#Notintendedasanactualcandidate

Bachmann: I Would Close Our (Non-Existent) Embassy In Iran | TPM2012 http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/bachmann-i-would-close-our-non-existent-embassy-in-iran.php?m=1

Urbandale, Iowa – Bachmann for President Communications Director Alice Stewart has issued the following statement in response to Bachmann’s statements about Iran:

“Congresswoman Bachmann is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and is fully aware that we do not have an embassy in Iran and have not had one since 1980. She was agreeing with the actions taken by the British to secure their embassy personnel and was speaking in the hypothetical, that if she was President of the United States and if we had an embassy in Iran, she would have taken the same actions as th…

And I stopped there.   Haven’t picked on this lady in a while.  As a quick reminder….my initial reaction to the news…

 

This Week in the Police State…

First up…the Comitatas Posse is back in town, militarizing the homeland.

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial — prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.

“Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who offered another amendment — which has not yet gotten a vote — that she said would correct the problem. “We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge.”

Backers of military detention of Americans — a measure crafted by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) — came out swinging against Udall’s amendment on the Senate floor earlier Tuesday.

“The enemy is all over the world. Here at home. And when people take up arms against the United States and [are] captured within the United States, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity?” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.

“They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer,” Graham said. “They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us.”

[full story]

The White House has promised a veto, so we’ll see if that happens or not.

When it comes to partisan divide…this is a pretty bright line in the sand.

“It’s one of those things where … it’s bipartisan on both sides. Levin’s not on the same page as the White House. We’ve got our own internal differences; Paul and Kirk don’t agree with Graham,” said a senior GOP aide just before the vote. “Everybody’s trying to do the right thing. There’s just a difference of opinion.”

Even though Paul was joined only by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on his side of the aisle, the issue was contentious at the Republicans’ weekly caucus lunch.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the meeting — where former Vice President Dick Cheney was in attendance — saying his colleagues had “a spirited discussion” about Udall’s amendment, and predicted nearly all Republicans would oppose the amendment, as they did.

Nothing like having a war criminal tip the balance of debate.

On the corporate side of things, there is another strong push to give Corporate America control of the Internet (via DNS-blacklisting, a la China).   Sadly, some judges already think they have this authority.

As a whole bunch of folks have sent in a District Court judge in Nevada issued some rather stunning orders lately concerning websites that luxury brands company Chanel has argued “advertise, promote, offer for sale or sell” possibly counterfeit Chanel goods. The order is basically a more expansive private version of SOPA, in which the judge has let Chanel directly “seize” about 600 domains, as well as issued restraining orders and injunctions, including orders to Google, Bing, Yahoo, Facebook, Google+, and Twitter to “de-index and/or remove [the domain names] from any search results pages.”

[full story]

There has been a steady and consistent drumbeat from copyright holders to expand their protections in a more competitive environment.   Their history of hyperbole is legion, and all statements coming from their trade groups should be taken with several tons of salt.

 

FCC Does its Job, Riles AT&T by Releasing Report Exposing Lies About T-Mobile Merger

AT&T and T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom withdrew their application to the FCC to transfer the mobile licenses after the agency announced on Nov. 22 that staff there had found the US$39 billion acquisition to be contrary to the public interest. The FCC on Tuesday granted the request to withdraw the license transfer application, but released the 157-page staff report on the merger despite opposition from AT&T.

AT&T and T-Mobile “have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the competitive harms that would result from the proposed transaction are outweighed by the claimed benefits,” the staff report said. “The potential loss [of T-Mobile as a] competitive force in the market is a cause for serious concern.”

via FCC Riles AT&T by Releasing Report on T-Mobile Merger | PCWorld Business Center.

The FCC disputed AT&T’s claim that less competition would lead to more “jobs” and “lower rates”.  Both of these were flat out lies, as anybody with the barest sense of how mature markets operate would attest.

Expect AT&T’s politicians to come out against the FCC, hardcore, in 3, 2, 1….

AT&T is taking exception that anyone would question their flat out lies, and further exception they don’t get to spin this report, and even further exception that actual citizens of this country can now read it.

AT&T called the release of the report “troubling.” The report is an internal document meant to raise questions before a hearing before an administrative law judge, the company said. The next step for the FCC would have been an administrative hearing if AT&T had continued to pursue the license transfer application.

“This report is not an order of the FCC and has never been voted on,” Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, said in a statement. “The draft report has also not been made available to AT&T prior to today, so we have had no opportunity to address or rebut its claims, which makes its release all the more improper.”

 

 

UN: Syrian Forces Killed 256 Children

(BEIRUT) — A U.N. investigation concluded Monday that Syrian forces committed crimes against humanity by killing and torturing hundreds of children, including a 2-year-old girl reportedly shot to death so she wouldn’t grow up to be a demonstrator.

The inquiry added to mounting international pressure on President Bashar Assad, a day after the Arab League approved sweeping sanctions to push his embattled regime to end the violence. Syria’s foreign minister called the Arab move “a declaration of economic war” and warned of retaliation.

The report by a U.N. Human Rights Council panel found that at least 256 children were killed by government forces between mid-March and early November, some of them tortured to death.

via UN: Syrian Forces Killed 256 Children – TIME.

We would be as right to stop this as we were to stop Quadaffi [sp].  Unfortunately, because that actually worked out very well for the U.S. in the real world, but not in crazy-media land, there’s pretty much no public support for doing anything in this situation other than hand wringing/waving.   And of course the sanctions (just as an FYI, Obama, as per, has been on top of this and we’ve been waginge “economic warfare” against Syria since April).

The Arab League has stepped up (again). This time further than before.

BEIRUT — In an unprecedented move against an Arab nation, the Arab League on Sunday approved economic sanctions on Syria to pressure Damascus to end its deadly suppression of an 8-month-old uprising against President Bashar Assad.

But even as world leaders abandon Assad, the regime has refused to ease a military assault on dissent that already has killed more than 3,500 people. On Sunday, Damascus slammed the sanctions as a betrayal of Arab solidarity and insisted a foreign conspiracy was behind the revolt, all but assuring more bloodshed will follow.

The sanctions are among the clearest signs yet of the isolation Syria is suffering because of the crackdown. Damascus has long boasted of being a powerhouse of Arab nationalism, but Assad has been abandoned by some of his closest allies and now his Arab neighbors. The growing movement against his regime could transform some of the most enduring alliances in the Middle East and beyond.

I’m not sure if we’re at an endgame on this yet, and curiously I actually trust my President to do the right thing…whatever that turns out to be.

Either way, this seriously puts a damper on Iran’s celebration re: Iraq, as their one remaining regional ally is eating itself.

Herman Cain officially toast (UPDATED: With science…)

Woman says she and Cain had 13-year affair; Cain denies accusation – CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/28/politics/cain-accusation-affair/?hpt=hp_c1

“Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults — a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one’s bedroom door.

“Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.”

That’s from the campaign.  This one should be pretty easy to suss out.  Cain’s continued insistence that all…six now?…of these women are liars has already worn paper thin, this just wrecks it.

UPDATE:  Here’s the link with what, to me, if pretty damning evidence.

White also supplied WAGA with phone records that showed 61 calls or text messages from one number that she said was Cain’s private cellphone. When the reporter texted the number, Cain called them back.

White said Cain never mistreated her or sexually harassed her and planned to keep the affair a secret but became bothered by how Cain handled allegations by four women that he had sexually harassed them.

“It bothered me that they were being demonized, sort of, they were treated as if they were automatically lying, and the burden of proof was on them,” White said. “I felt bad for them.”

[full story]

This seem pretty legit, as it stands right now.  First up…not surprising someone with Cain’s “alleged” history has some strange on the side.  Second…women don’t like men getting away with lying.   And men don’t like them getting out of line, which is why when you look at whistleblower stats, you see a larger percentage of women facing harsher retaliation than men.  It is standing up to this consistent situation that is the prime motivator here, from where I sit, and not just a nefarious plot to bring down one man.   It’s consistent effort to bring down one liar, because he won’t stop doing it.

And he’ll keep doing it as long as he keeps getting way with it…and he’s been getting away with it for a looong time now.

Kansas Governor (one of those “small government Republicans) pays someone to monitor Twitter for bad things about him…picking up from there….(UPDATED: Governor Apologizes…for his staff…)

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Kansas teenager who wrote a disparaging tweet about Gov. Sam Brownback is rejecting her high school principal’s demand that she apologize.

Emma Sullivan told The Associated Press on Sunday that she’s not sorry and an apology letter wouldn’t be sincere.

via Teen whose tweet about Kan. gov. got her in trouble at school refuses to write apology letter – The Washington Post.

If you don’t know this backstory…here’s the deal.

This is a silly little story.  Hopefully it will get bigger, as folks realize how disturbing this whole turn of events actually is.

UPDATE: This ended well.

“My staff overreacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize,” Brownback said in a statement Monday. “Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms.”

The reaction exemplifies what Bradley Shear, a Washington, D.C.-area social media attorney, called an example of the nationwide chasm between government officials and rapidly evolving technology.

“This reflects poorly on the governor’s office,” Shear said. “It demonstrates their P.R. department and whoever is dealing with these issues need to get a better understanding of social media in the social media age. The biggest problem is government disconnect and a lack of understanding of how people use the technology.”

Brownback’s office declined to discuss its social media monitoring in detail, but politicians and governmental offices across the county are increasingly keeping an eye on the Internet for mentions of their campaigns or policies, not unlike the way newspapers and television broadcasts have been watched for decades.

[full story]

I hate it when “personal responsibility” folks blame things on their staff…which ostensibly are following their orders and protocols.

There was a curious statement later in the follow-up, I’d like to highlight…

The Shawnee Mission School District said Monday it was no long seeking a letter from Sullivan.

“Whether and to whom any apologies are issued will be left to the individuals involved,” the statement said. “The issue has resulted in many teachable moments concerning the use of social media. The district does not intend to take any further action on this matter.”

And the most important one here is that government is watching you.   But the lesson now is not one of fear, but one of action: Don’t watch what you say, watch what they say, and then what they do…and if you think they #blowalot, let the world know.

Why The Super Committee Failed : An Open Response to My Representative, Jeb Hensarling

Howdy, Jeb, hope you get this.   I’m going to address this to you, personally.  The main reference point for those following along at home is this article in the Wall Street Journal, penned by Jeb Hensarling, entitled ” Why The Super Committee Failed”.

First off, Jeb, a bit of background.  I’ve been watching you folks mangle the finances of the United States for a good long while now.    Now, to be sure, you weren’t in Congress when they first passed the tax cuts in 2001, but you were there and voted for the tax cuts in 2003.  If you don’t recall, you called that bill the “Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003”.  Over the next 5 years, it would create zero net jobs.

Unfortunately for most Americans, just because *you* call a bill something, it doesn’t mean it does that.   I’ve noticed this disturbing trend for a while now, and wanted to call your attention to it.  You seem to think if you just call a law something, that is what it will do.   It did not in this case, and I was wondering if you even knew that.  In your article, you don’t mention how you tried the same thing before and it didn’t work.

For those that don’t remember, this was the collection of  tax cuts that both lowered rates (mainly on the wealthy) and *specifically* allowed banks and hedge funds to avoid paying taxes through “qualified dividends”.

 In addition, taxes on “qualified dividends” were reduced to the capital gains levels. “Qualified dividends” includes most income from foreign corporations, real estate investment trusts, and credit union and bank “dividends” that are nominally interest.

Yes, Jeb, you are one of the who voted *for* creating these exact same huge tax loopholes.

But enough about the past, surely you can remember what you did and don’t need me to remind you that we already tried it your way, and it failed miserably.

In your article, you use the sub-head, to avoid taking any responsibility for anything.

Democrats were unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax hikes, and unwilling to offer meaningful reforms for health-care entitlement spending.

Ok, maybe you don’t understand this, but your were on a “DEFICIT CUTTING COMMITTEE” and, indeed, bringing in more taxes CUTS DEFICITS.   I feel almost silly having to point this out to you, but, in fact, all throughout history governments have used taxes to pay for the debts those same governments create and endorse.  When you voted to cut taxes in 2003, it raised huge deficits.  You claimed then we would naturally “grow our way out” of it.   It didn’t work like that (it can’t…we’ll get to this in a minute).   That’s *why we have this committee*.  And now you seem to be attacking the very idea of using taxes to pay for government debts.

You also complain that “[Democrats were] unwilling to offer meaningful reforms for health-care spending”.   But you already knew this was going to happen.  Your House of Representatives passed the “Ryan Plan” with absolutely no support from anyone but Republicans.   Why did you think you could force it through this committee when it had absolutely no support outside of it?

We’ll get back to that later, let’s move on a little bit further into your piece.

All now know that the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction has failed to reach an agreement. While there will still be $1.2 trillion of spending cuts as guaranteed under the Budget Control Act, we regrettably missed a historic opportunity to lift the burden of debt and help spur economic growth and job creation. Americans deserve an explanation.

I want an explanation on why you don’t understand that if you cut taxes at one point, you have to raise them back at another point, or cut services to pay for them.    And I’m not just an American here (although I am that), I’m also one of your constituents.   You are supposed to be representing me, and instead it appears you don’t understand how basic math works.

I want someone who understands math representing me.

President Obama summed up our debt crisis best when he told Republican members of the House in January 2010 that “The major driver of our long-term liabilities . . . is Medicare and Medicaid and our health-care spending.”

This is a curious technique.  You here have focused solely and completely on only one side of the balance sheet, “our long-term liabilities.”   As you may not be aware, we also have significant “long-term assets”, although again you don’t seem to be aware that these exists or how to tap into them.

 A few months later, however, Mr. Obama and his party’s leaders in Congress added trillions of dollars in new health-care spending to the government’s balance sheet.

And again, this is a lie of omission.  You correctly note that the Affordable Patient Care Act adds to the spending side of the government’s balance sheet.  You neglect to note, once again, that there exists *another side* to the balance sheet, called “revenue”, and the APACA brings in more of that than it spends.  This is why the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, indicated that it would actually cost more to repeal, as you already attempted to do.

CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 2 would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period. By comparison, last March CBO and JCT estimated that enacting PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal deficits by $124 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

Perhaps this is why I have such a hard time believing you, Jeb.  The CBO is calling you a liar, or at least very uninformed about the legislation you  are voting for.

Republicans offered to negotiate a plan on the other two health-care entitlements—Medicare and Medicaid—based upon the reforms included in the budget the House passed earlier this year.

The Medicare reforms would make no changes for those in or near retirement. Beginning in 2022, beneficiaries would be guaranteed a choice of Medicare-approved private health coverage options and guaranteed a premium-support payment to help pay for the plan they choose.

This is the “Ryan Plan”.  Look, Jeb, I can see why you don’t call it that, because Republicans have realized that when people know what it is, they do not like it. So, Jeb, the Republicans on the committee tried to force an end-run around Congress to end Medicaid, privatize Medicare, and cut taxes.   Unsurprisingly, this failed miserably…and it’s their fault.

Now on to something else you don’t seem to understand, how job creation works.

The Congressional Budget Office, the Medicare trustees, and the Government Accountability Office have each repeatedly said that our health-care entitlements are unsustainable. Committee Democrats offered modest adjustments to these programs, but they were far from sufficient to meet the challenge. And even their modest changes were made contingent upon a minimum of $1 trillion in higher taxes—a move sure to stifle job creation during the worst economy in recent memory.

Jeb, really…you passed a “Jobs Cuts Creates Jobs” bill back in 2003.   It didn’t create any net jobs.   And now you are claiming, again in the face of history, that raising taxes can’t ever work to stabilize an economy, and can’t be a harbinger of job growth as a result of that stabilization.

And again, need I remind you, Jeb…you were on a “deficit cutting committee”.  Raising taxes cuts deficits.   Or…does that last sentence not make sense to you?   I understand you have taken a pledge to a lobbyist group to never raise taxes in return for election support, but does that lobbyist money really change your perception of reality so completely?

Here’s why I ask that.   You claimed, at certain points in the debate, to be open to raising revenues…[from an older interview]

[Jeb] continued: “We put a half a trillion dollars of revenues on the table. Some of that fees. But 250 [billion] of it is what most people call static tax revenue. But that is in the context, Candy, of bringing down marginal rates — fundamental tax reform to make the tax code fairer, simpler, more competitive to create jobs.”

“But it’s something Democrats have rejected, as you know, it’s not enough, that it’s just a token amount,” Crowley noted.

“Well, first, Candy, I hope I’m never in Washington to where I consider $250 billion the American people’s money to be a token.” Hensarling explained. “Republicans, we want more revenues, we just want to raise it by growing the economy.”

But now I get to see what it was you called “new revenues”. [from this latest article]

Republicans were willing to agree to additional tax revenue, but only in the context of fundamental pro-growth tax reform that would broaden the base, lower rates, and maintain current levels of progressivity. This is the approach to tax reform used by recent bipartisan deficit reduction efforts such as the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission and the Rivlin-Domenici plan.

Does everyone understand what Jeb is saying here?   Jeb, I’ve shown rather conclusively that the math doesn’t work like this, even in theory.   I’ve also shown, again using real world numbers, how this “tax cuts pay for themselves” thing simply DOES NOT WORK.   It didn’t work over the last decade, while you were on the inside.   That you are so close to this, and still cannot see it, makes me seriously question your perception of reality, or your honestly in conveying it to your constituents.  Or perhaps you are simply being paid too much not to see it.

Finally, Jeb, we see that a bit part of the problem was that you didn’t understand the problem.

Unfortunately, the committee’s challenge was made more difficult by President Obama. Since the committee was formed, he has demanded more stimulus spending [1] and issued a veto threat against any proposed committee solution to the spending problem [2] that was not coupled with a massive tax increase.

1] This is a reference to the President’s jobs bill.  Part of which already passed.  Stop complaining about things you support and called for in this same article only because someone else does them, Jeb, it makes you look petty.

2]  You were on a deficit cutting committee.  The deficit is the difference between revenue and spending.  That you focused only on spending and refused to entertain realistic notions of how government revenue is raised (hint: natural growth from “stimulative” low rates can’t work…see: math), makes it obvious why you failed so hard…you simply do not understand the totality of the actual problem.

Finally, your responsibility avoiding conclusion…

Ultimately, the committee did not succeed because we could not bridge the gap between two dramatically competing visions of the role government should play in a free society, the proper purpose and design of the social safety net, and the fundamentals of job creation and economic growth.

I think it’s that last one where you personally failed so hard, Jeb.  You don’t understand seem to understand how basic math works, and build your policy positions of those misconceptions.   You haven’t read your history, and instead just repeat the same tired talking points.    You don’t understand that we tried the exact same thing you are advocating now, and it led to economic collapse.

At the very least, you could take some modicum of responsibility for you own failure.  At the very least.

UPDATE: Finale….I didn’t realize I missed your second-to-last paragraph.   This is probably a better reason why the committee failed…you thought, all along,  you could simply undo the results of that failure by playing the fear card again.

A great opportunity has been missed, but America’s fate will not be sealed by the failure of a temporary congressional committee. Spending cuts will begin anyway in 2013, but in a manner many of us, including our secretary of defense, believe could fundamentally harm our national security. I am committed to ensuring that full deficit reduction is realized, but Congress must work to achieve these savings in a more sensible manner that does not make us less safe.

Jeb…this is completely untruthful.  The entire impetus for your committee was to avoid these cuts by making a deal.  Now you’ve refused to make a deal, and want to go back on the cuts that were supposed to encourage you to make a deal.   Now you call those same cuts a threat to national security…but they weren’t enough of a threat while you were  on the committee to raise taxes to pay for the tax cuts, and wars we’ve had going on the last decade?

This is just so….two-faced, Jeb.  It’s no wonder you have such low approval, one has to be a complete fool to take what you say at face value.   You always thought you could wiggle out of the “trigger” on the committee, which is why you took a hard line, refused to compromise, and failed so completely.   At least your whole plan is clear now.    As a voter, that’s important to me.    Hopefully my follow Texans, and residents of the 5th district, feel the same in 2012.

The Great Disconnect Widens (police brutality vs food product)

NYT: Pepper Spray’s Fallout, From C http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/pepper-sprays-fallout-from-crowd-control-to-mocking-images.xml

To Kamran Loghman, who helped develop pepper spray into a weapons-grade material with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the 1980s,the incident at Davis violated his original intent.

“I have never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents,” Mr. Loghman said in an interview.

Mr. Loghman, who also helped develop guidelines for police departments using the spray, said that use-of-force manuals generally advise that pepper spray is appropriate only if a person is physically threatening a police officer or another person.

It’s really sad to see a lot of people adopting the “nothing to see here, move along” attitude toward this and other incidents.  It has become common knowledge that the police can use violence in response to peace, and a great many people (all of which vote Republican), seem to think that’s just dandy.

Heck, we’ve had multiple Republican candidates for President say how we need to torture more people.

This violence, Btw, is predicted and will get worse, as more and more Americans realize that unless they were born wealthy (‘job creators’ in the newspeak), their options are to just shut up and accept being part of  the underclass forever…or fight.

And now we know that peaceful protest will be met with violence, leaving one less option on the table for *how* to fight.

Republican Foreign Policy Derp-bate Liveblogging

Wolf Blitzer : My real name is wolf.

Mitt Romney :Mitt, is my first name too…wait…not it isn’t… “Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947)”

Hermain Cain : National Security downgraded by killing OBL.

Newt Gingrich : I’m a Heritage and AEI guy from way back, and have been wrong about everthing like they have.

Michelle Bachmann : Crazy Eyes.  Happy Thanksgiving.

Jon Huntsman : Actually has kids in the military…again…by far the best candidate given the short scrift…I think he might actually end up being the nominee..(maybe…not joking).

Question: Obama has stopped a ton of attacks, how do you think we need to give government more power?

Newt : Criminal law vs intelligence gathering…hence Patriot Act is awesome, since it makes them the same.   YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!  Someday..it’s a fact…whole cities gone…not going to change Patriot Act…going to make it strong.  NUKES!!!

Paul : Patriot Act is Unpatriotic and Unamerican.  Newt goes…wha?   Don’t be willing to sacrifice liberty for security.   And that’s the last we’ll hear of him.

Newt Response: McViegh was a success, hence we need to expand government power to watch all of you.

Paul Response : HE’S TALKING ABOUT A POLICE STATE!   (Paul is right).

Bachmann :  We are in a new war.  Wireless functions, hence investigating is ok.  Barack Obama has handed over interrogation to ACLU…she’s lying.   Again.   Maranda warnings are evil, and nobody has rights if suspected of terrorism.

Huntsman : I like liberty.  We are a nation of values.  Find a balancing act.  National effort.  Don’t compartmentalize intelligence.    Good answer…crowd was asleep by the end of it.

Question…TSA Patdowns…

Romney : Let lower risk people go through process faster.    (Perry looks like he want to punch Mitt for talkin’ so smart).    War is different than law enforcement, so we’re always at war with everyone outside the country.

Perry : Criminalize TSA patdowns.  Privatize TSA, UNIONS BAD!   Need to keep Patriot Act, hell, make it stronger.    Collecting intelligence around the world, biggest failure of Osama administration..hehe….

Santorum : Profiling is AWESOME!  Israel does it, let’s do what they do.  Back when I had a job, I voted for privatization (I think he misses the irony here).   Abraham Lincoln did the right thing, but do it globally.

Wolf : Who should we profile?

Santorum : Muslims.  Seriously, mostly young male muslims.

Paul: What if they look like Timothy McVeigh?   You can’t declare war on a tactic.  They are “suspects” not terrorists.   American citizens are subject to assassination (true story).

Cain : (Do you think we should profile muslims?)  No, we should use targeted identification.  Privatization. Patriot Act..if we need to fix it..we will…the terrorists want to kill of us…we should kill all of them first.

Wolf : Seriously…though…you want to profile Muslims?

Cain: Blitz, Wolf, whatever, terrorists, right..whatever…let’s ask the professionals (someone tell him he’s supposed to be one, please).

Question Greg Kagan : OBL was a huge success, but hurt relationship with Pakistan…do you think we should use more drones?  (NO CREDIT FOR KILLING OBL FOR OBAMA NEVER!!  Especially from the AEI).

Huntsman :  Knows more about Pakistan than many people (Cain, take note, this is what experts sound like).   Again, great answer.

Bachmann : (Q: Do you think?…should have stopped there…should we cut off Pakistan?)  Haqanni network, most violent unstable nations that there is.  She then reveals classified information about threats on Pakistan nuclear sites, their numbers, and locations.   A nation that lie…also shares intelligence with us…we need to demand more (like how Iraq needs to pay us back for invading them).   She would continue aid to Pakistan (but end it everywhere else…but Israel).

Perry :  Cut ’em off.  Unless Pakistan pledges full allegiance to U.S, not a dime….wonder if he applies the same thing to Israel.

Bachmann: Call Perry naive, nukes…al qaeda…nuclear bombs…must keep paying them off.

Perry : I never said what I said…I just changed what I said…Afghanistan and India…trade zone…

Bachmann: We’re not writing blank checks (yes…she took the time to call out someone else’s hyperbole).

Q: Afghanistan…what’s the point?

Romney : Can’t just dump everyone off and pull up stakes.  American is more popular in Pakistan, than Congress is in America (true story).

Huntsman :  We need to pull out.  We need to have a full honest conversation…MENTIONS HOW WE KILLED BIN LADEN…this is why he keeps losing…waaaay too honest for this crowd.

Romeny: Smartass question.

Huntsman: Were you not listening?  Slam down.

Romney : …and the commanders on they ground…say something…so we can’t do..on this.   Leaving would endanger sacrifice…not sure he understand how that works.

Huntsman : May I remind you, we are runing for Commander in Chief…not to take orders from commanders on the ground.

Romney: Of course I agree with him….I didn’t say that…I think both things…

Newt : How long do I get to blather?   Attacks Bin Laden killing…and how we should be mad at Pakistan for hiding Bin Laden from Bush.    Threaten them if they don’t kill people we want dead.

Santorum : I AGREE WITH RON PAUL.  Terrorism is a tactic.  We want to kill (radical) Islam.  Jesus will lead us to victory over Islam.  We are the strong horse.  We will fight to the death, always and forever.

Commercial Break

Shoot…missed the Israel stuff…Paul calls them out for having nukes.

Cain : Qualifies something I missed.  We should help Israel to shoot Iran for Aghanistan.

Q: Another AEI flack.  Sanctions havent’ stopped Iraq from getting nuked, how bad to sanctions suck?

Perry :  Sanction Iranian central bank.  Then they will deal with us…Syria…No-fly zone over Syria and sanction Iran…then they will get we want war, now!

Newt : (Q: Should we sanction Iran and make energy expensive?)  Hell yea, and and then we tell Europe they can buy our non-existent extra oil.  We could break Iran in a year, by sabotaging their civilian oil industry.

Bachmann : Yea, I like all that.  Obama hates the U.S. and wants them to win us.  Israel has to strike Israel because Iran wants to eradicate off the face of the earth, and then use the same weapon to do the same thing to the U.S., so it’s Obama fault the whole world was destroyed!

Paul Wolfowitz question…it’s not about Iraq….praises Bush on AIDS in Africa…this guy…he’s evil…got fired from his last job for horrid money handling…now CNN is letting him ask questions…unbelievable…anybody who call this media “liberal” is retarded.  This DEBATE IS RUN BY NEOCONS.

Santorum :  Something sounded nice.

Cain :(Q: Can we keep helping people?)  It might be, it might not, I’m going to look into it, at some point, I guess.

Paul : You take money from poor people in this country (who don’t pay federal income taxes according to the last debate) and give it to rich people (dying of AIDs in poverty in Africa) on other countries which sucks…wild rant…

Romney : Obamacare is horrible, kill it to save Americans.

Paul: Calls b.s. on the deficit committee.

Romney : Silly face.  Then talks about all the spending cuts the Obama administration is making…which are now horrible…it seems.  Romeny think we should we should indict Aghmedinde for the Genocide Convention…and stick by Israel…my first trip is to Israel to pay homage to the people who really matter in this primary fight.

Question from another neocon nutjob:  How horrible is Obama and will you now say that cutting military spending is unAmerican?

Newt : Let me talk about something else.  We beat the Nazis, Japanese and something else in under four years (umm, how long we been in Iraq?)…we could collapse world oil markets if we wanted USING SIX SIGMA!!   Oh jeez.

Also…regime change in Iran…and it would be better to go to war for Israel than make them fight for themselves (’cause they crazy and they got nukes).

Huntsman: No one trusts anyone (can’t imagine why).   The problem is we can’t have an intellectually honest conversation (again…this is why he just needs to change parties and join the thinkers).

==

That’s it for me folks

It’s all the derp I can handle.

UPDATE:  AAAARGH.  Bachmann actually used the exact same “blank check” hyperbole to attack Obama.  The idiocy…it actually burns.

—-

Final update, for now.  I was reading some reviews of the debate and someone else noted something.  While the Department of Defense considers Global Climate Change to be a serious security threat to the United States over the next 50 years (read this link for how)*….none of the candidates mentioned it, and only one is on record (consistently) as believing it exists and we should do something at some point about it.

 

*

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially
de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even
war due to resource constraints such as:

  1. Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production
  2. Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts
  3. Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess

As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor. This scenario poses new challenges for the United States, and suggests several steps to be taken:

  1. Improve predictive climate models to allow investigation of a wider range of scenarios and to anticipate how and where changes could occur
  2. Assemble comprehensive predictive models of the potential impacts of abrupt climate change to improve projections of how climate could influence food, water, and energy
  3. Create vulnerability metrics to anticipate which countries are most vulnerable to climate change and therefore, could contribute materially to an increasingly disorderly and potentially violent world.
  4. Identify no-regrets strategies such as enhancing capabilities for watermanagement
  5. Rehearse adaptive responses
  6. Explore local implications
  7. Explore geo-engineering options that control the climate.

 

That was #intendedasanonfactualstatement

http://m.cbsnews.com/blogsfullstory.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=57329447&videofeed=36 http://m.cbsnews.com/blogsfullstory.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=57329447&videofeed=36
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s first ad of the 2012 presidential campaign quotes President Obama out of context in what the Romney campaign is calling a deliberate attempt to show that Mr. Obama “doesn’t want to talk about the economy.”

In the ad, which goes up Tuesday in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama is heard saying “if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

But when Mr. Obama made that statement, he was actually quoting an aide to John McCain, his 2008 rival for the presidency. “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose,” Mr. Obama said.

In an email to Politico, the Romney camp said it used the out-of-context quote “intentionally.”

Welcome to Election Season.

Having 13 Members is why the Super Committee failed superbly

Insight: Super committee had glimpse of elusive compromise http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7AL0E620111122?irpc=932

The issue of tax increases had been a red flag for Republican negotiators all year, especially as most Republican members of Congress – including all six on the debt panel – had signed an anti-tax pledge authored by the powerful Washington conservative Grover Norquist.

Remember when we lived in a country where Congress pledged loyalty to the Constitution, and not to lobbyists?  

No really, anyone remember that?

BTW, it is NOT just a coincidence it has turned into a police state over that same time period.  Just a natural result.

You’ve been having them, Mitt, that’s the joke

Mitt Romney pens open letter to President Obama in N.H. newspapers – Boston.com http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/11/mitt-romney-pens-open-letter-president-obama-newspapers/iaJnRePXGD2165iZW4PFDM/index.html

Romney adds that he hopes to emerge as the GOP nominee, saying, “We need a great debate about how best to get our country working again.”

Romney has gone full Limbaugh, it would seem. 

Let’s see, so far during those debates you personally have advocated war with Iran, cutting services to the poor, and..surprise, surprise, tax cuts for yourself and former Wall Street buddies.  How’d that work the last time an MBA Republican tried it?  Does America remember?  Pepperirdge Farm does.