HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kpete » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 42 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 17, 2004, 03:59 PM
Number of posts: 67,616

Journal Archives

Robert Reich Asks: Mitt Says His Heart

Mitt Says His Heart "Aches" For You -- Convinced?
The absurd effort to repackage Romney as a compassionate conservative.

September 27, 2012 |

“My heart aches for the people I’ve seen,”

Mitt Romney said, on the second day of his Ohio bus tour. He’s now telling stories of economic hardship among the people he’s met.

Up until now, Romney’s stories on the campaign trail have been about business successes – people who started businesses in garages and grew their companies into global giants, entrepreneurs who succeeded because of grit and determination, millionaires who began poor. Horatio Alger updated.

Curiously absent from these narratives have been the stories of ordinary Americans caught in an economy over which they have no control. That is, most of us.

At least until now.


What we’re seeing in Ohio isn’t a new Mitt Romney. It’s a newly-packaged Mitt Romney. The real Mitt Romney is the one we saw on the videotape last week. And no amount of re-taping can disguise the package’s true contents.

the rest:

Of ALL People: Todd Akin wishes Claire McCaskill would be more 'ladylike'

More than a month after his comments about “legitimate rape” nearly derailed his campaign for U.S. Senate, Republican Todd Akin said Thursday that it has become clear to him that he will triumph over Democratic incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill this fall.

Part of his confidence, he said, comes from McCaskill's demeanor during their debate last week, which he said was not as "ladylike" as it was when she faced off with Republican Jim Talent in 2006.

“I think we have a very clear path to victory, and apparently Claire McCaskill thinks we do, too, because she was very aggressive at the debate, which was quite different than it was when she ran against Jim Talent,” Akin said. “She had a confidence and was much more ladylike (in 2006), but in the debate on Friday she came out swinging, and I think that’s because she feels threatened.”


Netanyahu's diagrams wet dream

No One Would Hire Mitt Romney

No One Would Hire Mitt Romney
by BooMan
Thu Sep 27th, 2012 at 09:20:11 AM EST

If you needed a lawyer and your choices were President Obama or Mitt Romney, who would you choose? They're both smart; they both have Harvard Law degrees. They're both very successful, although not so much as lawyers. Would you choose the guy who won a Nobel Peace Prize without even trying or the guy who insulted everyone at the Olympics so badly he was rebuked by both the prime minister of the U.K. and the mayor of London?

And what if you did hire Mitt Romney only to discover that he kept changing his theory of your case? First he told you that you could beat the rap. Then he told you he could get you a plea bargain to a lesser charge. Then he told you to forget that, but you could plea and get a lesser sentence. Finally, he told you that he never said or meant any of those things, and you probably ought to just plead guilty to everything and throw yourself on the mercy of judge. That's essentially what Mitt Romney has done between 1994 and today. He has flip-flopped on nearly every subject under the Sun, all the while denying that there are any inconsistencies in what he has to say.

I don't care if you are from Massachusetts, California, or Tennessee, no one in their right mind would hire Mitt Romney over Barack Obama to represent them in court. He's too unreliable and he has a way of offending people.

And if you wouldn't hire the guy to represent you in court, why would you hire him to represent you to the world?


Stunning Unedited Version of Romney "To Camera" Ad Leaked

LOL - too much advertising - but worth the click:

KRUGMAN: Not the election anyone was expecting—a happy surprise for some & a nasty shock for others

........This really isn’t looking like the election anyone expected. Obviously it’s not the election Romney and the Republicans expected and wanted; but it’s also looking very different from what Democrats expected.

The conventional wisdom — which I too bought into — was that Democrats were going to support Obama, but grudgingly and without much enthusiasm. There had been too many disappointments; the golden aura of 2008 was long gone. Meanwhile, Republicans would show their usual unity and discipline, and at best it would be Obama by a nose.

Instead, the Republicans appear to be in a shambles — while the Democrats seem incredibly united, and increasingly, dare I say it, enthusiastic.

How did that happen? Partly it’s because this has become such an ideological election — much more so than 2008. The GOP has made it clear that it has a very different vision of what America should be than that of Democrats, and Democrats have rallied around their cause. Among other things, while we weren’t looking, social issues became a source of Democratic strength, not weakness — partly because the country has changed, partly because the Democrats have finally worked up the nerve to stand squarely for things like reproductive rights.


Revised Labor Department figures find an extra 386,000 jobs

Source: Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON -- The government went back over its numbers and found something missing -- nearly 400,000 new jobs.

In its annual revision to its employment data, the Labor Department said Thursday that 386,000 more jobs were created in the year ending in March than it originally had reported. The revision is a preliminary estimate, with a final figure coming in February.

The revision "calls into question just how grave of a concern the labor market is" for the Federal Reserve, which announced a new round of stimulus this month, said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi.

"Maybe things are better than we think," he said, noting that the figures meant the economy added an average of more than 30,000 jobs each month during that period than initially thought.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-jobs-payroll-revision-20120927,0,3644872.story


Mitt Romney to 'fact check' Obama in debate

Source: Politico

Mitt Romney plans to turn himself into a one-man truth squad during the first presidential debate next week, casting President Barack Obama as someone who can’t be trusted to stick to the facts or keep his promises. ...
Romney himself was the first to signal the strategy.

“I think he’s going to say a lot of things that aren’t accurate,” Romney said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” earlier this month, adding he would have to choose between correcting Obama and delivering his own message.

“I’d be tempted to go back to that wonderful line by Ronald Reagan, ‘There you go again,’” Romney said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81741.html?hp=t2_3

OBAMA ADMIN: Tax Loophole Benefiting Romney’s Estate Costs U.S. $1 Trillion Over Ten Years

Tax Loophole Benefiting Romney’s Estate Costs U.S. $1 Trillion Over Ten Years
By Pat Garofalo on Sep 27, 2012 at 1:00 pm

According to Bloomberg News, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-27/romney-i-dig-it-trust-gives-heirs-triple-benefit.html Mitt Romney is taking advantage of a tax loophole to pass off a fortune to his children without paying taxes on it. According to administration figures, this loophole costs the government $1 trillion over a ten-year budget window:

In January 1999, a trust set up by Mitt Romney for his children and grandchildren reaped a 1,000 percent return on the sale of shares in Internet advertising firm DoubleClick Inc.

If Romney had given the cash directly, he could have owed a gift tax at a rate as high as 55 percent. He avoided gift and estate taxes by using a type of generation-skipping trust known to tax planners by the nickname: “I Dig It.” [...]

While Romney’s tax avoidance is both legal and common among high-net-worth individuals, it has become increasingly awkward for his candidacy since the disclosure of his remarks at a May fundraiser. He said that the nearly one-half of Americans who pay no income taxes are “dependent upon government” and “believe that they are victims.” [...]

The Obama administration estimates that closing the loophole Romney used would bring the federal government almost $1 billion in the coming decade.


Josh Marshall: Poll Trutherism & the Conspiracy Trifecta---I can see it coming now.

Unless, that is, you think the pollsters are conspiring against Mitt Romney and the Republicans to get them so bummed out that … well, I’m not really sure what the idea would be. Because if the liberal pollsters really have conspired with the liberal media to hurt Mitt Romney the main effect would probably be to make Romney into the biggest upset winner in like forever.

But if the polls stay where they are right now and the election results mimic them I have little doubt you’re going to have a serious backdraft of Republicans who are convinced that there really was a conspiracy. And by simple inference they’ll be convinced the race was somehow stolen.

(It’s worth noting that there was a minor variant of this among Democrats in 2004, when it was held for that because the final results in Ohio didn’t match — or sufficiently diverged from — the exit polls that some funny business must have taken place.

This would bring into play the third conspiracy on top of the media and pollster conspiracy: the voter fraud conspiracy, which holds that there is vast amounts of voter impersonation fraud in the “inner city”, i.e., practiced by the black people and sundry non-white people.


Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 42 Next »