with casting improper votes in the 2008 state elections.

Now, also remember, that they were going to CLOSE DMV OFFICES IN HEAVY DEMOCRATIC AREAS, until the utter OBVIOUSNESS OF THAT was too glaring to withstand the bullshyt excuse of 'fiscal belt-tightening'.

I'll say it again:

THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE, and where are all you folks who said that these VOTER ID Laws aren't meant to VOTER SUPPRESS?

Voter Suppression 2012 - an update on a previous story

Melissa Harris-Perry discusses the GOP plans for VOTER SUPPRESSION 2012 with these VOTER ID Laws popping up around the country.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

An update on a previous Voter Suppression 2012 story. From North Carolina:

N.C. GOP fails to override veto of voter-ID photo mandate

By Gary D. Robertson

RALEIGH, N.C.

Republican lawmakers failed Tuesday to override a veto by Gov. Beverly Perdue that would have required voters to show photo identification before casting an in-person ballot.

The North Carolina House voted on party lines 67-52 in favor of the override, five votes short of what's needed to move it to the Senate. Republicans performed a parliamentary maneuver, however, that keeps the voter ID issue alive.

Republicans argued the photo ID mandate would discourage voter fraud and build the public's confidence in voting. Democrats said the requirement is unnecessary because reports of fraud are few and that it would only lead to voter suppression, particularly among older people, minorities and women.

The override question spurred passionate debate for more than an hour about voting in an era in which citizens show identification to enter government buildings or get on an airplane but only a half-century since blacks in the Jim Crow-era South were discouraged from voting because of the color of their skin.

"This bill is an insult to me. It's an insult to the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King," said first-term Rep. Rodney Moore, D-Mecklenburg. "Right now, I feel like my rights have been raped. Yes I do because there is no substantive problem in North Carolina with voter fraud and this is purely, purely an attempt at voter suppression."

Perdue vetoed the measure last month.

"I want to thank the legislators who stood firm in the belief that every North Carolinian has the constitutional right to vote and that the state should not be creating obstacles to stop them," Perdue said in a statement after the vote.

GOP legislative leaders contend polls show strong support for voter ID and that Perdue vetoed the measure to please her Democratic base. Several Republican House members have said voter identification is one of the most important issues to their constituents.

"How can you possibly vote against a requirement where in one instance you have to show a photo ID (in Winston-Salem) to panhandle but not show a photo ID to do the most important and sacred thing that we do as citizens?" said House Speaker Pro Tempore Dale Folwell, R-Forsyth.

Democrats argue the bill was purely partisan. Others have suggested ID requirements would make it harder for President Obama to win North Carolina's electoral votes next year after winning them for Democrats in 2008 for the first time in 32 years.

Voter fraud is a felony in North Carolina. The State Board of Elections referred 43 cases of potential fraud to district attorneys in 2008 and 21 in 2010. Meanwhile, about 147,100 active black voters do not have photo ID, according to the election reform group Democracy North Carolina. The bill didn't even consider potential fraud problems with obtaining absentee ballots, said House Minority Leader Joe Hackney, D-Orange.

"Everyone is interested in the integrity of the elections and it does appear that common sense says that people should show an ID," said Bob Hall, Democracy North Carolina's executive director. "But when you look at the data, there are more people that are hurt that requirement than would be helped."

Journal of Voter Suppression, 2012 -South Carolina Edition

How long will our elders have to CONTINUE TO PAY for living under Jim Crow?

From The State.com:

Many face fight to prove ID
No birth certificate, no photo ID, no registering to vote:A dilemma for tens of thousands born in ’40s, ’50s, ’60s
by DAWN HINSHAW - dhinshaw@thestate.com


Ruth Johnson remembers being sent to the pay phone in the middle of the night to call the midwife when her mother’s labor pains started.

“I called the midwife. She said she was coming. She never did show up,” Johnson said, thinking back to life as a 12-year-old in Barnwell County in the late 1950s.

Before long, Ruth’s mother sent her back to the pay phone at the Hilda grocery store. The second time, the midwife admitted she had no intention of coming to help with the birth. “She said, ‘Your mama, she owes me $25 for the last baby.’”

And so the baby was born in the family home, without a birth certificate — a common practice in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s in rural South Carolina, but one that is causing problems now for an older generation required to have proof of identification.

Before the government began discouraging midwifery in the 1970s, a lot of women in rural South Carolina didn’t go to hospitals to have their babies, either because of the cost, discrimination or culture. Often, the births were unrecorded, whether a midwife was in attendance or not. In some cases, names were misspelled by illiterate midwives or recorded incompletely when parents couldn’t settle on a first name right away.

But having no birth certificate, or having one where the name conflicts with other legal documents, can cause problems today proving one’s identification — and getting the photo ID required to get a job, travel, go into public buildings and, in a recent and controversial change in South Carolina, register to vote.

In some cases, people who have never had a problem before must now go to family court to authenticate the names they have used all their lives.

Joseph Williams, a physician who sees mostly elderly patients in Sumter, guessed as many as 20 percent of his 3,000 to 4,000 regular patients have problems with identification. Some only know the year they were born.

“It’s extremely common for people who are over 50,” said Williams, who is 60. “Record-keeping was poor in our age group.”

And a birth certificate is considered the “seed document” for establishing one’s identity, making it more important to own — and protect — than in years past, said Adam Myrick, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Environmental Control, which oversees the state’s vital-records division.

No one knows how many South Carolinians don’t have a birth certificate. One indicator may be a tally by the S.C. Election Commission, which shows 178,175 voters do not own a photo ID, according to the latest available figures.

Earlier this year, the General Assembly passed a law requiring voters to show a photo ID — either a driver’s license, passport, military ID, new voter registration card or a state-issued ID.

But getting a state-issued ID requires a birth certificate.

For those who don’t have a birth certificate, the state’s vital-records division requires at least three documents from a list that includes marriage and school records, military and medical records, the birth certificates of siblings and children and voter registration documents.

But there’s a hitch.

The name must be identical on each document used as proof of identification: no nicknames, middle initials or other variations.

“The law is very specific: The name has to be the same,” said DHEC spokesman Thom Berry. “This is not a South Carolina issue; this is a national issue.”

Mr. Berry is indeed correct - this is a NATIONAL issue.

Because, our Black Elders who lived under Jim Crow, and this kind of lack of record keeping, live all over the country, and I wonder how many live in these states where these Voter ID laws have been enacted.

And now, in their twilight years, the people who actually FOUGHT, and got their asses beat to get the right to vote, can now see that right taken away because of these VOTER SUPPRESSION VOTER ID LAWS.

IF you have elders with this situation, you need to sit them down, and help them get their papers together. It's more than just voting, though voting rights are important. This could mess with their Social Security and other things.

Voter Suppression 2012 Update - Wisconsin Version

hat tip-Miranda

from progressivetoo:

WI Governor Scott Walker to cut DMV centers in Democratic districts

The Wisconsin legislature is finalizing a bill to close ten Department of Motor Vehicle centers located in Democratic districts within the state. The money saved will be used to extend operating hours at DMV centers in Republican districts. These cuts come on the heels of new voter ID laws that require voters to present a state-issued photo identification card at the poll booths.

The Wisconsin Republicans, led by Governor Scott Walker, have passed a myriad of unpopular bills that have alienated the public, specifically the public employees whose right to collectively bargain was stripped, their pensions cut and many of their jobs lost. Walker, who has strong ties to Koch Industries, Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has served as the poster child for conservative policy in the nation.

This story shows just how stupid neoconservatives think the public really is. Walker and his ilk pass a bill requiring voters to present valid photo identification at the polls. Then, in the same breath, Walker and his ilk propose a bill to close the identification issuing centers (the DMV’s) in the Democratic districts, making ID’s more difficult for low-income voters to obtain.

so, for those who said the ID Laws aren't really voter suppression, now that they've made it harder for folks to get IDs, what say you NOW?

Today's Update of Voter Suppression 2012 -Louisiana Version

hat tip-GreenLadyHere

Feds: Louisiana Not Providing Voter Registration Forms At Public Assistance Offices

Federal officials are suing the state of Louisiana for failing to provide voter registration forms at public assistance and disability services agencies. The Justice Department said that the state is in violation of section seven of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

Louisiana officials, the feds asserted, have failed to provide voter registration opportunities as required under NVRA because they haven't designated all offices in the state that provide public assistance as voter registration agencies (including the Office of Aging and Adult Services); failed to provide sufficient supplies of voter registration applications at the designated agencies; and failed to train and monitor employees to make sure they assist in processing voter registration forms."

There are 1.17 million Louisiana residents enrolled in Medicaid programs, but only 6,037 voter registration applications were received from public assistance offices from 2009 to 2010, according to data provided to the Election Assistance Commission and included in the Justice Department's lawsuit. That represents just 1.1 percent of all voter registration applications received in 2009 and 2010.

While Louisiana processed over 3.1 million Medicaid applications, renewals and address changes from Jan. 2007 to Jan. 2011 as well as 2.4 million food stamp applications, the agencies registered just 14,725 voter registration applications.

"The voting process begins with registration. Therefore, it is essential that all citizens have unfettered access to voter registration opportunities," DOJ's Thomas E. Perez said in a statement. "The department is committed to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act so that neither income nor disability status stands in the way of equal voter registration opportunities for all citizens."

Read more »

Sarah Palin and her fake campaign

We try not to post much on Caribou Barbie, but Lawrence O'Donnell was absolutely terrific as he mocked her and Newsweek mercilessly.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Latest from Voter Suppression 2012 Edition: North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio

hat tip -ProfGeo

Good News to report.


from TPM.com:

North Carolina Dem Governor Vetoes GOP Voter-ID Bill


North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue (D) has vetoed a Voter-ID bill passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature. The proposed law was part of a wave of similar bills that have been pushed by Republican-led legislatures in the wake of the 2010 elections. Like those, it would have required voters to show certain approved forms of photo identification at their polling places, or else cast provisional ballots and then have to prove their eligibility later.

"This bill, as written, will unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise many eligible and legitimate voters," Perdue wrote in her veto announcement.

She also added an allusion to North Carolina's past as a segregated, Jim Crow state before the Civil Rights movement: "There was a time in North Carolina history when the right to vote was enjoyed only by some citizens rather than by all. That time is past, and we should not revisit it."

Perdue's veto is likely to succeed, rather than be overridden. The CBS affiliate in Raleigh points out that while the bill had passed the state Senate by a veto-proof margin, it had in fact only passed the state House by a margin of 62-51, short of the 72 votes that would be needed to override the veto in that chamber.

Perdue's full veto message:

Read more »