..................................................................................................................................
'Next Bush' makes campaign filing in Texas
By
George P. Bush, a nephew of former President George W. Bush and son of one-time Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has made a campaign filing in Texas that is required of candidates planning to run for state office, an official said Thursday night.
The younger Bush, a Fort Worth resident, filed a campaign treasurer appointment Wednesday, a requirement for someone to become a candidate under campaign finance law, Tim Sorrells, general counsel for the Texas Ethics Commission, told The Associated Press.
Sorrells said the report does not specify what office Bush might seek, if any, and he had no other details on the filing, which wasn't available online. Bush did not immediately reply to an email seeking comment, and no phone listing for him could be found.
The 36-year-old said in September his goal was to run for office and acknowledged that he had his eyes on several statewide offices.
Raised in Florida, Bush decided to settle in Texas, home to his uncle and his grandfather, formerPresident George H.W. Bush. He runs a consulting firm and has been active in Republican Party outreach to college students. He's also the co-founder of Hispanic Republicans of Texas, a group that seeks to elect Hispanic candidates.
Ana Navarro, who was the national Hispanic co-chairwoman for John McCain when he ran for president in 2008, tweeted her enthusiasm Thursday.
"Wrote check for my friend, (at)georgepbush newly formed exploratory committee for office in TX. Young, pragmatic, Hispanic, just what GOP needs," Navarro's tweet read.
Bush and his wife, Amanda, met while attending law school at the University of Texas at Austin. After working as a lawyer, Bush became a partner in a real estate investment firm. He has started his second company, St. Augustine Partners, a business consulting firm aimed at small- and medium-market energy industries.
Bush also has Navy service on his resume, including a six-month deployment to Afghanistan, where, for security purposes, he was given a different name. Not even those he was serving alongside knew he was a Bush.
..................................................................................................................................
Friday, November 9, 2012
At least he contributed to the economy
..................................................................................................................................
Election Day's Biggest Loser
By MATTHEW MOSK, November 8, 2012
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson gambled more than $54 million on Tuesday's elections. And he lost.
The quixotic chairman of the Las Vegas Sands gaming company rose to the top of campaign giving in 2012, gaining notoriety for almost single-handedly staking the campaign of Republican primary contender Newt Gingrich and then continuing to make audacious contributions once Gingrich dropped out – with millions more going to GOP nominee Mitt Romney and two superPACs supporting his bid.
Tuesday, he emerged as arguably the single biggest loser of the campaign, financially speaking. In addition to investing in Gingrich and Romney, Adelson and his relatives donated to the U.S. House campaigns of Rep. Allan West of Florida and New Jersey Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, and the Senate runs of Virginia's George Allen, Florida's Connie Mack, and Texas's David Dewhurst. All lost. (Dewhurst never made it past the primary.) His sole consolation was helping fund the defeat of hometown nemesis Shelley Berkley, who lost her bid for a U.S. Senate seat.
Not that Adelson's likely to feel much of a sting. Adelson, 79, owns 49 percent of the Las Vegas Sands casino company, of which he is chairman. The company's operations in Macau and elsewhere in Asia have made it the world's leading gambling operation. His estimated net worth is north of $20.5 billion.
Throughout the campaign, there was widespread speculation about his motives for donating so much this cycle. Adelson is a major supporter of Israel and Israel-related causes. He has also been embroiled in a controversy surrounding his company's sizeable operation in Macau, a Chinese island that has outpaced Las Vegas as a source of gambling revenue.
ABC News previously reported that Adelson's company has been the subject of a criminal investigation for the last year by the Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission for alleged bribery of foreign officials, according to corporate documents. A separate civil lawsuit filed by a former Sands executive has further alleged that Adelson ordered him to keep quiet about the casinos' purported "involvement with Chinese organized crime groups." Adelson has publicly dismissed the allegations as frivolous.
In its filings with the SEC, Adelson's company says it became aware of the investigation in February 2011. The company said it "intends to cooperate with the investigation." At a gaming forum in 2011, Adelson said the lawsuit "is not a serious case" and that the federal investigations would find no wrongdoing. "When the smoke clears, I am 1,000 percent positive that there won't be any fire below it."
Sands corporate spokesman Ron Reese did not return messages left at his office Wednesday.
If Adelson's goal in donating so much to the 2012 campaigns was to open a channel of access to high-level federal officials (he has denied he is seeking access), experts said he is now safe in assuming that effort has failed.
"I don't think he has bridges to the Obama administration," said Bill Allison, who follows campaign giving for the Sunlight Foundation.
"One reason we always think people give, especially that much money, is they want access," Allison said. "They want an appointment or an ambassadorship. They want the ability to pick up the phone and call the White House. He definitely won't have that. He has cut himself off by coming out so strongly on one side."
But will he be subject to reprisals, having put so much money behind an effort to defeat President Obama?
A White House spokesman responded to that question succinctly: "No."
Allison said he does not believe Adelson's lost wager will dissuade future wealthy political enthusiasts from throwing large amounts of money behind a political candidate.
"I have no doubt," Allison said, "that some other billionaire will feel like he can make a huge impact on the political system with a small fraction of his fortune."
..................................................................................................................................
Election Day's Biggest Loser
By MATTHEW MOSK, November 8, 2012
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson gambled more than $54 million on Tuesday's elections. And he lost.
The quixotic chairman of the Las Vegas Sands gaming company rose to the top of campaign giving in 2012, gaining notoriety for almost single-handedly staking the campaign of Republican primary contender Newt Gingrich and then continuing to make audacious contributions once Gingrich dropped out – with millions more going to GOP nominee Mitt Romney and two superPACs supporting his bid.
Tuesday, he emerged as arguably the single biggest loser of the campaign, financially speaking. In addition to investing in Gingrich and Romney, Adelson and his relatives donated to the U.S. House campaigns of Rep. Allan West of Florida and New Jersey Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, and the Senate runs of Virginia's George Allen, Florida's Connie Mack, and Texas's David Dewhurst. All lost. (Dewhurst never made it past the primary.) His sole consolation was helping fund the defeat of hometown nemesis Shelley Berkley, who lost her bid for a U.S. Senate seat.
Not that Adelson's likely to feel much of a sting. Adelson, 79, owns 49 percent of the Las Vegas Sands casino company, of which he is chairman. The company's operations in Macau and elsewhere in Asia have made it the world's leading gambling operation. His estimated net worth is north of $20.5 billion.
Throughout the campaign, there was widespread speculation about his motives for donating so much this cycle. Adelson is a major supporter of Israel and Israel-related causes. He has also been embroiled in a controversy surrounding his company's sizeable operation in Macau, a Chinese island that has outpaced Las Vegas as a source of gambling revenue.
ABC News previously reported that Adelson's company has been the subject of a criminal investigation for the last year by the Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission for alleged bribery of foreign officials, according to corporate documents. A separate civil lawsuit filed by a former Sands executive has further alleged that Adelson ordered him to keep quiet about the casinos' purported "involvement with Chinese organized crime groups." Adelson has publicly dismissed the allegations as frivolous.
In its filings with the SEC, Adelson's company says it became aware of the investigation in February 2011. The company said it "intends to cooperate with the investigation." At a gaming forum in 2011, Adelson said the lawsuit "is not a serious case" and that the federal investigations would find no wrongdoing. "When the smoke clears, I am 1,000 percent positive that there won't be any fire below it."
Sands corporate spokesman Ron Reese did not return messages left at his office Wednesday.
If Adelson's goal in donating so much to the 2012 campaigns was to open a channel of access to high-level federal officials (he has denied he is seeking access), experts said he is now safe in assuming that effort has failed.
"I don't think he has bridges to the Obama administration," said Bill Allison, who follows campaign giving for the Sunlight Foundation.
"One reason we always think people give, especially that much money, is they want access," Allison said. "They want an appointment or an ambassadorship. They want the ability to pick up the phone and call the White House. He definitely won't have that. He has cut himself off by coming out so strongly on one side."
But will he be subject to reprisals, having put so much money behind an effort to defeat President Obama?
A White House spokesman responded to that question succinctly: "No."
Allison said he does not believe Adelson's lost wager will dissuade future wealthy political enthusiasts from throwing large amounts of money behind a political candidate.
"I have no doubt," Allison said, "that some other billionaire will feel like he can make a huge impact on the political system with a small fraction of his fortune."
..................................................................................................................................
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Daily Double
Arthur H:
"Typical atheist. Prayer used to be in schools. And the Pledge of Allegiance. Unless you progressives got that out also. Shame on you and your beliefs."
Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/11/08/2312070/a-womans-view-on-a-persons-rights.html#storylink=cpy
Artie thinks that prayer in school is OK if it's Christian, but if it's Islamic....well, then that's Sharia Law
Shame on Artie for making Horse's Asses so good.
Are you sure that isn't pronounced "Oddie"?
Horse's Ass of the Day
"I have no problem with same sex couples doing what they want just stay away from me......"
Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/11/08/2312633/opponents-of-gay-marriage-concede.html#storylink=cpy
What makes you think that anyone would be interested in you?
Mitt, why didn't you pay for your campaign yourself?
..................................................................................................................................
How Race Slipped Away From Romney
By Sara Murray and Patrick O'Connor, November 8, 2012
Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest men ever to run for president. And yet the lack of money earlier this year stalled his campaign, and he never really recovered.
The GOP nominee emerged late last spring from a long and bruising Republican primary season more damaged than commonly realized. His image with voters had eroded as he endured heavy attacks from Republicans over his business record. He also felt compelled to take a hard line on immigration—one that was the subject of debate among his advisers—that hurt his standing with Hispanic voters.
More than that, Mr. Romney had spent so much money winning the nomination that he was low on cash; aides, seeing the problem taking shape, had once considered accepting federal financing for the campaign rather than rely on private donations.
The campaign's fate led on Wednesday to second-guessing and recriminations among Republicans chagrined that a seemingly winnable race slipped away. Some Republicans wondered whether the Romney campaign had misjudged the power of President Barack Obama's coalition, while others were questioning Mr. Romney's and the party's approach to immigration.
Back in spring, the Romney campaign's biggest worry was money. So the campaign's finance chair, Spencer Zwick, huddled with political director Rich Beeson to craft a complex schedule that took Mr. Romney to the cities that were prime real estate for fundraising.
It meant visits to places like California, Texas and New York—none of which were important political battlegrounds—while only allowing for quick side trips to swing states that Mr. Romney would need to win to become president.
On one level the strategy worked: Mr. Romney ultimately garnered some $800 million or more, putting him in close competition with Mr. Obama's robust fundraising effort.
But Mr. Romney paid a deep political price. The fundraising marathon reduced his ability to deliver his own message to voters just as the Obama campaign was stepping in to define the Republican candidate on its terms. Mr. Romney's heavy wooing of conservative donors limited his ability to move his campaign positions to the center, to appeal to moderate and independent donors.
The search for cash led him to a Florida mansion for a private fundraiser where Mr. Romney would make the deeply damaging, secretly recorded remarks where he disparaged and dismissed the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes.
In the end, Mr. Romney lost nearly every swing state. Other factors contributed to his defeat, of course, including difficulty making voters warm to him and a dearth of support among Hispanics.
But in the eyes of top aides in both campaigns, that early summer period when Mr. Romney was busy fundraising was perhaps the biggest single reason he lost the election.
The Obama campaign spent heavily while Mr. Romney couldn't, launched a range of effective attacks on the Republican nominee and drove up voters' negative perceptions of Mr. Romney.
The problem: Mr. Romney had burned through much of his money raised for the primaries, and by law, he couldn't begin spending his general-election funds until he accepted the GOP nomination late in the summer.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
How Race Slipped Away From Romney
By Sara Murray and Patrick O'Connor, November 8, 2012
Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest men ever to run for president. And yet the lack of money earlier this year stalled his campaign, and he never really recovered.
The GOP nominee emerged late last spring from a long and bruising Republican primary season more damaged than commonly realized. His image with voters had eroded as he endured heavy attacks from Republicans over his business record. He also felt compelled to take a hard line on immigration—one that was the subject of debate among his advisers—that hurt his standing with Hispanic voters.
More than that, Mr. Romney had spent so much money winning the nomination that he was low on cash; aides, seeing the problem taking shape, had once considered accepting federal financing for the campaign rather than rely on private donations.
The campaign's fate led on Wednesday to second-guessing and recriminations among Republicans chagrined that a seemingly winnable race slipped away. Some Republicans wondered whether the Romney campaign had misjudged the power of President Barack Obama's coalition, while others were questioning Mr. Romney's and the party's approach to immigration.
Back in spring, the Romney campaign's biggest worry was money. So the campaign's finance chair, Spencer Zwick, huddled with political director Rich Beeson to craft a complex schedule that took Mr. Romney to the cities that were prime real estate for fundraising.
It meant visits to places like California, Texas and New York—none of which were important political battlegrounds—while only allowing for quick side trips to swing states that Mr. Romney would need to win to become president.
On one level the strategy worked: Mr. Romney ultimately garnered some $800 million or more, putting him in close competition with Mr. Obama's robust fundraising effort.
But Mr. Romney paid a deep political price. The fundraising marathon reduced his ability to deliver his own message to voters just as the Obama campaign was stepping in to define the Republican candidate on its terms. Mr. Romney's heavy wooing of conservative donors limited his ability to move his campaign positions to the center, to appeal to moderate and independent donors.
The search for cash led him to a Florida mansion for a private fundraiser where Mr. Romney would make the deeply damaging, secretly recorded remarks where he disparaged and dismissed the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes.
In the end, Mr. Romney lost nearly every swing state. Other factors contributed to his defeat, of course, including difficulty making voters warm to him and a dearth of support among Hispanics.
But in the eyes of top aides in both campaigns, that early summer period when Mr. Romney was busy fundraising was perhaps the biggest single reason he lost the election.
The Obama campaign spent heavily while Mr. Romney couldn't, launched a range of effective attacks on the Republican nominee and drove up voters' negative perceptions of Mr. Romney.
The problem: Mr. Romney had burned through much of his money raised for the primaries, and by law, he couldn't begin spending his general-election funds until he accepted the GOP nomination late in the summer.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
Obama used the latest census results to his advantage
..................................................................................................................................
Obama's demographic edge
By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower,
November 7, 2012
*** Obama's demographic edge: Yes, the auto bailout mattered in Ohio. Sure, Hurricane Sandy helped the president. And, yes, the economy was the No. 1 issue. But make no mistake: What happened last night was a demographic time bomb that had been ticking and that blew up in GOP faces. As the Obama campaign had assumed more than a year ago, the white portion of the electorate dropped to 72%, and the president won just 39% of that vote. But he carried a whopping 93% of black voters (representing 13% of the electorate), 71% of Latinos (representing 10%), and also 73% of Asians (3%). What’s more, despite all the predictions that youth turnout would be down, voters 18-29 made up 19% of last night’s voting population -- up from 18% four years ago -- and President Obama took 60% from that group. The trend also played out in the key battleground states: The president won about 70% of the Latino vote in Colorado and Nevada, and he won 60% of it in Florida (a high number given the state’s large GOP-leaning Cuban-American population). On Monday, we wrote that demography could determine destiny. And that’s exactly what happened. While the campaign’s turnout operation deserves all the credit for getting these voters to the polls, the most significant event of this presidential contest might very well have been the 2010 census.
*** And the GOP’s demographic dilemma: Obama’s demographic edge creates this dilemma for the Republican Party: It can no longer rely on white voters to win national elections anymore, especially in presidential cycles. Indeed, according to the exit poll, 89% of all votes Mitt Romney won last night came from whites (compared with 56% for Obama). So the Republicans are maximizing their share with white voters; they just aren’t getting the rest. And come 2016, the white portion of the electorate will probably drop another couple of points to 70%. Politico’s Martin puts it this way: “Battling a wheezing economy and a deeply motivated opposition, Obama still managed to retain much of his 2008 map because of the GOP’s deficiencies with the voters who are changing the political face of once conservative-leaning Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada. Republicans face a crisis: the country is growing less white and their coalition has become more white in recent years. In 2004, George W. Bush won [about 40 percent] of Hispanics. Four years later, John McCain, the author of an immigration reform bill, took 31 percent of Hispanics. And this year, Romney captured only 27 percent of Hispanics.”
*** Hard for the GOP just to turn to the Midwest: Now Republicans might argue, “Look, we can win back the Midwest -- Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin.” Yet those account for 34 electoral votes. But the Sun Belt states where Obama campaigned and which have more diverse populations (Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia) have a total of 57 electoral votes. And then there are Arizona, Georgia, and Texas. Do those states come into play in 2016? What about 2020? Come 2016, you could argue that Arizona and Georgia become for Democrats what Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania are for Republicans -- just slightly out of reach.
*** Last night’s results: The morning after, here are the results (so far) from last night: Obama holds 303 electoral votes and Romney 206. (NBC News has yet to call Florida and its 29 electoral votes, but Obama leads there 50%-49%.) In the popular vote, it’s Obama 50%, Romney 48%. Also, Democrats have held on to their Senate majority and might add to it -- with undecided races in Montana (where Democratic incumbent Jon Tester leads 48%-48% with 77% in) and North Dakota (where Democrat Heidi Heitkamp is ahead by about 3,000 voters with 93% in). But Republicans held on to control of the House, holding 237 seats vs. 197 for the Democrats, plus-minus four seats.
*** Does status-quo control = status-quo governing? So in the end, we got a status-quo result -- with Obama holding on to the White House, Democrats keeping control of the Senate, and Republicans maintaining their grip on the House. But here’s the question with the “fiscal cliff” negotiations coming up: Will the governing be status quo, too? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released this statement last night: “To the extent [Obama] wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we’ll be there to meet him half way. That begins by proposing a way for both parties to work together in avoiding the ‘fiscal cliff’ without harming a weak and fragile economy, and when that is behind us work with us to reform the tax code and our broken entitlement system.” And House Speaker John Boehner makes a statement on the “fiscal cliff” negotiations at 3:30 pm ET. But who holds the mandate here? The GOP? Or a president who waged a national campaign on raising taxes for the wealthy, and who won? And here’s another question: Do Boehner and McConnell take advantage of the lame duck to compromise?
*** Obama’s swing-county swagger: Turning back to last night’s presidential contest, Obama beat Romney in almost all of the swing counties (won by Bush in ’04 but by Obama in ’08). Indeed, Obama won three of four swing counties in Florida (Hillsborough, Pinellas, Osceola), four of six in Ohio (Hamilton, Wood, Ottawa, Sandusky), 11 of 14 in Virginia (including Loudon, Prince William, and Henrico), and all six in Colorado (including Jefferson, Arapahoe, and Larimer). And despite losing North Carolina, Obama may have proved that the state is changing, becoming more “Mid-Atlantic” but not quite all there, as Charlie Cook has said. Obama won nine of 13 swing counties in the Tar Heel State (including the large counties of Wake, Forsyth, Cumberland, and Buncombe).
*** And his tactical dominance: But it was more than winning the swing counties for Obama; it was tactical dominance. Romney made inroads all across the country from previous GOP performance. What happened, however, was that the Obama campaign exploited the census and changed the margins. The best example of this was in Florida.
*** Making history: Finally, it was an historic-making election. With Obama’s re-election, we now have the first time since Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe that Americans have elected three two-term presidents in a row… Tammy Baldwin will become the Senate’s first openly gay member… The Senate will have at least 19 female members -- the most ever -- and there’s a chance that number could increase to 20 if Heitkamp wins… Maryland and Maine became the first states to approve of gay marriage at the ballot box… And initiatives to legalize marijuana passed in Colorado and Washington state.
..................................................................................................................................
Obama's demographic edge
By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower,
November 7, 2012
*** Obama's demographic edge: Yes, the auto bailout mattered in Ohio. Sure, Hurricane Sandy helped the president. And, yes, the economy was the No. 1 issue. But make no mistake: What happened last night was a demographic time bomb that had been ticking and that blew up in GOP faces. As the Obama campaign had assumed more than a year ago, the white portion of the electorate dropped to 72%, and the president won just 39% of that vote. But he carried a whopping 93% of black voters (representing 13% of the electorate), 71% of Latinos (representing 10%), and also 73% of Asians (3%). What’s more, despite all the predictions that youth turnout would be down, voters 18-29 made up 19% of last night’s voting population -- up from 18% four years ago -- and President Obama took 60% from that group. The trend also played out in the key battleground states: The president won about 70% of the Latino vote in Colorado and Nevada, and he won 60% of it in Florida (a high number given the state’s large GOP-leaning Cuban-American population). On Monday, we wrote that demography could determine destiny. And that’s exactly what happened. While the campaign’s turnout operation deserves all the credit for getting these voters to the polls, the most significant event of this presidential contest might very well have been the 2010 census.
*** And the GOP’s demographic dilemma: Obama’s demographic edge creates this dilemma for the Republican Party: It can no longer rely on white voters to win national elections anymore, especially in presidential cycles. Indeed, according to the exit poll, 89% of all votes Mitt Romney won last night came from whites (compared with 56% for Obama). So the Republicans are maximizing their share with white voters; they just aren’t getting the rest. And come 2016, the white portion of the electorate will probably drop another couple of points to 70%. Politico’s Martin puts it this way: “Battling a wheezing economy and a deeply motivated opposition, Obama still managed to retain much of his 2008 map because of the GOP’s deficiencies with the voters who are changing the political face of once conservative-leaning Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada. Republicans face a crisis: the country is growing less white and their coalition has become more white in recent years. In 2004, George W. Bush won [about 40 percent] of Hispanics. Four years later, John McCain, the author of an immigration reform bill, took 31 percent of Hispanics. And this year, Romney captured only 27 percent of Hispanics.”
*** Hard for the GOP just to turn to the Midwest: Now Republicans might argue, “Look, we can win back the Midwest -- Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin.” Yet those account for 34 electoral votes. But the Sun Belt states where Obama campaigned and which have more diverse populations (Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia) have a total of 57 electoral votes. And then there are Arizona, Georgia, and Texas. Do those states come into play in 2016? What about 2020? Come 2016, you could argue that Arizona and Georgia become for Democrats what Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania are for Republicans -- just slightly out of reach.
*** Last night’s results: The morning after, here are the results (so far) from last night: Obama holds 303 electoral votes and Romney 206. (NBC News has yet to call Florida and its 29 electoral votes, but Obama leads there 50%-49%.) In the popular vote, it’s Obama 50%, Romney 48%. Also, Democrats have held on to their Senate majority and might add to it -- with undecided races in Montana (where Democratic incumbent Jon Tester leads 48%-48% with 77% in) and North Dakota (where Democrat Heidi Heitkamp is ahead by about 3,000 voters with 93% in). But Republicans held on to control of the House, holding 237 seats vs. 197 for the Democrats, plus-minus four seats.
*** Does status-quo control = status-quo governing? So in the end, we got a status-quo result -- with Obama holding on to the White House, Democrats keeping control of the Senate, and Republicans maintaining their grip on the House. But here’s the question with the “fiscal cliff” negotiations coming up: Will the governing be status quo, too? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released this statement last night: “To the extent [Obama] wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we’ll be there to meet him half way. That begins by proposing a way for both parties to work together in avoiding the ‘fiscal cliff’ without harming a weak and fragile economy, and when that is behind us work with us to reform the tax code and our broken entitlement system.” And House Speaker John Boehner makes a statement on the “fiscal cliff” negotiations at 3:30 pm ET. But who holds the mandate here? The GOP? Or a president who waged a national campaign on raising taxes for the wealthy, and who won? And here’s another question: Do Boehner and McConnell take advantage of the lame duck to compromise?
*** Obama’s swing-county swagger: Turning back to last night’s presidential contest, Obama beat Romney in almost all of the swing counties (won by Bush in ’04 but by Obama in ’08). Indeed, Obama won three of four swing counties in Florida (Hillsborough, Pinellas, Osceola), four of six in Ohio (Hamilton, Wood, Ottawa, Sandusky), 11 of 14 in Virginia (including Loudon, Prince William, and Henrico), and all six in Colorado (including Jefferson, Arapahoe, and Larimer). And despite losing North Carolina, Obama may have proved that the state is changing, becoming more “Mid-Atlantic” but not quite all there, as Charlie Cook has said. Obama won nine of 13 swing counties in the Tar Heel State (including the large counties of Wake, Forsyth, Cumberland, and Buncombe).
*** And his tactical dominance: But it was more than winning the swing counties for Obama; it was tactical dominance. Romney made inroads all across the country from previous GOP performance. What happened, however, was that the Obama campaign exploited the census and changed the margins. The best example of this was in Florida.
*** Making history: Finally, it was an historic-making election. With Obama’s re-election, we now have the first time since Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe that Americans have elected three two-term presidents in a row… Tammy Baldwin will become the Senate’s first openly gay member… The Senate will have at least 19 female members -- the most ever -- and there’s a chance that number could increase to 20 if Heitkamp wins… Maryland and Maine became the first states to approve of gay marriage at the ballot box… And initiatives to legalize marijuana passed in Colorado and Washington state.
..................................................................................................................................
Especially the Repuglicans
................................................................................
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Horse's Ass of the Day
Boy, am I glad I moved out of Thurston county. (That's the cue for some wag to say "We are too.") To which I respond, my customers weren't happy and my tax dollars left with me.
Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/11/06/2310575/wolfe-romero-lead-races-in-commissioners.html#storylink=omni_popular#storylink=cpy
Frankly, we never noticed you were here in the first place. I personally think you are a made up moniker that has no business nor resides anywhere except your own mind. At least try to be consistent about your posts in the Trib and the Olympian. In the Trib you champion the "good old days of prostitution" in Downtown Tacoma and in The Olympian, you bitch and moan about the street life. Faker.
Not going to gloat, not going to gloat.... YES, I'M GLOATING!
........................................................................................................
Karl Rove's election night melt-down
..................................................................................................................................
Karl Rove vs. Fox News
By Matt Negrin, November 6, 2012
"A lot of things are going on right now," Baier said.
They cut to commercial. Then they came back and Rove was as defensive as ever. While the crowd in Chicago cheered and danced on the split screen, there was Rove, saying that all the votes in Ohio's Hamilton County needed to be cast. The projection, he said, was a "very early call."
Karl Rove vs. Fox News
By Matt Negrin, November 6, 2012
Forget Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. The most exciting matchup of the night was between Karl Rove and his employer, Fox News.
A little after 11 p.m., Fox News and every other news outlet called the presidential race for Obama. Rove, the mastermind of George W. Bush's campaign and now a political commentator on Fox, didn't buy it.
Why? According to Rove, who appeared to be going through extreme denial
that Mitt Romney had lost, there were too many outstanding votes in Ohio
to give the state to Obama, tipping the race in his favor.
No one else at Fox took his side. And to prove him wrong, Megyn Kelly walked down the hall in a live action shot to the "decision desk" that called the race and interviewed the men in charge.
Their response was essentially that while some counties haven't reported
all the Romney votes yet, there are too many votes unreported in
Democratic territory like Cleveland that it wouldn't matter.
"There just aren't enough Republican votes left for Mitt Romney to get there," said decision maker Chris Stirewalt.
Rove was apparently listening in. The jolly Fox host Bret Baier tried to describe Rove's reaction - the GOP strategist was writing things down, and pointing at Fox personality Bill Hemmer.
They cut to commercial. Then they came back and Rove was as defensive as ever. While the crowd in Chicago cheered and danced on the split screen, there was Rove, saying that all the votes in Ohio's Hamilton County needed to be cast. The projection, he said, was a "very early call."
Charles Krauthammer came on to talk about it. Then they cut back to the
screaming crowd in Chicago. And it was Kelly who turned the page.
"They are not listening to Karl," she said. "They don't care what Karl said."
..................................................................................................................................
Trump: Get. Over. It.
..................................................................................................................................
Trump’s Twitter rant after Obama win: ‘We should march on Washington and stop this’
By Dylan Stableford, November 6, 2012
Trump’s Twitter rant after Obama win: ‘We should march on Washington and stop this’
By Dylan Stableford, November 6, 2012
Donald Trump, the impossibly
coiffed real estate mogul and de facto leader of the "birther" movement,
had something of a Twitter meltdown in the wake of President Barack
Obama's projected victory in Tuesday's election.
"Well, back to the drawing board!" Trump tweeted
shortly after several networks, including Fox News, called Ohio in the
president's favor, sealing the win. "We can't let this happen. We should
march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"
Trump—who last
month offered $5 million to a charity of Obama's choice in exchange for
the release of the commander in chief's college records and passport
application—continued his post-election rant in 140-character chunks:
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
"Barack Obama is the least transparent president in the history of this country," Trump said in a widely mocked October video
shot from his New York office and uploaded to YouTube. "I'm very
honored to have gotten him to release his long-form birth certificate or
whatever it may be."
President Obama was unfazed. On
"The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," Obama joked to Leno that the bad blood
between him and the "Celebrity Apprentice" star "dates back to when we
were growing up together in Kenya."
It appears the president saved his best zinger for Trump for Election Day.
..................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
YESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
IT'S OBAMA!!!!!!
So, Wingers, what do you have to say now?
..................................................................................................................................
Have you wondered who Thomas Peterffy is?
..................................................................................................................................
The Cheerful Billionaire Who Thinks Obama's a Socialist
By Joshua Green, October 19, 2012
It hardly counts as news anymore when some put-upon billionaire starts fulminating about Barack Obama. The likes of the Koch brothers, Stephen Schwarzman, and Leon Cooperman have already called the president all sorts of terrible things, Schwarzman even comparing his tax policies to the Nazis’ (he later apologized). What’s startling, then, about a new ad on cable television suggesting Obama is a socialist is that it’s not angry at all—it’s actually sort of a tear-jerker.
The unusual ad, “Freedom to Succeed,” is the handiwork of Thomas Peterffy, 68, an emigre from socialist Hungary who founded Interactive Brokers, the world’s largest online broker, and built a fortune of $7.6 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Peterffy, who is ruddy and thickset, narrates and appears in the ad, which intersperses shots of him as a young boy with scenes from the aftermath of Hungary’s failed 1956 revolution. “I grew up in a socialist country and I know what that does to people,” he says solemnly, as images of poverty and suffering flash by. “There is no hope, no freedom, no pride in achievement. The nation became poorer and poorer.”
The ad is also striking because it essentially takes up the plight of the poor, albeit from an unusual angle. Peterffy suggests that “badmouthing success” of American capitalists causes them to stop succeeding and paying the taxes that support the less fortunate. The ad, while slightly ridiculous, is deeply sincere and also quite affecting. It argues on behalf of the “47 percent,” not against them.
Curious about the man responsible, I called him up. Unlike the other political billionaires, Peterffy is almost unknown in Republican circles, and, also unlike those billionaires, seems anything but angry. When I asked what prompted him to suddenly get so involved in politics, he laughed and said, in a thick accent, “The Democratic spokespeople! Politicians have killed the entrepreneurial spirit in this country.”
It seemed to me, I told him, that there were still plenty of entrepreneurs around. Was it really so bad? “But they’re losing their mojo!” he replied. “It takes mojo to take the risk to start to grow a business. When you trash the leaders, they don’t invest. I used to be very active. I liked coming to work in the morning. But not anymore.” Oh, c’mon, I said. Was he really saying that he, a self-made billionaire, was so depressed by Obama’s policies that he had given up? Peterffy laughed. “That’s right,” he said. “I came here when I was 21. I’ve paid $1.9 billion of taxes in my lifetime. And now I’m being told that I’m not paying my fair share, that I’m playing by different rules.”
Peterffy, though, cheerfully added that he would be happy to pay a higher rate of tax. His complaint, beyond the badmouthing, is that he fears Obama and the Democrats are pushing the country toward equality in a way that will sap capitalist enterprise and lead to ruin. “If all are equal,” he said, “then why strive?” Well, OK. But isn’t Obama really pushing for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome? “Opportunity is good, but that’s not what I see.” Grim as things may look, he couldn’t really think that the U.S. was turning into socialist Hungary, could he? The government isn’t suppressing speech and throwing political opponents in jail. No, he conceded, it wasn’t. But it sure feels like that’s the path we’re on. (He’s a reader of Friedrich Hayek.)
Peterffy is convinced enough that he has maxed out his donations to Mitt Romney and will vote Republican next month. Four years ago, he voted for the Libertarian candidate: “What’s his name? I forgot.” Peterffy’s fondness for freedom extends to his political strategy. He isn’t giving to any super PAC and says he didn’t consult with the Romney campaign before cutting and airing his own ads. So far, he’s spent $2.5 million on them. “By Election Day,” he said, “I’ll spend $5 million to $10 million.”
I asked what kind of response he’s gotten, and if any of it surprised him. “Oh yes!” he said. “It’s been wonderful. Many people have written to me. And do you know what? A lot of them said they were opening accounts with Interactive Brokers. So it’s helping my business.” He laughed again. “All is not bad.”
..................................................................................................................................
The Cheerful Billionaire Who Thinks Obama's a Socialist
By Joshua Green, October 19, 2012
It hardly counts as news anymore when some put-upon billionaire starts fulminating about Barack Obama. The likes of the Koch brothers, Stephen Schwarzman, and Leon Cooperman have already called the president all sorts of terrible things, Schwarzman even comparing his tax policies to the Nazis’ (he later apologized). What’s startling, then, about a new ad on cable television suggesting Obama is a socialist is that it’s not angry at all—it’s actually sort of a tear-jerker.
The unusual ad, “Freedom to Succeed,” is the handiwork of Thomas Peterffy, 68, an emigre from socialist Hungary who founded Interactive Brokers, the world’s largest online broker, and built a fortune of $7.6 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Peterffy, who is ruddy and thickset, narrates and appears in the ad, which intersperses shots of him as a young boy with scenes from the aftermath of Hungary’s failed 1956 revolution. “I grew up in a socialist country and I know what that does to people,” he says solemnly, as images of poverty and suffering flash by. “There is no hope, no freedom, no pride in achievement. The nation became poorer and poorer.”
The ad is also striking because it essentially takes up the plight of the poor, albeit from an unusual angle. Peterffy suggests that “badmouthing success” of American capitalists causes them to stop succeeding and paying the taxes that support the less fortunate. The ad, while slightly ridiculous, is deeply sincere and also quite affecting. It argues on behalf of the “47 percent,” not against them.
Curious about the man responsible, I called him up. Unlike the other political billionaires, Peterffy is almost unknown in Republican circles, and, also unlike those billionaires, seems anything but angry. When I asked what prompted him to suddenly get so involved in politics, he laughed and said, in a thick accent, “The Democratic spokespeople! Politicians have killed the entrepreneurial spirit in this country.”
It seemed to me, I told him, that there were still plenty of entrepreneurs around. Was it really so bad? “But they’re losing their mojo!” he replied. “It takes mojo to take the risk to start to grow a business. When you trash the leaders, they don’t invest. I used to be very active. I liked coming to work in the morning. But not anymore.” Oh, c’mon, I said. Was he really saying that he, a self-made billionaire, was so depressed by Obama’s policies that he had given up? Peterffy laughed. “That’s right,” he said. “I came here when I was 21. I’ve paid $1.9 billion of taxes in my lifetime. And now I’m being told that I’m not paying my fair share, that I’m playing by different rules.”
Peterffy, though, cheerfully added that he would be happy to pay a higher rate of tax. His complaint, beyond the badmouthing, is that he fears Obama and the Democrats are pushing the country toward equality in a way that will sap capitalist enterprise and lead to ruin. “If all are equal,” he said, “then why strive?” Well, OK. But isn’t Obama really pushing for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome? “Opportunity is good, but that’s not what I see.” Grim as things may look, he couldn’t really think that the U.S. was turning into socialist Hungary, could he? The government isn’t suppressing speech and throwing political opponents in jail. No, he conceded, it wasn’t. But it sure feels like that’s the path we’re on. (He’s a reader of Friedrich Hayek.)
Peterffy is convinced enough that he has maxed out his donations to Mitt Romney and will vote Republican next month. Four years ago, he voted for the Libertarian candidate: “What’s his name? I forgot.” Peterffy’s fondness for freedom extends to his political strategy. He isn’t giving to any super PAC and says he didn’t consult with the Romney campaign before cutting and airing his own ads. So far, he’s spent $2.5 million on them. “By Election Day,” he said, “I’ll spend $5 million to $10 million.”
I asked what kind of response he’s gotten, and if any of it surprised him. “Oh yes!” he said. “It’s been wonderful. Many people have written to me. And do you know what? A lot of them said they were opening accounts with Interactive Brokers. So it’s helping my business.” He laughed again. “All is not bad.”
..................................................................................................................................
Another Romney lie: a campaign event masquerading as a compassionate response to Hurricane Sandy
..................................................................................................................................
Reporters Shoot Straight, Destroy Romney's Fake "Storm Relief" Event
By David Harris Gershon, October 30, 2012
The consensus? Mitt's "storm relief event" in Ohio, which had already been planned as a campaign rally previously at the exact same location, was exactly what you'd expect it to be: a political rally masquerading as disaster relief.
Reporters Shoot Straight, Destroy Romney's Fake "Storm Relief" Event
By David Harris Gershon, October 30, 2012
It should come as no surprise that Mitt Romney's "storm relief event" today in Ohio was a campaign event masquerading as a compassionate response to Hurricane Sandy.
However, what is surprising? That those mainstream pool reporters traveling with the Romney campaign reported the exact same thing in real time on Twitter.
[snipped]The consensus? Mitt's "storm relief event" in Ohio, which had already been planned as a campaign rally previously at the exact same location, was exactly what you'd expect it to be: a political rally masquerading as disaster relief.
When mainstream pool reporters traveling with a political campaign shoot straight and call out inauthenticity, you know some serious bullshit was underfoot. When those same reporters who hobnob with the campaign and dine on their catered food shoot daggers on Twitter, aghast at what they're seeing?
You know Romney has gone beyond desperate. In Ohio.
[Edited by A-98507, 6:55 pm, Nov. 6, 2012]
..................................................................................................................................[Edited by A-98507, 6:55 pm, Nov. 6, 2012]
The Enlightened States of America
..................................................................................................................................
This text appeared in today's Olympian (in an ad?) according to a friend of mine (I didn't find it in the print edition of the Trib). I found it all over the Net, including in the UK's Standard, referring to the "confederacy of dunces", and in Ramtha's newsletter (wonder if the Ramsters paid for it in the Zero?). One right-wing blogger even wrote a "Red State" rebuttal to it. I chose the following version to reprint here.
..................................................................................................................................
Red State/Blue State by Anonymous
This text appeared in today's Olympian (in an ad?) according to a friend of mine (I didn't find it in the print edition of the Trib). I found it all over the Net, including in the UK's Standard, referring to the "confederacy of dunces", and in Ramtha's newsletter (wonder if the Ramsters paid for it in the Zero?). One right-wing blogger even wrote a "Red State" rebuttal to it. I chose the following version to reprint here.
..................................................................................................................................
Red State/Blue State by Anonymous
I am not sure who wrote this, but it is awesome! -- "hazart"
Dear Red States:
We’re ticked off at your Neanderthal attitudes and politics and we’ve decided we’re leaving.
We in New York intend to form our own country and we’re taking the other Blue States with us.
We’re ticked off at your Neanderthal attitudes and politics and we’ve decided we’re leaving.
We in New York intend to form our own country and we’re taking the other Blue States with us.
In case you aren’t aware that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the rest of the Northeast.
We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of The Enlightened States of America (E.S.A).
We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of The Enlightened States of America (E.S.A).
To sum up briefly:
You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren. You get Bobby Jindal and Todd Akin.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.
We get* Intel* and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard (*Princeton, Penn, Haverford, Colgate, U of R)*,. You get Ole’ Miss.
We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs.
You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition’s, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the country’s fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation’s fresh fruit, *95% of America’s quality wines* (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we’re discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.
We’re taking the good weed too. You can have that crap they grow in Mexico.
Sincerely,
Citizen of the Enlightened States of America
..................................................................................................................................
We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren. You get Bobby Jindal and Todd Akin.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.
We get* Intel* and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard (*Princeton, Penn, Haverford, Colgate, U of R)*,. You get Ole’ Miss.
We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs.
You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition’s, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the country’s fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation’s fresh fruit, *95% of America’s quality wines* (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we’re discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.
We’re taking the good weed too. You can have that crap they grow in Mexico.
Sincerely,
Citizen of the Enlightened States of America
No matter which presidential candidate wins, 40 percent of the country will be mad as hell
..................................................................................................................................
Two Responsibilities — Vote and Unite
By Ted Kaufman, November 6, 2012
That is why we all have a responsibility after we vote Tuesday. That is even if your candidate loses, to tell our member of Congress that you support putting the election behind us and finding a way to compromise to solve our very real problems. As divided as we are politically, we cannot allow those differences to prevent our government from functioning.
..................................................................................................................................
Two Responsibilities — Vote and Unite
By Ted Kaufman, November 6, 2012
I have voted in 14 presidential elections since my first, in 1960. Each time the candidates or their surrogates have told me “this is the most important election of your lifetime.”
Well, this week we will finally have the election that actually fits that description. There has never been an election in my voting lifetime that will have a greater impact on our lives, one that will last well beyond the next four years.
That is why it is extra important to vote Tuesday. But you have a responsibility beyond to help unite the country afterwards because on issue after issue, the candidates and the two parties they represent have laid out very different plans for what they want the country to look like for the balance of the twenty-first century. If you don’t believe that, just go to the Republican and Democratic Party websites and read the platforms each adopted at their recent conventions.
Those platforms and the candidates’ starkly different positions reflect an electorate that is nearly equally divided. The polls all predict a very close election, one that may well end up with the popular vote in something like a 51-49 percent range either way.
Which came first, the deep divide among voters or the positions of the candidates? It is hard to tell, but ultimately we get the candidates that reflect the opinions of the electorate. The results may not be pretty, but that is after all how a democracy is supposed to work.
I have previously cited in this column Bill Bishop’s 2008 book, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded Americans in Tearing Us Apart, which explored one reason why we have become so divided. In 1976, approximately 27 percent of Americans lived in what he calls “landslide counties,” those that voted Republican or Democrat by a margin of 20 percent or more. In 2008, that was true of 48 percent of our counties and I expect that percentage will be even greater in 2012. We are increasingly living only among people with whom we agree on a wide range of political, social and cultural issues. One often-mentioned manifestation of this is that it is hard to find a Cracker Barrel restaurant in the same zip code as a Whole Foods store. Increasingly, as I have pointed out before, we agree that those with whom we never spend time are dead wrong.
Where we live is just one strong indicator of how we will vote. Age is another great separator. According to one recent poll, Romney leads by 18 points with seniors over 60 years old, while Obama has a 24-point lead with 18-29 year olds. Race and gender matter. Obama is up 9 points with women and Romney 9 among men — an 18-point gender gap. Romney is up 20 points among white voters, Obama up over 60 with blacks and Hispanics.
Most of all, we are separated by ideology. A recent Pew poll shows Obama ahead by 20 points among self-described moderates, while Romney has a 52-point lead with conservatives.
The conventional wisdom these days blames the grid lock in Washington on the politicians there. But those politicians are to a large extent simply representing a very evenly split electorate.
Let’s face it. No matter which presidential candidate wins, 40 percent of the country will be mad as hell. But it is vitally important that those people cool off, and there won’t be much time for them to do it. Because starting next Wednesday, our elected representatives must deal with the “fiscal cliff” this country faces — the confluence of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, raising the debt ceiling, and the looming threat of massive spending cuts in defense and non-domestic discretionary spending that were passed by Congress in 2011.
It is hard to get economists to agree on anything, but there is close to unanimous agreement among them that failure to deal with the fiscal cliff will throw the economy into recession or worse.
..................................................................................................................................
Horse's Ass of the Day
Astuteone:
I am praying that Romney wins in a landslide.
I am praying that Romney wins in a landslide.
Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/11/05/2309151/election-day-time-for-voters-to.html#storylink=cpy
We can only assume, then, when Obama wins.....God said NO
Congrats to Anonymous 98507
I want to take a moment to congratulate our Editor and primary contributor.
I got ThurstonBlog off the ground in 2009 because the right wing assholes were causing The Olympian comments to be shut down on damned near a daily basis. Sometime after that, I made it clear that this blog belonged to the community and not me (despite the stupid comments by The Olympian's current group of right wing monikers). Anonymous 98507 took over the editing (with minimal oversight by me) and had spearheaded the majority of contributions. My thanks for keeping ThurstonBlog alive.
Why do I say this?
I haven't participated much, other than the last week or so and in monitoring the traffic I see that our current readership has doubled the daily average of 2011 or 2010. Someone is interested and reading ThurstonBlog.
Anonymous 98507 - keep up the good work.
I'll keep putting just enough profanity in the text to piss off the nutcases.
I got ThurstonBlog off the ground in 2009 because the right wing assholes were causing The Olympian comments to be shut down on damned near a daily basis. Sometime after that, I made it clear that this blog belonged to the community and not me (despite the stupid comments by The Olympian's current group of right wing monikers). Anonymous 98507 took over the editing (with minimal oversight by me) and had spearheaded the majority of contributions. My thanks for keeping ThurstonBlog alive.
Why do I say this?
I haven't participated much, other than the last week or so and in monitoring the traffic I see that our current readership has doubled the daily average of 2011 or 2010. Someone is interested and reading ThurstonBlog.
Anonymous 98507 - keep up the good work.
I'll keep putting just enough profanity in the text to piss off the nutcases.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Romney got caught with his hand in the cookie jar with his lies about Jeep production in China
..................................................................................................................................
Remarks By President Obama And President Clinton At A Campaign Event In Concord, NH
Transcript posted November 5, 2012
[snipped]
“Now, let’s look at the decision Mr. Romney made. When he couldn’t get out of the fact that he actually did oppose the automobile plan, he starts saying that President Obama is allowing Jeep to move American jobs to China. Did you see that? I take it personally because I helped Jeep locate that -- well, I helped the state of Ohio get Jeep to locate a plant in Toledo, and I know they’re expanding it. They’ve put $500 million in it. They’re going to produce new lines there. I know they’re expanding in Michigan. And it’s just not true.
They made a lot of money so they can reopen a plant they closed down in China to sell Jeeps there -- because Jeeps are heavy, you can't afford to ship them from here to China. But they’re expanding in America.
So when Jeep said it wasn’t so, they kept making the charge. When Chrysler said it wasn’t so, they kept making the charge. Even General Motors said, this is not true. They doubled down on the charge, and then they pointed out that Jeep is owned by Chrysler, is owned by Fiat. So then the charge became, the President is working with the Italians -- (laughter) -- to move jobs to China. (Laughter.) In a few days they’re going to come after the Irish and I'm toast. (Laughter.)
Now, we're laughing, but it’s absurd. Is that the kind of “decider-in-chief” you want? I don't think so.
AUDIENCE: No!
PRESIDENT CLINTON: The guy got caught red-handed, saying something that wasn’t accurate. But we all make mistakes. And it’s not a lie unless you know it’s not true when you say it. Now, when I was a kid and I got caught with my hand in the cookie jar, I sort of turned red, shrugged my shoulders and take my hand out of the cookie jar. He’s grabbing for more cookies! “
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
Remarks By President Obama And President Clinton At A Campaign Event In Concord, NH
Transcript posted November 5, 2012
[snipped]
“Now, let’s look at the decision Mr. Romney made. When he couldn’t get out of the fact that he actually did oppose the automobile plan, he starts saying that President Obama is allowing Jeep to move American jobs to China. Did you see that? I take it personally because I helped Jeep locate that -- well, I helped the state of Ohio get Jeep to locate a plant in Toledo, and I know they’re expanding it. They’ve put $500 million in it. They’re going to produce new lines there. I know they’re expanding in Michigan. And it’s just not true.
They made a lot of money so they can reopen a plant they closed down in China to sell Jeeps there -- because Jeeps are heavy, you can't afford to ship them from here to China. But they’re expanding in America.
So when Jeep said it wasn’t so, they kept making the charge. When Chrysler said it wasn’t so, they kept making the charge. Even General Motors said, this is not true. They doubled down on the charge, and then they pointed out that Jeep is owned by Chrysler, is owned by Fiat. So then the charge became, the President is working with the Italians -- (laughter) -- to move jobs to China. (Laughter.) In a few days they’re going to come after the Irish and I'm toast. (Laughter.)
Now, we're laughing, but it’s absurd. Is that the kind of “decider-in-chief” you want? I don't think so.
AUDIENCE: No!
PRESIDENT CLINTON: The guy got caught red-handed, saying something that wasn’t accurate. But we all make mistakes. And it’s not a lie unless you know it’s not true when you say it. Now, when I was a kid and I got caught with my hand in the cookie jar, I sort of turned red, shrugged my shoulders and take my hand out of the cookie jar. He’s grabbing for more cookies! “
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
A New ThurstonBlog feature
ArthurH:
Silence is golden when your outed for the fool you are.
Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/11/02/2306757/although-it-lacks-presidential.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy
You mean like the fool that doesn't know the difference between "you're" and "your", Art?
Since it appears that Olympian droolers have been missing me, I'll start a new series entitled:
Material should be easy.
Silence is golden when your outed for the fool you are.
Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/11/02/2306757/although-it-lacks-presidential.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy
Since it appears that Olympian droolers have been missing me, I'll start a new series entitled:
Horse's Ass of the Day
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Still undecided? The last few days have provided all you need to make a responsible decision
..................................................................................................................................
Man for the Moment
By Peter Funt, November 4, 2012
Most of us have known for months how we will mark our ballots Tuesday, making the painfully long and obscenely expensive presidential campaign little more than a test of our patience. I’m voting for Barack Obama.
But if you’re a voter who struggled and waited until now to make up your mind, here’s what you learned in just the final days of the 2012 campaign.
You learned that the nation added 171,000 jobs last month, many of them in areas such as construction that are significant to overall improvement in the economy. It’s the 25th straight month of job gains under President Obama, and a sure sign that recovery is slowly but steadily underway.
You were reminded that when a disaster like Hurricane Sandy strikes, millions of Americans depend on a swift response from the federal government. In a debate over a year ago — yes, the campaign has dragged on that long — Mitt Romney said that FEMA’s disaster relief responsibilities should be turned over to the states and, “even better,” the private sector. It didn’t seem too important when Romney said it in 2011, but it became profound when Sandy hit. In the last week you saw again that candidate Romney is willing to change positions to fit the moment, now saying “FEMA plays a key role.”
You heard New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg declare that he is voting for President Obama — an endorsement that the Romney campaign had hoped to secure. Bloomberg said Sandy was the tipping point for him, because elected officials must acknowledge the scientific reality of climate change. But he also cited women’s rights and same-sex marriage rights as keys to his vote for Obama.
You saw New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a staunch Romney supporter, praise the president for his efforts during the storm. Moreover, Christie and Obama provided a clear example of how elected officials can dismiss partisan politics when conditions demand that they find ways to work together.
You listened as one of the nation’s most respected Republicans, Gen. Colin Powell, carefully outlined why he is voting for President Obama. Powell said he has seen “the president get us out of one war, start to get us out of a second war and did not get us into any new wars.” He added, “I think the actions he’s taken with respect to protecting us from terrorism have been very solid. And so I think we ought to keep on the track that we are on.”
Significantly, Powell said he still considers himself a Republican, but believes that moderate Republicans are becoming a “dying breed, I’m sorry to say.”
If you live in Ohio, perhaps the hottest of the battleground states where Tuesday’s election will be decided, two key editorials caught your attention. The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote: “Ohio in particular has benefited from (Obama’s) bold decision to revive the domestic auto industry. Because of his determination to fulfill a decades-old dream of Democrats, 30 million more Americans will soon have health insurance.”
And you read in the Akron Beacon Journal: “What is telling about a presidency is its tilt, its direction, spirit and priorities. Thus, to those who argue the president lacks a plan for a second term: Look at the foundation that has been set. He has used the levers of government to bolster the economy, investing in education, innovation and health care, understanding the essential role of the public sector in competitiveness.”
By next Wednesday it’s likely that some pundits and politicians will begin talking about candidates for 2016, and the 24/7 process of picking a president will start all over again. But if you spend only a week or so every four years studying the matter, the last few days provided all you need to make a responsible decision.
..................................................................................................................................
Man for the Moment
By Peter Funt, November 4, 2012
Most of us have known for months how we will mark our ballots Tuesday, making the painfully long and obscenely expensive presidential campaign little more than a test of our patience. I’m voting for Barack Obama.
But if you’re a voter who struggled and waited until now to make up your mind, here’s what you learned in just the final days of the 2012 campaign.
You learned that the nation added 171,000 jobs last month, many of them in areas such as construction that are significant to overall improvement in the economy. It’s the 25th straight month of job gains under President Obama, and a sure sign that recovery is slowly but steadily underway.
You were reminded that when a disaster like Hurricane Sandy strikes, millions of Americans depend on a swift response from the federal government. In a debate over a year ago — yes, the campaign has dragged on that long — Mitt Romney said that FEMA’s disaster relief responsibilities should be turned over to the states and, “even better,” the private sector. It didn’t seem too important when Romney said it in 2011, but it became profound when Sandy hit. In the last week you saw again that candidate Romney is willing to change positions to fit the moment, now saying “FEMA plays a key role.”
You heard New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg declare that he is voting for President Obama — an endorsement that the Romney campaign had hoped to secure. Bloomberg said Sandy was the tipping point for him, because elected officials must acknowledge the scientific reality of climate change. But he also cited women’s rights and same-sex marriage rights as keys to his vote for Obama.
You saw New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a staunch Romney supporter, praise the president for his efforts during the storm. Moreover, Christie and Obama provided a clear example of how elected officials can dismiss partisan politics when conditions demand that they find ways to work together.
You listened as one of the nation’s most respected Republicans, Gen. Colin Powell, carefully outlined why he is voting for President Obama. Powell said he has seen “the president get us out of one war, start to get us out of a second war and did not get us into any new wars.” He added, “I think the actions he’s taken with respect to protecting us from terrorism have been very solid. And so I think we ought to keep on the track that we are on.”
Significantly, Powell said he still considers himself a Republican, but believes that moderate Republicans are becoming a “dying breed, I’m sorry to say.”
If you live in Ohio, perhaps the hottest of the battleground states where Tuesday’s election will be decided, two key editorials caught your attention. The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote: “Ohio in particular has benefited from (Obama’s) bold decision to revive the domestic auto industry. Because of his determination to fulfill a decades-old dream of Democrats, 30 million more Americans will soon have health insurance.”
And you read in the Akron Beacon Journal: “What is telling about a presidency is its tilt, its direction, spirit and priorities. Thus, to those who argue the president lacks a plan for a second term: Look at the foundation that has been set. He has used the levers of government to bolster the economy, investing in education, innovation and health care, understanding the essential role of the public sector in competitiveness.”
By next Wednesday it’s likely that some pundits and politicians will begin talking about candidates for 2016, and the 24/7 process of picking a president will start all over again. But if you spend only a week or so every four years studying the matter, the last few days provided all you need to make a responsible decision.
..................................................................................................................................
Of course Red doesn't read ThurstonBlog
In an article on prostitution in the Tacoma News Tribune (the Olympian's daddy), we find Red's comment:
RedForeman -
I worked downtown back then. Those were the days. The sanitized downtown is boring.
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/11/02/2354256/dreamgirls-dancers-broke-rules.html#storylink=mostpopular#storylink=cpy
Now mind you, this is the same Red Foreman who bitches about a few hippies and drunks in Downtown Olympia.....to the point that "he" allegedly moved his business from Oly to Shelton to "sanitize" it.
The real hypocrisy will be evident when Red whines about ThurstonBlog, that he doesn't read.
RedForeman -
I worked downtown back then. Those were the days. The sanitized downtown is boring.
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/11/02/2354256/dreamgirls-dancers-broke-rules.html#storylink=mostpopular#storylink=cpy
Now mind you, this is the same Red Foreman who bitches about a few hippies and drunks in Downtown Olympia.....to the point that "he" allegedly moved his business from Oly to Shelton to "sanitize" it.
The real hypocrisy will be evident when Red whines about ThurstonBlog, that he doesn't read.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
NOW will you believe us that Fox News is biased?
..................................................................................................................................
Rupert Murdoch Outs Himself
By Robert J. Elisberg, 11/03/2012
Rupert Murdoch Outs Himself
By Robert J. Elisberg, 11/03/2012
It's slipped through the cracks, but Rupert Murdoch just told the world what the world has already long known.
Today, Mr. Murdoch sent out a tweet about Chris Christie's praise of President Obama's efforts during the recent hurricane crisis. Yes, okay, the tweet itself did get attention.
Fair enough. Everyone has figured pretty easily that the Romney campaign and Republicans in general are sort of pissed off at Gov. Christie [R-NJ] for being honest in praising someone for doing a good job at a time of crisis.
But look closer at what Mr. Murdoch wrote. That part at the end. Take a look at it:
"Christie, while thanking O, must re-declare for Romney, or take blame for next four dire years."
Yes, okay, again, I know, its what you expect him to say. So, big deal. Except... no, it's not what you expect him to say. Because he's never before said it.
Keep in mind that Rupert Murdoch is the owner of Fox News. And yes, while not everyone considers Fox News to be an actual news organization, Fox News itself likes to contend publicly and vociferously that it is. That it's "Fair and Balanced." That it merely reports the facts and lets you decide.
Real journalists. Fair. Balanced. Unbiased. Impartial.
But now, the guy who heads all that just told you, publicly, that he believes anyone who helps the Democrat has to take the "blame for next four dire years."
Now, no matter how much you may or may not agree with that assessment of the next four years -- do you think that statement is unbiased? Presuming you're unbiased enough to be fair and balanced about it, of course.
Consider for a moment if the owner of CBS, NBC or ABC wrote something similar about Mitt Romney. That they said if some Democrats was helping the Republican nominee, "Must re-declare for Obama, or take blame for next four dire years."
There would be howls so loud you could hear them in the Cayman Islands.
And you know, they'd be right.
News organizations -- and we're most particularly talking about the people at the top who head those news organization and drive the direction -- do not declare favorites, nor play them. Do not. Even in the past, when Rupert Murdoch has discussed fairness, he's done his best to seem richly impartial himself in public statements. (Though he's had a few, subtle slips, like mentioning donations to the Republican Party.) Indeed, even Mr. Murdoch has -- at least publicly -- understood the important foundation of journalism and played that public game well, and grasped that the public expects news organizations to be fair, to not declare favorites, to not play favorites. Because news organization -- and we're most particularly talking about the people who head those news organization and drive the direction -- do not declare favorites, nor play them. Do not.
Yes, I know that the far right believes that the media is all biased, that it's a liberal media. It's not, but okay, I accept that the far right believes this. But even believing it, the far right has to acknowledge that none of the owners of these news organizations has had the indecency to not only proclaim favoritism, but a favoritism so monumentally grandiose that they're directing what candidates must do, while predicting disaster ahead if their side loses. It just isn't done. Ever. If you believe otherwise, show your work.
We're not talking reporters or analysts someone may not like. That's a debate that can go on forever. We're only talking the people who actually own the freaking organizations. We set the direction. Who lead the way. Only.
But even going further and bending way over backwards and accepting what the far right believes about the media, that their worst fears are true, that it does happen, that the media is liberal and awful and despicable, that still misses the issue.
It's beside the point.
All that doesn't matter.
The issue at hand isn't the supposed "liberal media."
The issue is that Rupert Murdoch, Godfather of all things Fox and Fox News, Patron Saint of phone hacking, has personally declared publicly that he is deeply conservative. That he is so deeply conservative that he considers the unknown future of a Democratic presidency to be "dire." That he is so actively deeply conservative that he wants to direct the actions of Republican public officials, how the "must" act.
The point here is that Fox News can no longer consider itself "fair and balanced." Because its boss has just declared it not to be.
The point here is that viewers of Fox News can no longer hide behind the façade that it is the only news that's impartial. Because the owner has just declared it not to be.
The point here is that the Fox News myth is now officially gone. Gone.
Yes, I know that the Myth has existed only in fairy tales. But it did exist, as a Myth, even if just in the minds of the close-minded disbelievers. However, it can no longer even exist as even a Myth there.
Gone. Poof.
Viewers and defenders of Fox News now have a choice -- they can either believe what Rupert Murdoch, the Patron Saint of Fox, just specifically told them, that Fox is biased...or they can not know what to believe. Because if they can't believe Fox, then everyone else must be correct.
Hint: Both are true...
..................................................................................................................................
If you've been following the Ramtha saga, here's a summary:
1. There’s a woman in Yelm who claims to ‘channel’ a 30,000-year-old-warrior. When under the influence of this warrior, she sometimes says things that some people find objectionable. People pay to watch this, for purposes other than entertainment.
2. This woman has copyrighted the use of this warrior, in much the same fashion that Mickey Mouse is copyrighted. While others suggest that she is breaking copyright laws in other areas, and they have filed complaints with David Bowie.
3. This woman has also exercised her right to contribute, either personally or through her corporation, to several candidates running for public office.
4. Several people are offended by the comments this woman makes while she is allegedly under the influence of this warrior. To a remarkable degree, the people who are offended by her comments also oppose the political candidates who were the recipients of her campaign donations. As a result most, if not all of those candidates have donated those campaign funds to other charities. And predictably, the opponents have questioned where those charitable donations have gone.
5. Both proponents and opponents of the warrior have suggested that the other side is affiliated with national or international (or, in some cases, extra-terrestrial) organizations intent on taking over America.
6. At least one opponent of the warrior blames the woman who channels him for the deaths of others.
7. Several opponents of the warrior are worried about building code violations but, apparently, these violations have not been independently confirmed. Similarly, expressed concerns about children within the warrior’s compound have not been independently confirmed.
8. The chief opponent of the warrior previously had a sexual relationship with the boyfriend of the woman who channels the warrior. This opponent was also previously a student of the warrior. This opponent now claims that these past relationships are irrelevant.
9. The chief opponent has released a video which purports to illustrate the excesses of the warrior and his channeler. However, this opponent has provided conflicting information regarding the origin of the video. That the video has been edited is not now refuted.
10. The brother of the chief opponent has released a letter questioning the motivation of said opponent.
11. Two other opponents keep inviting their supporters to visit their restaurant.
12. The night editor of the comments section was annoyed at being interrupted from watching The Night of the Living Dead, which was probably a much more productive use of his time.
13. Each side accuses the other of being extremists. Or zombies.
There. Now you have it. No need to slog through 1,000+ comments over the past few weeks. Unless you want to. Enjoy.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Truth took a holiday this election season
..................................................................................................................................
The truth is also hard to find in the right wingers' comments on the Zero. Bwahahaha!
..................................................................................................................................
The truth hard to dig up amid all the attack ads
The truth is also hard to find in the right wingers' comments on the Zero. Bwahahaha!
..................................................................................................................................
The truth hard to dig up amid all the attack ads
The following editorial appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Friday, Nov. 2:
Truth took a holiday this election season as the candidates plumped themselves up and tried to stick a needle in their opponents. Nothing new there, of course. But the hedging, exaggerating, prevaricating and outright lying does seem more pronounced - perhaps because, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court, so much more money is available outside the campaigns to put up sleazy advertising.
The resulting noise, driven by the political consultants, turns off voters even if they turn off the television - which they should.
Take this ad from Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate. The ad claims:
"Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job."
As Glenn Kessler, the fact-checker at The Washington Post, pointed out, it's usually a sign of a sketchy ad when it's not announced beforehand. The ad, combined with Romney's misstatements on the campaign trail, earned him Kessler's highest dishonor: four Pinocchios.
It's because Chrysler is not "thinking of moving all production to China." Fiat, which owns a controlling stake in the company, is planning to start building Jeeps in China again. But Chrysler is adding production there and not shifting production from North America. In an unusual move, Chrysler denied the charge in a statement. "Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It's simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world's largest auto market," the statement said.
But President Barack Obama's ads haven't been much better. One of his ads earned three long noses from Kessler last month. The president's campaign used a cropped video clip from an older ad to claim that Romney backed a law that outlawed abortion in all instances, even after a rape or incest. Despite Romney's flip-flops on this issue - and many others - the Republican has said over and over during the 2012 campaign that abortions should be legal in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger.
The Romney ad is running in parts of northwestern Ohio - auto country - and he's obviously targeting some of the few folks in that crucial state who either are still undecided or haven't voted yet.
"I see this more as turnout game than a persuasion ad," Patrick Haney, a political science professor at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, told The Washington Post. "I take it as an indication that they believe they're behind . . . So they might as well be a little riskier and on the edge."
The Obama ad was a counter to Romney's earlier gains among female voters.
But knowing that there is a strategy behind the ads doesn't make the ads any easier to take.
Which is why we have to sympathize with little Abigael Evans, a Colorado 4-year-old, who started crying after listening to National Public Radio coverage of the campaign in the car on the way home from day care. Her tearful complaint: "I'm tired of Bronco Bamma and Mitt Romney."
Us, too, Abigael. Us, too.
Yeah, Mitt, we know all about you borrowing from your parents
.....................................................................................
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Only the politically blind....
First of all...I'm no fan of JZ Knight. I find her to be as much of a snake oil salesperson as Pat Robertson. That being said (BTW Olympian Whiners.....atheists would find Knight as offensive as any other religionist), a quick look at the Freedom Foundation's video will show anyone in their right mind (Olympian Whiners are not included) that the video has been heavily edited.
Leave it to the CONS to lie.
http://www.myfreedomfoundation.com/index.php/can/view/jz_ramthas_enligtened_view_on_mexicans
Finally, I have to really laugh when the notorious racists start complaining about Knight's alleged racist comments, which sound like bar conversation at any one of the many local veterans clubs. Take the right amount of alcohol, an armchair warrior and you'll have similar comments.
Save it for the Rochester Rubes
Leave it to the CONS to lie.
http://www.myfreedomfoundation.com/index.php/can/view/jz_ramthas_enligtened_view_on_mexicans
Finally, I have to really laugh when the notorious racists start complaining about Knight's alleged racist comments, which sound like bar conversation at any one of the many local veterans clubs. Take the right amount of alcohol, an armchair warrior and you'll have similar comments.
Save it for the Rochester Rubes
Did a little research
http://people-first.org/index.html
Steve and Missy Genson.
Well....I guess your desire to be out from under the rule of Thurston County is amirable, but I can tell you the huge sucking sound from the south end of Thurston County is the Community of Rochester, along with the school district. If you had to be really self sustaining, there would be a loud thud and that would be the sound of Rochester falling on its collective ass.
Between Thurston County, the State of Washington and the Federal Government of the United States, Rochester has been kept afloat for at least the last 10 years. Luckily for Rochester, it was known as the tweeker capital of the state, thus there was always money to solve the problem.
What I see here is a couple of fake conservatives. Nothing new.
Steve and Missy Genson.
Well....I guess your desire to be out from under the rule of Thurston County is amirable, but I can tell you the huge sucking sound from the south end of Thurston County is the Community of Rochester, along with the school district. If you had to be really self sustaining, there would be a loud thud and that would be the sound of Rochester falling on its collective ass.
Between Thurston County, the State of Washington and the Federal Government of the United States, Rochester has been kept afloat for at least the last 10 years. Luckily for Rochester, it was known as the tweeker capital of the state, thus there was always money to solve the problem.
What I see here is a couple of fake conservatives. Nothing new.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)