Miss Ann says that women need to ' WAKE UP'...yes, she actually did.

Miss Ann says that women need to WAKE UP.

NO, seriously.

From The Maddow Blog:

Ann Romney demands women 'wake up'

By Steve Benen

Wed Sep 5, 2012 4:30 PM EDT.

Ann Romney was in Ohio this morning, sounding a little desperate about the gender gap undermining her husband's campaign.

Her husband, Mitt Romney, is attuned to women's struggles, especially their economic struggles, and, Ann Romney said, "I know that Mitt will be there for you."

"Women, you need to wake up," she told the largely female audience at a "Women For Mitt" rally in Findlay, Ohio. "Women have to ask themselves who is going to ... be there for you. I can promise you, I know that Mitt will be there for you, he will stand up for you, he will hear your voices, he knows how to fix an economy, he's a can do kind of guy, he's a turnaround guy."

Here's the thing, Miss Ann.

1. Your husband won't stand up for the Lily Ledbetter Act, which just means that I, as a woman, if I find out that I've been discriminated against on the job - I can have a day in court.

2. Your husband supports a Personhood Amendment, which means no abortions, and the outlawing of most birth control.

3. Your husband says he will defund Planned Parenthood, which means that millions of my fellow American women, will be without access to quality, safe female-centered healthcare.

4. Your husband's running mate is a General in the GOP WAR ON WOMEN.

5. Your husband supports a Budget plan that would throw millions off of Medicaid, meaning that MILLIONS of:

a) poor children

b) elderly in nursing homes

c) disabled adults

Will be thrown into the street without access to the healthcare and services that Medicaid provides. I know you don't live in the real world, but I'm thinking of the millions of MOTHERS to those children without healthcare. I'm thinking of the millions of WOMEN upon whom the responsibility will be forced onto them, after Grandma and Grandpa are throwns out into the street from the nursing home. I think about the millions of female care givers of disabled adults- their family. Yes, I'm being stereotypical, but the truth is the truth - WOMEN are the caregivers in this country.

6. Your husband supports a budget that will turn Medicare into a voucher program, and there are millions of women who will now have to help their elderly parents navigate the world of private insurance, as well as helping them to pay for their medication.

7. Your husband wants to repeal Obamacare - ask that MOTHER - Stacy Lihn- who spoke the first night, whether that repeal will let her sleep well at night - if at all.

8. How about the millions of mothers who now don't have to worry about their adult children and healthcare - what about that if Obamacare is repealed.

9. How about the millions of women with pre-existing conditions who will now not be discriminated against because of Obamacare.

10. How about the millions of women who will no longer PAY MORE for a health insurance policy- just because they are women - because Obamacare tells the insurance companies they can't.

11. How about the women who held their hands of their husbands, as your husband, and his vulture capitalism, ushered in business practices that destroyed middle-class jobs, let alone the women workers themselves who got thrown into the dustbin while your husband vultured himself a fortune.

And you think you can tell women to WAKE UP?

Women have YOU and your husband's number.

And that's why they support President Obama by double digits.

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.

America's Gravest Threat - It's Own Foreign Policy

America Is Facing A Crisis

Once again, the nation is engaged in a fundamental debate about its future. What should we do with Medicare? How do we protect social security? How do we fix the tax structure? What should we do about energy? These are all important questions. However, none of them represent the most pressing, underlying problem facing the country. All of the debates around domestic issues are really irrelevant right now in my view. If we don't get the underlying problem fixed, we won't have much money for any of the domestic items that we need.

America’s gravest threat is not healthcare spending, social security, or energy. The national debt? That’s not it either. The debt problem is fixable, what is lacking is the political will to do it. America’s gravest threat is its own foreign policy. It is amazing that neither political party wants to discuss the elephant in the room. This is mainly because both parties are completely beholden to the industries involved…in this case, the defense industry.

Current American foreign policy, still largely built on the outdated 65 year old Truman Doctrine, is not in line with the realities of the present. The nation has a much leaner military, the largest total debt that it has ever seen, the biggest debt to GDP ratio since WWII, and it is still mired in an over decade long period of war that has cost taxpayers over $3 trillion - money that we will never get back. I am still wrapping my head around the fact that $3 trillion was wasted on two (unfunded) wars that were not worth it. Under a misguided Bush foreign policy, the U.S. tried to kill a fly by burning down the house. What was needed all along was a fly swatter -- good intelligence, human intelligence, allowing law enforcement to do its job, improving diplomatic relations and forming global partnerships, improving the nations image around the world, taking covert action, responsibly beefing up security where needed, using our economic power for positive change, changing foreign policy priorities to meet the realities of a new world, and only when necessary…use special operations forces. But trillions of dollars were wasted on failed adventures that left the Muslim world more radicalized than before. Never has more treasure been wasted to kill one man or even a ragtag group of men. Not to mention that the country is crawling back from the biggest economic collapse since The Great Depression. Yet the nation lacks a sensible, realistic foreign policy. In fact, the nation’s policymakers have pushed for more of the same.

Time to Mobilize On This Issue

The fact of the matter is, America desperately needs a new, more reasonable foreign policy if it wants to avoid becoming present day Greece…. Or worse yet, an ancient Rome. This is a crisis for the country. None of what we do with medicare, social security, energy, taxes or anything else to get the debt under control will matter if nothing is done about the true problem - America’s use of military power and its role in the world. The other issues facing the country did not create the debt crisis (which eventually hurt the credit rating)… it was the foreign policy that led the nation into two unfunded and unnecessary wars that, when totaled (to included care for wounded soldiers), could cost as much as $4 trillion, according to a report from Brown University. So it makes no sense to talk about these other issues, without dealing with this underlying problem. The fundamental problems surrounding the debt will not go away unless this country deals with the issue of foreign policy and what its role in the world should be.

Despite a new world and budget realities, the U.S. is still playing the role of global empire with over a half million troops airmen and sailors deployed to well over 100 bases around the world, all despite a smaller military.  Furthermore the country has far too many defense obligations around the world which keeps us entangled in conflicts between nations in every corner of the globe from the Korean Peninsula, The South China Sea, The Persian Gulf, Israel and Europe. Now the U.S. is working hard to get a foothold in the former Soviet Union. We have reached a point where any sort of conflict anywhere could easily drag the U.S. in. The U.S. is always a skirmish away from a very dangerous & costly war. We are overexposed and overstretched. Most of these defense obligations are not vital to our national security (particularly the homeland). Most of these treaty agreements were made under the Truman Doctrine’s Domino Theory for which our political establishment wholeheartedly still believes in. However, this is a concept that is mostly outdated.

Defense spending is about one-fifth of the total U.S. budget. A little more if you count related spending. While it’s not the largest part of the budget, it is the most bloated and adds more to the debt than any other expenditure. The reason? Wars often go unfunded and are tracked off the books. Taxes are not raised to meet the need, and other important programs are not cut. Instead, these wars (driven by a foreign policy that is more aggressive now than ever) become deficit balloons…and just get added onto the national debt. Other costs, such as Veterans Affairs budget are often counted separately…. But when you factor in costs to support veterans returning home… the deficit spending is unbelievable. A President Romney would be even worse. He pledges to vastly increase military spending by about $2 Trillion over 10 years, but does not say how he would pay for it.  We’ve heard that tune before - George W. Bush also failed to mention how he would pay for the 2 disastrous wars we stumbled into. Romney’s spending would likely be added to the debt.

It is an aggressive foreign policy that maintains this situation. However, America’s current foreign policy approach is unsustainable. We simply cannot afford to be global cop. It is going to continue to drag the nation down, both at home and abroad. A nation that is already broke cannot afford wars every few years.
I’m no fan of Pat Buchanan by any means… but he is one of the few Republicans who has a more realistic view of U.S. foreign policy. Even this staunch conservative believes that the U.S. is not on the right track when it comes to its role in the world.



Unfortunately there is no sign that the U.S. is changing course anytime soon. As a progressive, the biggest problem that I have with Obama and the Democrats is that their foreign policy is not vastly different from that of the Republicans. Support for the bloated military industrial complex is, in fact, a tradition for both parties. Strangely enough, with all of the dysfunction between the two parties and all of the gridlock, one would think that cooperation would be almost impossible. But one area where both Republicans and Democrats miraculously agree is on defense and the use of force around the world. Both parties believe that the U.S. must somehow maintain its role as the worlds police force, inserting itself even in internal conflicts and where the security of the U.S. itself is not at stake. The difference between the two parties is only on the surface. The core aims are the same.

In a poignant piece for the Atlantic, James Joyner describes the U.S. as being stuck in a “perpetual state of war” and points out the similarities between the two parties. While he describes conservative pro-war hawks as neo-cons, he also points out that pro-war hawks - which he calls “liberal interventionists” - also dominate the progressive side: 

are neoconservatives and liberal interventionists really so different? Neoconservative bastions like the Weekly Standard, Commentary, and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies are passionate advocates of spreading American values. In Iraq, the toppling of Saddam Hussein and discovery that there was no WMD program to speak of were both accomplished in the first weeks of the war and with a relative handful of American casualties. If these had been our chief concerns we would have left immediately; the apparent U.S. goals in staying on so many years were democracy promotion and nation-building, both ideals the neoconservative White House leadership shared with liberal interventionists.

Further, while neocons are doubtless less patient than liberal interventionists when it comes to exhausting diplomatic options and achieving international consensus, what does it really matter if the end result is the same either way: military action.

Dr. Stephan Walt, in an outstanding article in Foreign Policy magazine, made a similar point on U.S. foreign policy:

The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance. Both groups extol the virtues of democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power — and especially its military power — can be a highly effective tool of statecraft. Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD might be in the hands of anybody but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America’s right and responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world. Both groups consistently over-estimate how easy it will be to do this, however, which is why each has a propensity to get us involved in conflicts where our vital interests are not engaged and that end up costing a lot more than they initially expect.

So if you’re baffled by how Mr. “Change You Can Believe In” morphed into Mr. “More of the Same,” you shouldn’t really be surprised. George Bush left in disgrace and Barack Obama took his place, but he brought with him a group of foreign policy advisors whose basic world views were not that different from the people they were replacing. I’m not saying their attitudes were identical, but the similarities are probably more important than the areas of disagreement. Most of the U.S. foreign policy establishment has become addicted to empire, it seems, and it doesn’t really matter which party happens to be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Obama Administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in particular, has embraced an assertive foreign policy. I refer to U.S. foreign policy under this Administration as neo-con lite. Many of the misguided initiatives carried forward under the Bush Administration; such as missile defense, the push for unnecessary (and destabilizing) NATO expansion, Gitmo, the compromising of civil liberties and the use of drones, have been embraced wholeheartedly by the Obama Administration. Most troubling is that Obama & Co. never renounced the Bush era doctrine of pre-emptive war. The Obama Administration still sees this nonsensical and dangerous policy as useful. Hillary Mann Leverett, a former member of the NSC and an expert on the middle east, has become a critic of Clinton’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, pointing out the lack of an even-handed approach. Leverett is also critical of Clinton’s hawkish approach on Iran. I recommend the work of Hillary Mann Leverett, Stephen M. Walt, Stephen F. Cohen, Juan Cole, John Mearsheimer and other experts who are critical of both Republican and Democrat administrations and who have been expressing their displeasure about the direction of the Obama team. These experts can’t be written off as far left like Zinn, Chomsky or Michael Parenti. They are very much within the mainstream. It is just that American foreign policy has gone so far off the rails towards the interventionist side that rational thinkers who are looking out for the best interest of the U.S. are seen as too dovish. 

Even Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was himself a hawk during his career as national security advisor and advisor to several other Presidents (even opposing efforts to thaw relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union) sees trouble ahead for the United States:
Brzezinski Says Hillary Stands With Neo-Cons 
This is the area of greatest disappointment when I reflect back on President Obama’s first term. As Secretary of State, Clinton has been marginal at best. It’s a myth that she has done an awesome job. As a result of the current misguided policies, relations with key countries have suffered. She was late on supporting the Arab Spring, particularly in Egypt. She has most recently pushed for full throated U.S. intervention in Syria. A recent trip abroad resulted in eggs being thrown at her motorcade because the foreign policy that she has promoted is so out of step with current realities and in many cases out of step with the desires of citizens from a number of countries.

The so-called reset with Russia fell flat. Relations are now the worse they have been since the Soviet era. It is my belief that the Cold War never really ended and that it simply experienced a lull. We are now entering a new phase of the same Cold War. The U.S. and Russia have been competing adversaries since 1999, in a tiff sparked by the U.S. led war against the former Yugoslavia (led by another Clinton). More recently Russia-U.S. relations have deteriorated over the U.S. push to install a missile shield in Europe (a shield that makes no sense and that experts believe will not work), as well as the unnecessary & destabilizing push to expand NATO. U.S. presence in the former Soviet Union also raised tensions. The U.S. approach towards Syria and Iran have also soured relations.

Iran

Another War On The Horizon



Now the U.S. is about to go to war yet again. The U.S. is sleepwalking into another disaster. American policymakers really do love their wars, even if they do not always want to pay for them or fight themselves. It is looking more and more likely that the Obama Administration is going to allow Israel to draw this country into a disastrous war with Iran. This war would be even more nonsensical than the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Israel, likely with the help of the U.S. (being beholden to Israel, the U.S. has no choice) is about to launch an attack based on a nonsensical idea of pre-emptive war-  surely Israel is looking at the U.S. as an example. It will be a war started under the irrational premise that Iran might one day attack Israel … completely nonsensical. Unfortunately American policymakers are able to get away with this. Why? Interest groups like AIPAC and the defense industry lobby carry a tremendous amount of weight. But more importantly, I believe that it has to do with the U.S. having one of the dumbest populations of any country in the industrialized world. Americans allow themselves to be sheeple.

Natanyahu, is an absolute radical when compared to other more responsible heads of government. At times brash and maniacal. He is certainly one of the most hawkish leaders in the free world. He is aware that an attack could harm the U.S., particularly the economy and Obama's standing as President. He would have preferred having Romney as President so that he would have an ally and enabler for his aggressive policies toward Iran and other countries in the Middle East. This will be a disaster for the U.S. Yet our policymakers have made this country a hostage of Natanyahu. Our foreign policy has essentially been signed over to him. When it comes to Iran and Middle East policy, the Capital of the U.S. may as well be Jerusalem. Luckily an October (or November) surprise never came. But whether it happens 6 months, 1 or 3 years from now really makes no difference. It will be a disaster no matter when it comes...and just as nonsensical.

Under the rules of the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, Iran has the right to engage in nuclear research & development. The demands being made on Iran have no basis in international law and are themselves, in fact, extralegal. Iran has the right to enrich uranium for industrial purposes. Western media always fails to explain the NPT rules.

Even if Iran were looking to build a nuclear weapon, a pre-emptive attack (which would start by air and Sea only) would not accomplish the goal of killing the program...again IF it exists. In fact, the opposite would occur. An attack would only ensure that Iran gets the bomb. They would kick out international inspectors and would go into bomb making full steam ahead. The only way to stop Iran once the U.S. and Israel start such a stupid war would be an all out ground invasion and occupation, requiring an amount of troops & equipment that the U.S. simply does not have. I encourage all to read the 'Iran Project Report' which spells out just SOME of the requirements and consequences of a war with Iran. The report, endorsed by dozens of current & former diplomats as well as top political and military leaders, basically confirms that such a war would be a disaster. A war would require hundreds of thousands of troops, many billions of dollars, would require a ground invasion and occupation and would be a mess. In fact, just an initial air attack on Iran would probably require ground forces because of the Iranian response. So an attack makes absolutely no sense.

A war with Iran would also have all sorts of other unintended consequences. It could drag in other nations. Russia has already hinted that it is making preparations to provide Iran with assistance in the event of an attack. Russia largely stood on the sidelines during the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and during U.S. deployments in the former Soviet Union. This time Russia, and to some extent China, have drawn lines in the sand around Syria and Iran. Russian and Chinese leaders have recently made remarks raising the possibility of a military conflict with the West, with Russia’s Medvedev in particular, mentioning the use of nuclear weapons (comments aimed at the U.S.).  Chinese officials were even more blunt, threatening to go to war over Iran.Although it may be just tough talk designed to deter the U.S., there could be substance behind the statements. This kind of bellicose talk has not been heard for a generation or more. In some cases it is worse than at the height of the Cold War. China enjoys some level of trade with Iran and gets a portion of its energy from the Persian State.

Another consequence, as if a major disastrous war is not enough, would be a backlash among Iranians. Currently many young Iranians are fond of U.S. freedoms and have adopted western culture and fashion. Although many believe in their nations right to develop nuclear technology. Many of these young Iranians have little sympathy for their hardline government. But launching a war against Iran will turn supporters away from the West and towards the very regime that the U.S. would like to see gone. The Iranian leadership is well aware of this. This is why they would like nothing more that to see the U.S. or Israel blunder and take some sort of military action. Such an attack would finally give the Iranian leadership what it has not been able to get for itself: widespread legitimacy & support from its own people. An attack would give them the support that has been elusive for the past few years and would validate their negative propaganda about the U.S. and Israel.

What makes this situation worse is that rational thought and common sense are not guiding the hands or minds of policymakers on either side. Religious fervor is informing both sides. Both sides believe that they are doing Gods work on some grand divine mission. Whenever you have a mix of religious dogma and defense policy, it creates a very dicey situation. With Israel and Iran, you have two religious States. These are not your typical secular institutions we are dealing with. Instead of playing grownup, the U.S. is about to allow Israel to make this colossal mistake. It appears that the U.S. is going to allow Jerusalem to pull us into a war (yet another) that we don’t need, and that will go against our interests. Relations with other nations will be irreparably damaged and the conflict could spread. Iranians will rally to support their leaders. Global oil prices will spike and Europe, already teetering on a cliff….will fall over it, into an even bigger crisis and we would likely see a global recession, possibly like 2008.…perhaps worse. The U.S. economy will certainly suffer.  All for a military attack that will not accomplish the desired goal. It makes no sense whatsoever. After all that we have gone through (and are still going through) to crawl out of the recent near Depression, and after getting to a point where Americans are rebuilding their lives and going back to work, we are about to throw away many of those gains because of the irrational fears of Israel.

I see no reason to be optimistic.

Unfortunately the chorus of public anger is not loud enough to get their attention. There does not seem to be much of an effort to stop a war in Iran or military intervention in Syria. This is unfortunate, because the drumbeat for war with Iran is getting louder by the day. There isn’t even an effort to make the need for a new foreign policy part of the national debate. It’s totally absent. All we hear are chest thumping statements from both camps, proclaiming their willingness to go to war with Iran because Israel wants them to. During the Presidential campaign Romney publicly promised war with Iran on Israel’s behalf. Quite unbelievable. Obama has been more nuanced... but Hillary Clinton is no dove. So it seems that America may be screwed no matter who is in office. This is why (knowing that Missouri was not a competitive State for Obama) I decided to support Jill Stein (Green Party Candidate) for President, because of her strong progressive domestic policy ideas and ultimately because her views were more in line with my own... particularly on foreign policy. But I just wish President Obama would listen to progressives like myself who have no voice under the so-called big tent.

The majority of Americans want to see a reduction in military spending in favor of other more important needs. This includes both Republicans and Democrats. Yet, policymakers have not pursued efforts that reflect that public sentiment. It is fascinating to me that members of Congress don’t seem to have a clue as to why two-thirds of Americans believe that the Country is on the wrong track or why the public approval of Congress has been as low as 12%. A misguided foreign policy is an example. Attention President Obama, White House Staff and members of Congress: Here is a clue. Americans are tired. We are war weary. 10 plus years of war…. 20 years of off & on military conflict is enough. $3 trillion dollars wasted is all that we can take, especially when pressing needs here at home are not being taken care of.

I suspect that the mandatory budget cuts for military spending, which are scheduled to automatically kick in under the Budget Control Act, actually won’t. There will be a last minute deal to keep that money flowing. Why? Because the Defense lobby has a lot of influence over Congress. Taxes won’t likely cover the cost because Republicans will block any effort to change the current tax situation. Draconian cuts in other parts of the budget will have to take place or we are looking at more deficit spending.  

Time To Act

There is still something that could be done. If enough people spoke up about this issue, perhaps we could at least get the topic on the table. Right now, the candidates won’t even mention foreign policy unless they are arguing about who is the toughest and most pro-war man for the job. Contact your member of Congress and press them on making this issue a part of the national debate. Reach out to the candidates and force them to answer questions about commitments that they have made to take us into yet more war. Something has to be done to bring this into the national consciousness and soon. Stop a war with Iran before it happens.

None of the other big problems can be solved in this Country without dealing with the foreign policy issue - an underlying problem that, directly or indirectly, impacts just about everything else. The potential nomination of UN Ambassador Susan Rice (a hardcore interventionist, ...from the Albright/old Brzezinski/Kissinger/Clinton school of foreign policy thought, far more pro-war than pro-dove) for the post of Secretary of State will be an indication of what direction the Obama Administration will take with foreign policy in its second term. The Russians (and others) have already taken the unusual step of saying (warning) that they don't want her... because she is too brash, rigid and aggressive. If she is nominated instead of someone more sensible, and more progressive like a John Kerry, I will puke. I am keeping my fingers crossed in hopes that this nomination isn't made. *****

“What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” ~ Then UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright to Colin Powell on intervention in Bosnia.

Powell's response:
"I thought I would have an aneurysm. American GIs were not toy soldiers to be moved around on some sort of global game board".

Susan Rice as Secretary of State would be many times worse.

Obama, Ryan, Romney: November is More Than an Election, It is a Test

Mitt Romney’s selection of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential nominee has deservedly cast light on Ryan’s draconian budget proposals to cut Medicare. However, Ryan’s proposed cuts to Medicare and every other program designed to keep people out of poverty symbolize his genuine disdain for the federal government and contrast nicely with President Obama’s views of the purpose of government. Read the rest here.

RomneyHood

In France, the new Social President Francois Hollande is proposing a tax of 75% on all income earned over a million euros a year. This is roughly one and a quarter million U.S. dollars. Among France’s rich elite, this has prompted a discussion of whether or not it would be better to flee the country rather than pay the taxes.

In the United States, the very rich do not flee the country they simply send their money abroad, like Mitt Romney, to avoid their taxes. While that is a specific example of Romney’s tone-deafness, the issue of tax avoidance is a big problem in the United States and other countries wishing to reduce deficit and debt.

Read the rest here.

A $100,000 Horse: Mitt Romney’s Tone-Deafness

The day before the opening ceremonies of the 2012 London Olympics, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney provided yet another reason why he is not as prepared for the presidency as the athletes are for the Olympics.

Romney’s ill-considered remarks that London was not ready for the Olympics insulted the British. Even GOP pundits agree that Romney’s remark is “beyond human understanding.” Romney is, of course, in London, to watch his wife Anne’s horse in the dressage competition. If you are like the rest of the 99% and do not know what dressage competition is like, here is a primer on the subject. A good dressage horse, by the way, goes for north of $100,000

Read the rest here.

Conservative Narrative on Defense Harder to Peddle

Why Romney is a flawed candidate

Romney never stopped campaigning after his failed 2008 presidential bid. That’s when he lost to a cranky septuagenarian whose only pizazz came in the form of a less-than-one-full-term governor vice-presidential selection. You can watch that HBO movie everyone is talking about, but I recommend reading the juicy details in “Game Change” the book.

Read the rest here.

Romney Claims His Real Tax Rate Is ‘Closer To 45 Or 50 Percent’

From ThinkProgress:

Watch Mitt Spin: Romney Claims His Real Tax Rate Is ‘Closer To 45 Or 50 Percent’

By Judd Legum on Jan 25, 2012 at 4:05 pm

During an interview with Univision, Romney was pressed on whether it was fair for him to pay about 13 percent of his income in taxes — as he did in 2010, according to his recently released tax returns — when many middle class families pay far more. Romney proceeded to claim that his actual rate is “closer to 45 or 50 percent.”

To justify his figure, Romney relied on his belief that “corporations are people.” When Univision’s Jorge Ramos asked Romney if his 13 percent tax rate is “fair,” Romney suggested adding the maximum corporate tax rate (35 percent) to his personal taxes to calculate his real rate:


RAMOS: You just released your tax returns. In 2010 you only paid 13 percent of taxes while most Americans paid much more than that. Is that fair?

ROMNEY: Well, actually, I released two years of taxes and I think the average is almost 15 percent. And then also, on top of that, I gave another more 15 percent to charity. When you add it together with all of the taxes and the charity, particularly in the last year, I think it reaches almost 40 percent that I gave back to the community. One of the reasons why we have a lower tax rate on capital gains is because capital gains are also being taxed at the corporate level. So as businesses earn profits, that’s taxed at 35 percent, then as they distribute those profits as dividends, that’s taxed at 15 percent more. So, all total, the tax rate is really closer to 45 or 50 percent.

RAMOS: But is it fair what you pay, 13 percent, while most pay much more than that?

ROMNEY: Well, again, I go back to the point that the, that the funds are being taxed twice at two different levels.



Romney glosses over the fact that he is not a corporation and doesn’t pay corporate taxes. Additionally, most corporations pay far lower than a 35 percent rate. In fact, many profitable corporations pay nothing at all.

In the alternative, Romney suggested that his tax rate should be considered “almost 40 percent” because he gave a substantial amount of money to charity, mostly to the Mormon church. Romney should be lauded for his charitable contributions — and received a tax deduction for them — but charitable contributions are not taxes.

Read more »

Why Bain and Willard's Tax Rate Matters

It seems as if the ' inevitable' campaign of Willard Romney has hit a snag. You know what happens when 'inevitable' campaigns come up against serious challenges, don't you? They don't seem to have a plan 'B'.

Willard has been running for President for a good five years, and he doesn't have a scintilla of genuine political skill. He doesn't know how to play a room. He doesn't know how to get the room behind him. Nobody's gonna cut someone for Willard. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if Willard's checks didn't clear, nobody would know his name.

Willard's entire campaign for President is based upon this:

This country needs a CEO to lead it to better economic times.

Condescendingly, Willard says that the President is a ' nice guy, but he's in over his head'. I kid you not. So, of course, it's up to Willard to show the President how it's done.

Willard knows nothing about foreign policy, and everytime he opens his mouth about it, he looks like a clown. WHO is Willard's foreign policy team? ALL the folks that lied us into Iraq. THAT is who's giving Willard foreign policy advice.

So, since he has nothing with regards to foreign policy, his entire campaign is based upon ECONOMIC POLICY.

He has nothing else, and quite frankly, I don't think that's a strong position for Willard.

Because, he's run away from his time as Governor of Massachusetts. It doesn't even come up in the conversation about why he should be President.

So, he put forth his time as a businessman as the reason he should be President.

GOOD.

That means BAIN.

Let's make this clear. The point of his work at Bain wasn't to create jobs; it was to get money back for the investors. If jobs were created, then that was a by-product, but it wasn't Willard's focus at Bain. The focus was making money; nothing wrong with making money, per se, but you can't base a Presidential campaign upon something that didn't happen. This is the era of Youtube; the internet. And, in each of the companies that went bankrupt because of Bain's Vulture Capitalism, there are plenty of workers to tell their stories; of lost pensions, and destroyed financial lives, all the while, even as the company went BANKRUPT, Willard and his minions made MILLIONS.

People aren't against capitalism in this country. All but the furthest left of the left-wingers, is against capitalism in America. But, there's a difference in an entrepreneur who invents something, brings a product to market that had never happened, creates the better mousetrap, per se, and builds a business that way. That is the traditional way I think most Americans think of capitalism. What Willard is, and the ilk like him, were people who never produced anything, other than schemes of how to invent ways to make money, even if it wound up destroying otherwise productive companies. There's a reason why someone like Warren Buffet doesn't deal with people who do what Willard and Bain did; he knows the difference between traditional capitalism, and the VULTURE capitalism that Willard and Bain practiced.

Rachel Maddow did a good segment on Willard, Bain, his inevitability, and if the economy improves, there IS NO REASON TO VOTE FOR MITT ROMNEY:

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

Read more »

Vulture Capitalism at its finest: When Mitt Romney Came To Town

When Mitt Romney Came To Town — Full, complete version

Issues: 8.16.11: Problems with Perry

Blogs and reporters are learning that covering Rick Perry (pictured) will be fun, entertaining and interesting. As a Texan and long-time subscriber of Texas Monthly I remember this article from February of 2010 asking if Rick Perry would be a presidential candidate. More recently, here's a story about Perry as the Great Campaigner.

While Perry is a three-termer he benefited in 2002 from his opponent, Tony Sanchez, being an exceptionally weak candidate. In 2006, he won with just 39% of the vote. In 2010 against a quality candidate he managed a quality victory with 55% of the vote. See his electoral history here.

Concerning Perry's performance, you can learn about Texas's economic performance, whether Perry solved Texas's budgetary crises with "sleight-of-hand", how Perry benefited from Big Energy, Perry's record on the environment, Medicaid, and why Texas has the highest percentage of residents uninsured. Paul Krugman (NYT) is unimpressed with Perry's economic record.

As far as Perry's main GOP competition goes, Michele Bachmann was apparently for federal pork projects for her district before she was against federal pork spending for everyone else's congressional districts. Beth Reinhard of The Atlantic says we shouldn't worry too much about Bachmann, that the real race is Romney v. Perry.

Not sure who Obama would rather run against, but I'm betting they'd prefer Bachmann or Perry as it would be easier to focus on a few of their wilder quotes like this comparing printing more money as treasonous. They will definitely accuse Perry as being a "carbon copy of the failed policies of the past." No doubt he'll attack Romney's character and business background.

Does Ames matter?

Joshua Tucker writes that the Iowa Straw poll maybe doesn't actually matter. Nate Silver (NYT) disagrees.

Miscellaneous:

While it's not a state, D.C. wins the title of "state" that is most economically confident.

Perhaps the most tweeted story of yesterday is Warren Buffett's op-ed (NYT) asking for Congress to stop "coddling the super-rich," especially given how average wages are falling.

The Firm Created for the sole purpose of giving Mitt Romney 1 MILLION DOLLARS - thank you, Citizens United

This is what Citizens United hath wrought. The Democrats SHOULD HAVE, when they had both Houses of Congress, did as the President requested and passed a DISCLOSURE LAW.

Simple thing - you give political money, you must declare yourself and how much. But, they listened to those lowlife weasel Blue Dogs, who never found a principle they would stand for it meant helping the common good.

For all we know, Al Qeda is giving money to Mittens.

From MSNBC.com:

Firm gives $1 million to pro-Romney group, then dissolves
By Michael Isikoff
National investigative correspondent

A mystery company that pumped $1 million into a political committee backing Mitt Romney has been dissolved just months after it was formed, leaving few clues as to who was behind one of the biggest contributions yet of the 2012 presidential campaign.

The existence of the million-dollar donation — as gleaned from campaign and corporate records obtained by NBC News — provides a vivid example of how secret campaign cash is being funneled in ever more circuitous ways into the political system.

The company, W Spann LLC, was formed in March by a Boston lawyer who specializes in estate tax planning for “high net worth individuals,” according to corporate records and the lawyer’s bio on her firm’s website.

The corporate records provide no information about the owner of the firm, its address or its type of business.

Six weeks later, W Spann LLC made its million-dollar donation to Restore Our Future — a new so-called “super PAC” started by a group of former Romney political aides to boost the former Massachusetts governor’s presidential bid. It listed its address as being in a midtown Manhattan office building that has no record of such a tenant.

The Boston lawyer, Cameron Casey, dissolved the company on July 12 — two weeks before Restore Our Future made its first campaign filing of the year reporting the donation from the now-nonexistent company, the corporate records show.

“I don’t see how you can do this,” said Lawrence Noble, the former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, when asked about the contribution from the now defunct company.

If the only purpose of W Spann’s formation was to contribute to the pro-Romney group, “There is a real issue of it being just a subterfuge” and that could raise a "serious" legal issue, Noble said. Even if that is not the case, he added, “What you have here is a roadmap for how people can hide their identities” when making political contributions.

Casey, the Boston lawyer, did not respond to requests for comment. Tim Larimer, a spokesman for her law firm, Ropes & Gray, said he couldn’t discuss who was behind W Spann LLC or any other matters relating to the campaign contribution. “The firm won’t be making any comment on this matter at this time,” he said in an email.

'Not something we normally ask'
Restore Our Future also declined to answer any questions about the W Spann LLC donation, one of only a handful of seven-figure donations the group has received this year.

"That’s not something that we normally ask a contributor for (and nor does any other political organization that I'm aware of),” Charles Spies, the committee’s campaign treasurer, said in an email response to a query about the owners of the firm and the limited information on its corporate registration. … “Restore Our Future has fully complied with, and will continue to comply with, all FEC disclosure requirements.”

Rachel Maddow did a piece on this.

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

UPDATE: Donor Revealed As Bain Executive

Mystery solved! The person who donated $1 million to a pro-Romney group through a barely existent company, W Spann LLC, has outed himself after campaign watchdogs demanded a federal investigation.

Ed Conrad, a former executive at Bain Capital, which Romney co-founded, told Politico on Friday that he had funneled the money to Super PAC Restore Our Future on the advice of his lawyers.

"I am the individual who formed and funded W Spann LLC," he said in a statement. "I authorized W Spann LLC's contribution to Restore Our Future PAC.I did so after consulting prominent legal counsel regarding the transaction, and based on my understanding that the contribution would comply with applicable laws. To address questions raised by the media concerning the contribution, I will request that Restore Our Future PAC amend its public reports to disclose me as the donor associated with this contribution."

THIS IS JUST ONE QUESTIONABLE DONATION. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS?
....................................


Rachel Maddow had a follow-up piece on it last night.

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

Rachel Maddow Destroys Mitt Romney - The Jobs Candidate?

Love this piece by Maddow. Romney is attempting to brand himself as 'the jobs candidate'. Not only did Massachusetts have flat job growth during Romney's stint as Governor, but he killed jobs when he was an executive in the private sector.

The Danger of a President Romney

His ideas on foreign policy and Arms Control warrant a second look.

The Republican Party's Makeover Is Going Well

It's going well if the goal is irrelevance.

Over the past week, Republicans have been busy self destructing and attacking one another. And I have to admit, it has been a joy to watch. The Republican base (the racists, the bigots, Southern White xenophobes, hate mongers, religious radicals, fiscal incompetents and the like) have been chastising a phony group of moderates who are at least attempting to appear reasonable and want to show that they are pulling the Party back to some sort of common sense position. The so-called Moderates, led by Congressman Eric Cantor, Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney are calling themselves the National Council for a New America. The group wants to travel the Country (outside of the South) to get a sense of what Americans are feeling and thinking and to get ideas on what direction they should take the Party. It's all part of efforts by Republicans to re-brand. But Rush Limbaugh (the Republican Party leader) is having none of it. Limbaugh & Co. believe that racism, greed, Laissez-faire government, free markets, torture, war, Wall Street, corporate incompetence, John Wayne Foreign Policy, Confederate Southern ideology, the Party of the White- Rich- and elderly, and the Party of "no" is the way of the future for the Republicans.

Tricky Dick II reaffirmed Limbaugh's position as the Republican leader and his out of touch ideology over the weekend by saying that he would support Boss Limbaugh's Republican Brand over that of Colin Powell (a man who actually served in war and has a very distinguished career). Because Powell endorsed Barack Obama during the 2008 General Election Campaign, Cheney stated that he "didn't know Powell was still a Republican".

The Republican Party is now being consumed by the very monster that it created some 20+ years ago - the powerful Right Wing Media.... which believes in the Party's more hardline, radical ideology regarding governance and religion. Don't doubt the strength they hold. They were able to sell the Country a phony war and were able to get a buffoon elected not once, but twice. Now the powerful Republican/Right Wing media is targeting its own. The resulting battle is going to be ugly.... but quite entertaining if you are a Progressive or Democrat.

This is why I have suggested that this is the time to force Republicans to make a choice. Force Republicans (those who will even admit to being Republican at this point) to either support the ridiculous comments and beliefs of their leaders in the Right wing media, or reject & denounce them. But this is a big dilemma for Republicans (and this is where Progressives trap them in a corner) because they can't afford to accept either choice. The Republican Party dies if the ideology of Limbaugh & Co. (the vast radical Republican media apparatus) is accepted by the Party's rank and file members. Because the rest of America (Democrats, Progressives, Independents, etc) isn't interested in buying the racism, religious radicalism, backwards thinking, out of touch beliefs, failed policies, and Laissez-faire attitude that the Republicans are selling. On the other hand, Republicans can't afford to reject the Right wing media either.... because the GOP has always relied on its propaganda wing to sustain the Party. It has never been sustained by its ideas (not in modern times at least) it has always been the Party's ability to control the narrative, control information and distort its opponents that has sustained the Party. The Republican Party is just a shell without its media platform. Right wing media is essential for the Party to gets its message out, to raise cash, to mobilize voters, to agitate and anger its base with wedge issues, to run its propaganda.... to do everything. Right wing media is a well orchestrated machine.

The problem is... that the machine has gotten so big.... that it's now a monster that has taken on a life of its own. It is no longer an apparatus that the old traditional Republican political leaders in Washington D.C. can control. Thus, they lost the real leadership of the Party a long time ago. The huge network of Limbaugh and Co. represent the true leadership of the Party....regardless of how backwards that leadership is.

Unions are the problem with the auto industry, according to Mitt Romney

Former Massachusetts Governor and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has written an op-ed in the New York Times about the auto industry. Gov. Romney is uniquely qualified to comment on the industry...not only due to his personal knowledge of the business but also because his father was the president of American Motors. I was expecting, then, something that was thoughtful and insightful; unfortunately, this article included the same old Republican talking points. It could have been written by Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh.

In a little less than 900 words, Gov. Romney summed up the problems of the auto industry in one word...unions. Unions are the sole problem. Not once in the article did he mention anything about management. He did not mention anything about healthcare costs. The problem was simply labor costs. The former governor mentioned that American automakers spend the extra $2000 per car. Other car manufacturers like BMW, Honda or Toyota don't have to pay this expense. Unions are the root of all evil. That's Romney's argument in a nutshell.

Nowhere in Gov. Romney's article does it mention anything about CEO pay. He doesn't mention that the CEO of General Motors, G. Richard Wagoner, is getting paid about $14.4 million per year. That is not much when compared to hedge fund managers who made hundreds of millions (some times billions) of dollars per year...but when you compare that to less than $1 million per year that the CEO of Toyota takes home everything comes into focus.

Gov. Romney, like many other Republicans, argues that America does not need to bail out the auto industry. Instead, America needs to let the auto industry go bankrupt. Once they file for Chapter 11, the auto industry can renegotiate contracts and refocus on their product.

Lee Iacocca , 1979, received loan guarantees from the United States government. His Chrysler Corporation began to produce smaller, cost-efficient carsThe Dodge Aries and the Plymouth Reliant are examples.. In 1983, Chrysler introduced the minivan to the United States. Because of these innovations, Chrysler was able to pay off its loans seven years ahead of schedule. (Iococca's silence is troubling. I hope that he isn't sick. hope that he will weigh in on this subject.)

I will not pretend to know all the ins and outs of Detroit. What I will tell you is that throughout the 1980s and 1990s they pumped out a series of cars that were unreliable, expensive and guzzled gas. During this time, Toyota and Honda chipped away at their market share by delivering small, cost-efficient and reliable cars. There is no doubt that mistakes were made both by management and labor throughout this time. For too long Detroit has continued to rely on SUV and truck sales which have large profit margins. A new model needs to be developed. Detroit has to figure out a way to develop cars quicker and faster. Detroit needs to innovate. (I know everybody uses the word innovate, too much, meaning create something.) Detroit needs to develop several types of new cars. These cars should include electric cars and hydrogen cars. There should be new fuel-efficient cars. We need to be more and better hybrid cars. The reliability of American cars should be unparalleled. Detroit should not expect Americans to buy a new car every 3-4 years. Americans don't make that kind of money anymore.

The American auto industry must take risks. In the past, the auto industry was making way too much money to take any risks. They never sqw the need to do so. They were forced to embrace seatbelts, safety glass, anti-lock brakes and other innovations. In my opinion, small divisions should be set up to take risks, while they alll design and research auto safety to see if it all works.

Finally, Detroit needs to look at several problems and work with labor unions and the government to fix these problems. These problems include (but are not limited to) healthcare costs, pension costs...labor costs. If Detroit can build a car that is as good as a Mercedes, Audi or BMW...I don't mind paying the extra $1000 - $1500 more if I know the workers are being well compensated.

Out Of New Hampshire: The Race Is On

Wow. What a difference a few hours can make! Going into tonight, many were writing the Clinton campaign obituary and now she is perhaps the favorite again. The Obama campaign expected to win. Heck, even the Clinton campaign expected Obama to win. All the pundits, Political Realm included, were wrong and the race was turned on its head.

How did Clinton do it? In New Hampshire, Clinton dominated the female vote, easily out-pacing Obama, who had won the group in Iowa. Whether that's the result of Clinton's near tears yesterday or a more open campaign that shifted focus somewhat, we don't know. The polling we've seen over the past few days gave Obama a lead of nearly 10 points, but perhaps those numbers were simply soft. Perhaps there were a significant number of late deciders that broke for Clinton. Perhaps the questions raised about Obama's experience, record, and readiness to lead paid off for the Clinton campaign. Perhaps the voters of New Hampshire wanted this thing to turn into a race, rather than a coronation.

In the end, it seems like we simply misjudged the state of the race. Obama was over-hyped out of Iowa, while everyone underestimated Clinton's superior organization, establishment backing, and appeal with voters in New Hampshire. Most suspected the vast number of independents would provide fertile soil for Obama, especially compared to Iowa. However, the number of first time participants was down tonight from Iowa and it's likely that those independents fit right into Clinton's target profile--blue collar workers. We do know one thing--the Clinton campaign won't badmouth New Hampshire as it did Iowa a few days ago.

Of course, let's not get ahead of ourselves again. The narrative out of the first two contests is decidedly unclear. Barack Obama's Iowa victory was a huge shock to much of America. Will this Clinton win be as surprising? For political junkies, sure it is, but for the average voter who may not be as tuned in to this race I'm not so sure. The Obama campaign will be quick to point out that Clinton had a lead in New Hampshire just a week ago. To the contrary, the Clinton campaign is hoping that she will be portrayed as the "Comeback Kid" tomorrow, just as her husband was 16 years ago. Indeed, the shift in the Granite State over the past few hours has been simply stunning. For all the talk that Iowa and New Hampshire hold too much power, look at what they have given us--a real race on both sides.

So where do the Democrats go from here? It's on to Nevada and South Carolina, where Obama seemed to have all the momentum this morning. He is apparently going to pick up a major union endorsement in Nevada tomorrow--one earned more because of his victories (they were likely assuming a New Hampshire win just like everyone else) than because of his positions. Many believed that endorsement could have gone to either of Obama's key rivals and we have to wonder if the union is rethinking things tonight. In South Carolina, Obama's Iowa victory showed black voters, who will make up much of the electorate, that he can win in white America. Clinton, however, has strong ties in the black community, so will a New Hampshire win bring those voters back to her campaign?

The campaigns of John Edwards and especially Bill Richardson will likely reevaluate after tonight's results. Richardson clearly has no chance of winning this thing, while John Edwards is all but out of it as well. Both campaigns should be running out of funds soon, making it even more difficult to compete going forward.

On the Republican side, things played out in a much more expected manner. John McCain was the clear winner, though his margin was surprising to some. He overcame a campaign in shambles this summer, a media that left him for dead, an unpopular immigration plan, and support for a surge in Iraq that wasn't working. In the end, the campaign was tightened up, the media came back to him, his immigration position remained unpopular, but better explained, and the situation in Iraq started to improve. He is now well positioned for the contests to follow in Michigan and South Carolina and the win tonight will infuse some much needed cash.

For Romney, the collapse is shocking. His control of the first two contests looked insurmountable this summer and into the fall and now he finds himself in perilous position. He has family ties in Michigan, but faces McCain with momentum and Huckabee in a more friendly environment. If he can't somehow defy the odds there, Romney is certainly done. Fred Thompson has already moved on to South Carolina and Huckabee will join him there tomorrow. Huckabee's strong third tonight--New Hampshire was never expected to be his state--sets up the rest of the race as seemingly Huckabee vs. McCain. Giuliani, though happy that the early contests are producing mixed results, has seen his national lead deteriorate. In Florida, a state where he has devoted much of his recent attention, he now finds himself in fourth place in a new poll.

What do we take away from tonight? Both sides have major comeback stories--Clinton in the short term and McCain in the long term. There are no frontrunners anymore. Look for a fresh set of presidential rankings from us before the week is out as the campaign resets for the next phase. Without a doubt, the race is on.

Cross-posted at Political Realm.

Top 5 Misstatements of this election cycle

Misstatements? or Lies? I’m just askin’. This is Dan Abrams top 5 (he discusses them with Rachael Maddow from Air America and Craig Crawford from Congressional Quarterly) What are your top 5?

Click here for video.

The Republican Field of 2008

The Republican Field of 2008.

In watching the GOP Field of 2008, it's like watching Alice in Wonderland, because so many things that just go in opposite of everything we supposedly knew about the GOP has been turned on its head.

The GOP used to be about ' authenticity'. They cherished 'true believers' above all else.

That is why Flipping Mitt and Rudy having ANY sort of a chance makes absolutely no sense.

Mitt Romney

Flipping Mitt is the most phony, plastic politician that I've ever seen. He has no core. He has no set of values, except for that he believes he should be President. That's the ONLY value he has.

He was against abortion until he became for abortion to win Governor of Massachusetts before he became against it again because he was running for President.

Pick and issue, and you'll see the same flip-flop all over the place.

He lied on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He's a total fraud.

He is a phony. Not only is he a phony, but he's a phony who believes in the continuation of the Imperial Presidency, as his responses to the Boston Globe questionnaire about Presidential Power proves. If you believe in The Constitution, Flipping Mitt's not your man.

EVERY PAPER that has studied Flipping Mitt in New Hampshire and Massachusetts has taken a pass on endorsing him.

If you want to read what those who know Flipping Mitt best TRULY think about him, try the Manchester Union Leader, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and Concord Monitor.

And, I guess, I'm suspicious of ANYONE who was part of a secret meeting last year with Conservative bigwigs including Dick Cheney. NO OTHER GOP candidate was invited to the meeting - only Romney? That's enough guilt by association to cast yet another shadow on Flipping Mitt.


Rudy Giuliani

Rudy...Rudy...Rudy.

If the GOP nominates a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun, thrice married MAYOR as their nominee...a few things...

NOT ONE MUMBLING WORD ABOUT MORALITY.
NOT ONE MUMBLING WORD ABOUT FAMILY VALUES.

Don't even open the mouth to utter the words.

Rudy should be disqualified for many reasons,but if you only need one, here you go:

He's welcomed, with open arms, into the busom of his campaign...

THE INTELLECTUAL ARCHITECTS OF THE IRAQ WAR.

They are firmly ensconsed in Camp Rudy, and that kind of ' company he keeps' should make you think more than twice about him.

And, it's not just the ' Progressives' who have a problem with Rudy.

This is what the AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MAGAZINE thought about him.



Now, these are his OWN PEOPLE...his OWN PARTY...telling you which way is up...

So, that really leaves us with Huckabee and McCain.

Mike Huckabee.

I understand the appeal. He is a personable man, with an air of being comfortable in his own skin and making others at ease at the same time. While it's clear that Huckabee is a Christian, and that his faith is the cornerstone to his approach to governmental policy, it is also quite clear that Huckabee DOES NOT define his Christianity narrowly to the issues of: Abortion and Homosexuals. While those issues are in there for him, they are NOT the central focus of his Christianity, and that is one of the problems that the GOP Establishment has with Huckabee. As long as they could throw red meat to the Evangelicals, by so narrowly defining Christianity on the lines of Abortion and Gays, knowing full well that they had no intention of really doing anything on either issue, it was ok.

But, Huckabee is NOT that kind of Evangelical. He is NOT that kind of religious conservative. In listening to Huckabee give a few speeches, I have realized why the man was able to garner over 40% of the Black vote. It's because the Black voters in Arkansas saw that Huckabee was NOT a ' let them eat cake' conservative. Listening to him talk about keeping in mind the poverty-striken young boy in one of the poorest parts of Arkansas when he made decisions, he was speaking to the Christianity that African-Americans were pretty much raised upon until this Prosperity Gospel came on the scene. It was a Jesus that helped those 'least among us'.

Huckabee speaks a Populist message. He talks about those on ' Main Street' who are experiencing the economic anxiety of the middle-class and working class. He doesn't believe in unfettered capitalism without regards to the working man and woman. And nothing scares the GOP Establishment more than someone talking a Populist Message. Someone who isn't following the ' let them eat cake' model, which is why they are determined to stomp out Huckabee at all costs.

John McCain.

A candidate left for dead this summer has climbed out of the doldrums and back into the hunt.

Why?

Because, he finally became the John McCain of 2000 again. He may not be from central casting (a la Romney), or be a smooth talker (the Huckster), but there is something unmistakeably authentic about John McCain. It's when he lost it that he walked away from who he was.

In their endorsement of McCain, the conservative Manchester Union Leader said the following:

On Jan. 8, New Hampshire Republicans will make one of the most important choices for their party and nation in the history of our presidential primary. Their choice ought to be John McCain.

We don't agree with him on every issue. We disagree with him strongly on campaign finance reform. What is most compelling about McCain, however, is that his record, his character, and his courage show him to be the most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination. Simply put, McCain can be trusted to make informed decisions based on the best interests of his country, come hell or high water

I think that's the bottom line about McCain. You don't have to agree with him on every issue. But, you can be certain that behind his decisions, there is a certain CORE there. He took his lumps in those debates because of his stances on issues that made him out of the mainstream with the party, but he took them because he believed in them. In debate after debate, John McCain would often provide the most ' HUMAN ' of moments in those debates, and they stood out because of his humanity and authenticity. In his Boston Globe Questionnaire, McCain stands up for The Constitution and the belief that the President is NOT above the law.

McCain has garnered the endorsements of the Boston Globe, Boston Herald,Concord Monitor and Nashua Telegraph.

I don't root for John McCain because I think he'd be the easiest GOP candidate. In fact, I believe he's the hardest GOP candidate. But, when I think of the possibility of a Republican President, he's the only one that DOESN'T make me think the very foundation of this country would be in jeopardy with his win.