Wednesday, 4/18/12, Public Square

About these ads

24 Comments

Filed under The Public Square

24 responses to “Wednesday, 4/18/12, Public Square

    • The tiny, difficult to read words in the caption above say:

      “THAT FLING WITH SANTORUM MEANT NOTHING TO ME, BABY. YOU GOTTA BELIEVE ME! I’M A MODERN GUY. I’M TOTALLY COOL WITH YOU HAVING A CAREER, EVEN OWNING A BUSINESS … LIKE A FLOWER SHOP, BEAUTY SHOP OR MIDWIFERY.”

      Too bad Romney doubled down to look equally conservative as Santorum. Elephants may not remember, but women do!

  1. prairie pond

    Etch a sketch reset in 5..4..3..2..1!
    Do you suppose he’ll buy every woman in the U.S. roses to make up for being such a cad?

    • Sure! That’s the ticket! Since for some unknown reason the little ladies seem to have their little feelings hurt.

      Buying every woman roses seems more likely than actually supporting women as equals. Wouldn’t surprise me if thats the ‘tactic’ he thinks might work. Since they’re all running around yelling about how there’s no war on women it would seem they haven’t a clue.

      • r.d. liebst

        LOL as bad as I scew up roses would not due, I could corner the market on cards and flowers and never feel I have done enough to make up for what I put Joyce through. I can be opinionated (Odd that I would come here huh?) Anyway, some still seem to learn that women are stupid unless you count loving men. Though I will admit I am not so sure that loving women would be all that much easier?

      • r.d. liebst

        some still seem to “learn” should have been “think”.

      • Well, Rick, at least we’re equal in that department of not being so easy to love. :-)

      • prairie pond

        Humans are humans. Loving women is no easier than loving men. Women are just cleaner. :) Sometimes…

        And yeah, I learned the hard way that roses don’t work! Best not to screw up in the first place. Something Romney and the repukes may never learn.

  2. We aren’t sure whether Romney himself knew what the Lilly Ledbetter Act was, only sure that some of his staff either didn’t know how Romney would react or didn’t know about it at all — obviously not something important enough to have been discussed.

    The people you surround yourself with probably only matter if you’re President Obama.

    • prairie pond

      When Romney’s spokesman said “We’ll get back to you” regarding Lilly Ledbetter Act, I think they had to call Roger Ailes or someone a Fux news to ask what they were supposed to think and say. Billo was probably using his loofa in the shower. Or something.

  3. In the recent reports of what Romney said when he wasn’t aware anyone was listening there is a segment of him acknowledging that the republicans need their own dream act or something to help with the Latino vote.

    You’ve all heard what he said.

    When I heard it I realized he at least acknowledges the republicans have a problem and some work to do to attract Latino voters. With women, however, there’s no acknowledgment. Instead of actually seeing the facts and taking ownership, they’re all in denial. Yep. No war on women. No reason for the little ladies to take note. Nothing to see here, moving along.

    That makes me even more angry at them! Women have been placated so often and so long I’m even more motivated to make sure this is the place we stand our ground! To allow that kind of treatment just makes them think it’s okay for them to continue putting us down. I will not give my permission to be treated as if I’m stupid!

    • The AP is reporting that Sen. Marco Rubio is putting together legislation that would be a conservative alternative to the DREAM Act. Unlike that legislation, which was filibustered in 2010, the Rubio legislation would allow young illegal immigrants who are attending college or serving in the military to remain in the U.S. – but it wouldn’t give them a path to citizenship.

  4. Off the Radar: Important Issues the Candidates Won’t Raise in 2012

    When there is no political incentive to talk about vital matters only the press can inject them into a presidential campaign.

    Voters pay more attention to politics during presidential elections than at any other time. Issues that don’t come up in televised debates, campaign commercials, or mainstream media coverage are effectively off the radar of the American people, which means either that they go unaddressed or that outcomes are dictated by lobbyists, whose power is at its zenith when members of Congress feel no pressure from constituents to push policy in one direction or another. Since there are important issues that presidential campaigns have no incentive to raise on their own, the press has an important duty to make independent judgments about what is important. Politics coverage is nevertheless driven, more than anything else, by what the campaigns say.

    What if folks of all ideological persuasions kicked off Campaign 2012 by laying out the issues that are unlikely to come up on their own, but that merit attention the attention of candidates and voters?

    The following are among my picks. (This is hardly an exhaustive list, so I hope that folks with different interests than mine will make their own.)

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/off-the-radar-important-issues-the-candidates-wont-raise-in-2012/256029/

  5. Mitt Romney’s Tax Idea Would Wallop High-Income Blue States

    When candidates talk to high-level donors, they tell the truth.

    And so despite his campaign’s strenuous downplaying, Mitt Romney’s open-mike “gaffe” revealing some details of his tax plan at a closed-door fundraiser in Palm Beach is real news.

    Forget for the moment Romney’s announcement to the well-heeled crowd that he would likely let HUD die on the vine. And given that this was a crowd likely lousy with second homes, his talk about ending the mortgage deduction for second homes could perhaps qualify as political courage.

    But Romney’s announcement that he could well end the deduction of state taxes is the real bombshell.

    And because of the red state/blue state divide, there is a compelling political argument for the big policy idea: it would mostly punish blue-state voters who aren’t going to back Romney anyway.

    That’s because blue states generally have higher state and local taxes. For example, many Californians and New Yorkers—nearly 50 million Americans—would see their taxes go up significantly.

    However, in the nation’s second-largest state, Texas, closing this loophole would have no effect—because Texas does not have state-income taxes. Neither would it impact the residents of Florida, the state where Romney was, not so incidentally, speaking in. Alaska, Nevada, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming also have no income tax.

    But significantly—and here’s the political risk—many swing states would be affected, including Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

  6. Violence Against Women Act headed for a Senate vote, but stuck in the House

    Armed with 61 Senate cosponsors—yes, enough to beat a filibuster with a vote to spare—the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is set to be considered as early as this week, for a vote next week. The cosponsors include eight Republicans: Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Dean Heller of Nevada, Mark Kirk of Illinois, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. However, this VAWA reauthorization has drawn strong opposition, led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), because it would help protect victims of abuse who are LGBT or undocumented and would give Native American tribes increased jurisdiction in some domestic violence cases.

    Republicans are planning to try to remove the provisions protecting women who they apparently don’t think should be protected from violence on the floor of the Senate, but with 61 cosponsors, the existing bill has a decent chance of Senate passage—as much as anything does these days, anyway.

    The House is the much bigger question mark. Last month, as Democrats held a protest vote trying to get the bill considered, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), said:

    “Violence against women is as American as apple pie. And I know not only as a legislator who — but from my own personal experience, violence — domestic violence — has been a thread throughout my personal life, up to and including being a child repeatedly sexually assaulted, up to and including being an adult who has been raped.”

    So far there’s no indication if Speaker John Boehner will even bring reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act up for a vote, let alone if the needed number of House Republicans will vote for this critical bill. Republicans have a chance to ease off the war on women for one vote, on a bill that in 2005 was reauthorized by unanimous consent in the Senate and with 415 votes in the House. Will they do it?

  7. Apparently, when you’ve made a career out of being an over-bearing bully…sometimes you go too far. And it bites you in your hate-filled ass.

    “A three-person disciplinary panel of the state’s high court said there was enough evidence to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the sheriff and three of his closest allies participated in what the panel believes was federal crime in December 2009.”

    The Evidence That Might Be Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Undoing

  8. Here is some TERRIFIC news! In our continuing efforts to roll back Bush/Cheney, we just hit Aug 2008.

    Michigan’s 8.5% jobless rate hits lowest level since August 2008

    From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120418/METRO/204180413#ixzz1sQdQ0skj

    • If Romney is elected I predict he’ll have the USA in another major war before the first year of his term ends, won’t raise taxes to pay for it, and I see food lines and rationing. We could get out pictures from the 20s and take a look at what our country will be under a Romney neocon.

      If President Obama is reelected I expect to see a fairly robust economy by 2014. By 2016 we may be back to the Clinton years of prosperity!

  9. This may fail this time, but please note what republicans would do if democrats weren’t in the majority!

    ————————-

    (Reuters) – A U.S. congressional panel approved about $33 billion in cuts over 10 years from food stamp benefits, in a largely symbolic and highly partisan vote opposed by committee Democrats and by anti-poverty groups.

    The cuts advanced by the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee on Wednesday would reduce spending on food stamps that help 46 million people buy food by $7.7 billion in the first year, by $19.7 billion in five years, and the balance in the next five years.

    The cuts are expected to die in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But the vote by voice underscored Republicans’ preference for domestic spending cuts over defense cuts or tax hikes as they try to avoid automatic cuts that take effect in January.

    read more –

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/18/us-usa-agriculture-stamps-idUSBRE83H16320120418?irpc=932