Random Thoughts

The $300 million man is getting all folksy. Romney's handlers must constantly try to come up with new ways to make Mitt seem like a man of the people, that he is one who can surely relate with the common man. It’s hopeless, but their latest tactic seems to be for him to get all Huckabee on us. Yech.

Why golly, listen to him wax nostalgic about good ole dad, by gosh he was good at spitting out those nails: "It's one of the lessons I learned from my dad. He never graduated college. He was a plaster carpenter. He was good. He could put a mouthful of nails and spit them forward."

Next up, look for Mitt to be downing Bud Lights with Joe The Plumber.

Ecuador is willing to preserve about 4,000 square miles of rain forest for a measly $3.6 billion -- and they're having difficulty raising the cash! Wealthy countries are balking at this deal, one that would preserve one of the most biodiverse areas on the planet, keep 800 million tons of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere, and maintain an enormous air filtration system by way of the huge forest. Need I remind that $12 billion was literally "lost" in Iraq, and we and other wealthy countries can't pony up close to $4 billion? Incredible.

Some are now saying Obama intentionally elongated the contraception ruckus for well over a week in order to aid Santorum at the expense of Romney. It's no secret Obama would much rather face Rick than Mitt. In any case, I would argue the Republicans are once again idiots when it comes to playing their cards smartly. They ran with this canard, figuring it would do harm to Obama. But the fact is those voters likely won over by this "outrageous overreach" by Obama were going to vote Republican anyway. However, there were many more who were fence-sitters and likely much less socially conservative than your typical Republican and by threatening access to birth control, the GOP lost most of these undecided voters. Net-net another loss for the dopey right.

Another classic rant by Bill Maher. This time he slams the "Country First" Republicans for despising New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington DC and LA/Hollywood, not to mention other highly-populated areas of the USA. Maher: "[T]hey accuse Obama of dividing America....[W]hen it comes to dividing America, it's Republicans who in recent years have carved out a nation into two distinct territories. There's the heartland, and then there's the rest of the country: a vast nightmarish wasteland of college professors, museums, and people who recycle." Or the red welfare states vs. the blue states giving more than they receive.

Did you know that genetically modified food has insecticide built into its DNA, and it "was detected in the umbilical-cord blood of pregnant women"? That can't be good. But of course it's legal, thanks to lobbyists hard at work.

By November, the unemployment rate should be much lower. Is it any wonder the Republicans are beginning to panic, looking to create wedge issues out of contraception and TV ads starring Clint Eastwood?

Santorum defends the Crusades?? Hey Rick, why not categorize the Spanish Inquisition as misunderstood? And what do you have to say about the 200 priests suspected of sex abuse living in California?

62% Of Canadians Oppose Fracking

What does that say when the majority of people in this generally very pro-energy country is against this form of natural gas extraction? I think at minimum it says in the U.S. we need to slow down, roll up our sleeves and begin to really examine and investigate what is becoming an increasingly worrisome practice. If we don't, like global warming, it will be too late.

Unemployment Falling, Obama Rising

The unemployment rate has been steadily falling since 2009, a chart (below) the Obama campaign will be sure to show often.

Have to laugh, Wall Street folks love a rising stock market but they generally dislike Obama. Unemployment rate going down is good for the economy and stock market, and good for Obama. Hmmm, sounds like a conflict to me....

Another Romney Campaign Fail

Concerning Romney's latest campaign gaffe ("I'm not concerned about the very poor"), many are writing about what he should've said instead, or why he said it at all (dog-whistle code to his wealthy supporters).

To me it's just another rookie-like screw-up. Given Romney has been in campaign mode for many, many years, he should know better than to utter such things, period. For him to claim later that he was taken out of context is exactly the point: a seasoned campaigner knows what not to say specifically because in this day and age of sound bites, a string of 8-10 words will be cut and pasted all over the news, leaving out any extra words that may have changed the inference. It's that simple, a "duh" truism.

But Romney continues to not get it. The no-concern-for-the-poor comment is just the latest. There was also the I-like-firing-people, you-wanna-make-a-$10K-bet? and I-didn't-make-much-in-speaking-fees doozies, the latter two further crystalizing how out of touch he is with the average American. Does the average American make a friendly bet for $10 grand? Would the average American regard almost $400,000 paid in speaking fees as not that much money?

It's clear the man is politically tone deaf, and more so it appears he can't help himself, that it's serial in nature. How do you explain the recent repeated offenses after running for office so many times? His wealth and elitism is deeply ingrained within his DNA, to the point where no matter how often his handlers attempt to coach him and purge these tendencies, they will always surface, like pea soup coming to a boil.

Romney is safe as long as he remembers to stick to talking points and preconceived tag lines. But once he ventures off script and attempts to be genuine with his answers, to actually speak in what are real terms for him, that's when he gets in trouble. Again, it's not just that he then says things that further confirm his stereotype, but more so that he says things that are simply ill-advised and stupid with regards to smart campaigning. You just don't say these four words: "I like firing people."

In many ways, it's equivalent to John Kerry's I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it debacle. Those of us who heard it in full context know what he actually meant, but it didn't matter. I recall all to well hearing Kerry say those words live at the time and wincing, realizing it was likely his Dukakis-army-tank or Dean-scream moment. I think it was a huge fail.

But Kerry really only had this one, albeit a big one. In contrast, Romney seems to churn out these misspeaks or "fails" about once a week.

The Obama people must be licking their chops. After all, despite Republicans labeling him the "Teleprompter President," Obama is actually quite good off-script. He can be very effective, actually reaching and impacting his audience, and doing so with facts and few if any unfortunate gaffes. I would very much like my odds in this regard versus Romney. After all, and as we've seen already, Mitt can't always be pre-programmed and there will be plenty of opportunities before November for him to say something that could sink his candidacy. It's just a matter of time....

Social Conservatives Are Dumb -- Literally

"Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found."

But then I suppose I'm guilty of intellectual elitism just for citing this study.

Idle Youth

This chart can’t bode well. Increasing numbers of idle youth + increasingly less funds for government benefits due to austerity = recipe for eventual civil unrest. The Eurozone best snap out of their Hayek spell and come around to Keynes before it's too late....

How Will They Stop Newt?

I ask, what Democrat / liberal is not enjoying this whole Newt resurgence thing?

Yes, it goes without saying that he's evil incarnate, but that truism aside, what I'm loving is picturing Newt as an experiment gone terribly wrong in a Republican science lab.

Newt is everything that has comprised a Republican over the last several years: he's brash, egomaniacal, an opportunist, a hypocrite, a liar, he infers racism, he's a fear-mongerer, he talks up "family values," etc. It's as if the GOP took cells from Atwater, DeLay, Cheney, Nixon and a bunch of other heinous party figures and combined them in a petrie dish, attempting to create an uber-Republican.

But alas, something went badly wrong and this creature called "Newt" escaped from the lab, and now he wreaks havoc on the party that created him. The conventional GOP establishment is freaking out, trying to kill the Frankenstein they created. However this monster is seemingly unstoppable, much like the super-zombies in the movie "28 Days Later," where the dead could run amazingly fast and chomped everything in sight.

In this last debate, poor Romney tried his best to fight back, but he was laughably feeble in comparison to Newt, who fended off each truthful assault Romney hoisted at him with ease. Of course, Newt used lies, deflection and an indignant tone to dazzle the crowd and come out on top, but that's exactly what an uber-Republican is designed to do.

WHAT WILL THE GOP DO?? HOW WILL THEY STOP THEIR CREATION FROM RUINING THEIR CHANCES IN NOVEMBER??

Strap in and stay tuned, this is going to get good....

Rachel Maddow Fact-checks PolitiFact

Rachel Maddow administers a well-deserved take-down of the farcical web site, PolitiFact. Recall their nonsensical 2011 Lie Of The Year. Watch Maddow officially make this web site obsolete, click here.

Despicable Newt Wins S.C.

I received the announcement by email around 7:30pm last night, from the NY Times:

Newt Gingrich Wins the South Carolina Primary, The A.P. Projects

Television networks and The Associated Press projected Newt Gingrich as the
winner of the South Carolina primary Saturday, just 10 days after a fifth-place
finish in New Hampshire left the impression his candidacy was all but dead.

Surprising his rivals and upending the highly unpredictable Republican race for
the presidency in its third, pivotal contest, so strong was Mr. Gingrich’s
performance that the major television networks declared him the winner the
minute the polls closed, basing their projections on exit polls that showed him
winning a plurality of voters among a wide swath of important Republican voting
blocs.

Newt declared the winner "the minute the polls closed," trouncing Romney by almost 13%. Wow, has to be considered a bad loss for Romney, esp. since I believe SC has correctly picked the last eight Republican nominees.

And note above the "his candidacy was all but dead." Sounds eerily similar to John McCain's fate four years ago, his campaign sputtering, key people left him, suddenly things begin to reverse and poof -- he becomes the nominee. Same thing to happen for Newt?

Who can predict when it comes to a party that only continues to become more kooky and nutty with each passing year. Now I'm hearing several powerful GOP figures to the far, far right of the far right in the party are hoping for a brokered convention which would allow them to install a "chosen one" to save the day (Palin? Christie? Mitch Daniels??). Again, who friggin knows.

I just love how the SC folks likely despised and continue to despise Bill Clinton and his foolish dalliance with Lewinsky, and yet with two-time cheater Newt, Mr. Family Values, fully draped in blankets of hypocrisy, that's not a problem. Apparently, the Christian thing to do is to always forgive Republicans, over and over, no matter the frequency or circumstances. But for Democrats, not a chance. Instead Republican SC voters say, "May sinners not on our political side burn in Hell forever!!" You know, as it says in the Bible....

This Republican nominee circus manages to continue to just astound those who can still think rationally.

And serving as ringmaster to this sh*t show is Newt himself, the supposed brainiac of the circus performers. I must say, during a campaign season where we've been treated to the utter repulsiveness of Newt Gingrich in all its squirmy glory, the man manages to continuously top himself.

He has called Palestinians "invented" people, and of course he must be right given Newt is a highly-respected (and well-paid) historian....

Then there was Newt's bracing suggestion that poor kids should replace janitors in our school systems (sweeping for Miss Daisy??). Even more disturbing is the amount of applause this idea receives from debate audiences. But then again, the debate audiences have proven to be more repugnant and ugly than any of the candidates, which is saying quite a bit.

And recently we heard Newt boast, “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” Both a racist and misleading statement, but that's what Newt does, goes for the emotional bell-ringer as opposed to intellect, and does so in an underhanded way. The fact is no president "puts" people on food stamps. People sign up for such assistance on their own, and unfortunately Obama inherited such an anemic, underperforming economy that people in record numbers have been forced to seek such help.

Dick Polman summarized it well:

It's easy to see why Newt was playing the race card. The primary is Saturday and he's scrambling to catch Mitt Romney. What better time to roll in the gutter, South Carolina style? "The best food stamp president" is code for saying "the black president who is signing up record numbers of lazy blacks, so that they can get more handouts on the government dime."

Yes, the best way to pander to the willfully ignorant - and thus gain ground in the GOP race - is to pepper them with lies. Newt did so, via his seral insinuations.

For starters, Obama doesn't "put" anyone on food stamps. The federal Agriculture Department's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides qualifying low-income people with vouchers to buy food, is voluntary. More people tend to sign up for the program when times are tough. Times have been tough since the Great Recession struck us with full force - before Obama even took office. And times have been tough across all racial lines; according to the 2010 Census, 74 percent of SNAP recipients are not black.

Thanks largely to the recession, the number of SNAP recipients has jumped 65 percent since 2008. But that's not the only reason. Signing up has become easier, due to eligibility rules that were loosened in 2002 and in 2008 - during the Bush administration. Indeed, the number of SNAP recipients rose in seven of the eight Bush years. The total number jumped by 63 percent during Bush's tenure. Oddly, I don't ever recall hearing Newt tag Bush as a "food stamp president."

And it's a lie to even imply that SNAP recipients are shiftless slackers; according to the 2010 census, 41 percent of recipients live in a household where somebody works. In other words, the working poor are swelling the food stamp rolls, seeking help because their low-paying jobs (at a time of severe wage stagnation) can't put enough food on the table.

The braying debate crowd naturally knew nothing about these nuances - and nobody on that stage, least of all Newt, dared try to enlighten them.

Yup, large number of hateful, ignorant folk comprise the GOP so the likes of Newt know full well what better way to curry favor with such knuckle-draggers than to hoist race-bating, inaccurate horse sh*t at them. Don't educate, instead fulminate.

And then we have the latest from Newt, and for my money the best yet. CNN interviewed his second wife, who said that Newt had asked her to consider the idea of an "open marriage" when he was caught cheating (second time for Newt). When this interview came up in the GOP debate, Newt became inflamed and said it was "despicable" to mention.

Classic Newt, turning the tables to characterize him as the victim. Just imagine if an opponent of his had this abhorrent legacy as baggage -- Newt would've made it an issue to be attacked, repeatedly. He would've said it speaks volumes about the character and decision-making process of the person, and he would have been right.

Newt commits this despicable act against his second wife, and yet he now proclaims that CNN is despicable for bringing to light what wouldn't be a concern or topic to begin with if Newt had not acted a certain way years ago.

Worse yet, the debate audience loudly applauded Newt's cries of victimhood. And he goes on to win the primary.

Only with the modern-day Republican Party can a man cheat on his wife twice, suggest an "open marriage" option to one of the cheated-on wives, become indignant with rage when his ugly past is brought to fore, calling the messenger "despicable" and to then receive wild applause for doing so.

What is clearly despicable is everything about Newt, much less the modern-day GOP.

Now that Bachmann, Trump, Cain and Gingrich have all experienced their relatively brief rise and fall in what is the clownish GOP presidential race, may we please learn from the past and not spend too much time on Santorum. He too will be forgotten in short-order as he has almost no shot of becoming the Republican nominee, and even less of a shot of becoming the next president, so can we just not waste time profiling his extreme positions and outrageous statements only to see him fade in the near future. Please?

I must confess, I watched a bit of Saturday's NH debate and hearing Romney trot out the red-meat lines to please the hard-right GOP base, I continue to wonder if he's sort of winking to the rest of us more moderate Americans, assuring us that he has to say this stuff to win the nomination but that he doesn't really believe it so please don't be afraid. OR I wonder, does he actually believe these far-right positions that he now claims to believe in?? If he were to be the next president, would he actually become the second coming of GW? Obviously, it's not just me wondering about these questions, but Republicans likewise are befuddled and fear he would instead tack back to his more moderate days as governor of MA.

What's hilarious about this is the modern-day Republican Party has forced it to be this way. The party and its base are so far to the right, so extreme, that if they were to elect one of their true zealots as their nominee, even they have to know that such a person would have little chance of winning in November. So the party is left with a once more moderate figure, such as McCain and Romney, and yet to win the nomination via appeasing and placating the base, the McCains and Romneys must twist and turn, contorting themselves like a pretzel to rid themselves of their pasts and try to convince the doubters that they now think like them, that they've seen the light, that the far right agenda is a beautiful thing.

And yet the base still doesn't quite believe, offering only tepid support, and meanwhile if/when this newly-converted moderate gets to be the GOP nominee, the job becomes increasingly difficult for now this person must try to appeal to the more moderate general electorate. And yet too much has already been said by the GOP nominee, too many statements endorsing far-right positions and criticizing programs and beliefs that are popular with the majority of voters -- and it's all captured on videotape, ready-made for 30-second ads.

You can see how the GOP has more or less made it near impossible for one of their own to make a successful run at the White House. It's difficult enough to have everything break your way to come out on top when making a go of it for president, but given the obstacle course that the GOP has created in addition to all of the other obstacles that come with the territory of running, the odds of succeeding certainly plummet that much more.

Fellow Democrats and liberals could say, "Bravo!" Let their kooky dysfunction remain, thus benefiting the likes of Obama and future Dems looking to reside in the WH. However, the problem is as long as they remain extreme in their views, not waking up to the problems that stem from it as described above, enough far-right Senators and Congresspersons will likely win office to serve as strident obstructionists. As we've come to learn, a Democrat as President is much less effective with these folks playing partisan games, as opposed to when Reagan was in office and Democrats controlled Congress. I don't recall then the Dems refusing to compromise on everything Reagan tried to do....

If Romney were to beat Obama (just saying), and the GOP continued to control Congress, Romney would conceivably be able to pass many of the things Obama would like to pass but hasn't been able to due simply to partisan obstruction. Suddenly stimulus-like measures would be framed in a new way and Republicans would rally around and support them. It would have nothing to do with Romney and everything to do with party-line politics in this day and age.

So for the good of the country, I believe it's better for the GOP to finally realize the quagmire they've created for themselves and to once and for all begin to purge the far-right nutballs and wingnuts and return to the days when the party was more moderate and reasonable. I never would've thought that those days would be more like Reagan, since he was thought to be fairly extreme at that time, but in comparison to today he's just a bit right of FDR! It would ultimately increase their chances of getting a Republican back in the White House, but more so it would help to get this country on the right course to recovery. Isn't that what counts, country first?

Having said all of this I continue to be amazed at how much Obama has been able to actually accomplish despite stern resistance from the opposing party. Just take a look at the chart below, showing the progress he has made on the job front, all the while receiving no help from Republicans. Bravo indeed.

Bill O'Reilly's book Killing Lincoln appeared on Entertainment Weekly's "Worst Books of 2011" list. I'm sure Bill will slam the magazine with something like "written by a bunch of commie, socialist pinheads!" His usual brainy retort.

Penn State, Paterno and cover-up. As with the Catholic Church scandal, protecting the institution came before protecting the rights of individuals. In this case, it was apparently protecting a football program and a coach's legacy that became priority #1. Beyond shameful. And my understanding is we've only heard about the tip of the iceberg, with much more to be divulged and surface....

With Rick Perry paying Fox $1 million for ads, one has to wonder to what extent this is a gift to Fox. Perry's campaign is flush with cash and yet he's been plummeting in the polls and for all intensive purposes is out of the race. So why the big cash outlay? Is it to perhaps insure favorable coverage in the future (as if there was any doubt)? Is it to perhaps convince Fox to offer him a job at some point down the road, if his popularity in Texas dries up?? Very odd.

Don't look now but the whack-a-mole game that is the GOP presidential race now has Gingrich rising in the polls. Yes, it's now Newt's turn to get a closer media look, which has not fared well for Bachmann, Perry and Cain and in the past has not been a good thing for Newt. But for now, he's failing upward and winning by attrition.

Don't we get a fair amount of food from China? This bit of news ain't good.

Many are beginning to wonder if natural gas fracking is causing earthquakes.

As for the Herman Cain escapades, I wish more serious-minded political commentators would stop discussing and even following this guy's campaign as it's a waste of time. Cain has no shot of becoming the GOP contender. As Rachel Maddow has been stating, he's been running a faux or fake campaign. Heck, they've all learned from Newt Gingrich, who figured it out long ago that running for president is a terrific business move. Newt does it every four years as it helps to boost his speaking fees, it keeps him "relevant" and in the public eye, it gives him supposed credibility, it boosts book sales, it channels much traffic to his web site (where he has stuff for sale). The bottom line is he very likely makes much more in return for what he puts into his "campaign." I believe Michele Bachmann learned to do this, and Rick Santorum has been doing this, and Sarah Palin sort of did it with her fake dance maybe/maybe not going to run -- and now we have Herman Cain. But alas, many Republican voters are clueless about it, believing many of these clowns are earnestly running for president. Both hilarious and sad.

I've posted this graphic in the past, but I believe it's worth updating and re-posting. Keep this chart in mind the next time someone says "Obamacare" is going to destroy our private healthcare system. If that were true, these managed care stocks would not have crushed the market since the end of last October. Bottom line is investors as a group are typically not stupid and such massive stock outperformance indicates these companies will likely do better than ever (i.e. "Obamacare" didn't go far enough).

Click on to enlarge

Glenn Beck, Goldline and charges of fraud. Does this shock anyone?

As you may have noticed with the frequency of my updates, I'm not a professional blogger. My other life too often gets in the way. I do collect many news items, jotted-down thoughts, etc., meant to be posted up here fairly expeditiously but unfortunately instead they become quite past due. Rather than just tossing in garbage, I hope you don't mind when I post them anyway....

One of my favorite political writers ever, Jonathan Alter, recently wrote about the possibility of Obama switching Biden for Hillary for this upcoming election. Could this actually happen? Alter writes, "I’d say the odds are long -- but it’s definitely not impossible." Then almost as if on cue, Time releases a poll showing Hillary would trounce the Republican contenders if she were running for president, by margins larger than Obama. Admittedly such a poll can be a bit dubious given Obama has been in the #1 spot for 2+ years, receiving all the shrapnel and wounds in this difficult period, and it's always appealing to think "What if she had won her way into the White House, would things have been different...?" However, as the polls tighten up between Obama and Romney, I would assume Obama would do everything necessary to secure a victory. Biden has more or less been invisible in this term, esp. compared to VPs Cheney and Gore. Meanwhile, Clinton has been very high profile and I would say has received very positive reviews from both parties. With the GOP likely to use everything at their disposal to defeat Obama, trotting out all the usual beyond-the-pale campaign methods, there will be a need for an attack dog in the race, one who can land blows and yet do so tactfully, avoiding embarrassment. Hillary can do this better than Biden, who as we know often puts foot in mouth. In addition, it would be great to get Bill Clinton more overtly involved in working his magic to get Obama another four years -- he still remains one of the most amazing and gifted political minds and strategists that I've ever seen. And I would also mention, do not discount that woulda/shoulda mentality, "if only it were a Hillary/Obama ticket to win in 2008, would things be different...." It may be folly, but there's enough people (like myself) who originally wanted Hillary to go all the way and just the thought of her becoming #2 in charge and having more explicit influence over decisions and day-to-day operations could be enough to tip the scales in what is shaping up to be a close election.

Apparently the governor of California, Jerry Brown, is shocked at just how pigheaded and untrustworthy his Republican cohorts are -- where the hell has this guy been?! In the article we learn a few things about Republicans in California that hold true for the party on a national scale (proving that Republicans are a-holes no matter where they hold office). They refuse to accept facts, they believe that a 50/50 compromise is unfair and unacceptable, and they lie and don't honor their word. And yet reasonable people are expected to work with such clowns and actually attempt to get something accomplished for the sake of the people. It defines insanity, as per Einstein: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Nearly 200 companies/special interests/lobbyists have registered to "influence" the 12-member congressional "Super Committee" which is expected to find many billions in spending cuts. So let me understand, after all the Tea Party-inspired BS we had to endure concerning the debt ceiling, this is what we get? Instead of the entire Congress getting "influenced" by lobbyists, now it will be fine-tuned to just 12, simply making the job easier for the lobbyists. Way to go Tea Party idiots! We're roundabout back to the original problem: $$$ in politics. Which is what the antithesis Tea Party -- OWS -- is highlighting, the root cause of the rot, not the symptoms.

I highly recommend reading this interview with economist Richard Koo. Many fear we're headed down the road of Japan, doomed to experience a "lost decade" of malaise and muddle-through. Koo has extensively studied the problems in Japan, becoming the go-to expert on it's "Great Recession." Along with several excellent suggestions and prescriptions, Koo concludes, "The Japanese government didn't do enough spending in the early 1990s and added another 10 years to the problem. If the U.S. avoids that mistake, maybe in a couple of years you will be out of this mess." And note, with regards to the recent impressive U.S. stock market rally, Japan has enjoyed more than a few 35+% rallies during its 20-year protracted bear market.

The John Podhoretz column in the NY Post is hilarious. It's as if one were to bake a cake, ice it with dog feces and then complain about the taste. John, your party has spent years carefully crafting a "master recipe" of what they like and dislike, ultimately producing this cast of nincomepoops. It's what the GOP deserves.

More items to come....

I happened to watch the Republican debate tonight. It was like getting a broken nose reset.

The verdict was clear: Romney won easily, Perry lost badly. And forget about the rest, they're inconsequential.

RP needed to hit this one out of the park to have even a remote chance of climbing back into the race -- not going to happen. His wife can stop bitching about the way her hubby is being treated, he's toast.

Let it be said one more time that the only reason Romney has been winning these debates is because his competition is hapless and inferior. He's winning due to relative superiority.

Wait until he's up against Obama, one on one. It will be a stark contrast compared to this cast of kooks and yokels.

I happened to watch the Republican debate tonight. It was like getting a broken nose reset.

The verdict was clear: Romney won easily, Perry lost badly. And forget about the rest, they're inconsequential.

RP needed to hit this one out of the park to have even a remote chance of climbing back into the race -- not going to happen. His wife can stop bitching about the way her hubby is being treated, he's toast.

Let it be said one more time that the only reason Romney has been winning these debates is because his competition is hapless and inferior. He's winning due to relative superiority.

Wait until he's up against Obama, one on one. It will be a stark contrast compared to this cast of kooks and yokels.

I happened to watch the Republican debate tonight. It was like getting a broken nose reset.

The verdict was clear: Romney won easily, Perry lost badly. And forget about the rest, they're inconsequential.

RP needed to hit this one out of the park to have even a remote chance of climbing back into the race -- not going to happen. His wife can stop bitching about the way her hubby is being treated, he's toast.

Let it be said one more time that the only reason Romney has been winning these debates is because his competition is hapless and inferior. He's winning due to relative superiority.

Wait until he's up against Obama, one on one. It will be a stark contrast compared to this cast of kooks and yokels.

I must say I sort of saw (predicted?) OWS coming....

Fortunately it has thus far remained non-violent. Let's hope it remains that way and doesn't eventually attract the "wrong" people as its sphere of influence expands.

Buffett takes on Murdoch -- clash of the titans!

Surprise! Lobbyists "infiltrate" debt super committee.

The difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme.

Reagan increasingly looks better (more moderate) in relative terms than the GOP kooks of today (who would most likely cast him out as too liberal).

"Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales." Imagine if Soros did this....

As the planet warms, forests die, and as they die = less trees to absorb CO2 and pollutants, and with less trees to absorb CO2 and pollutants, planet warms even more -- repeat.

Clarence Thomas must go. If he can't figure out how to complete a form, what does that say about him ruling on some of the most complex and important issues that face this nation?

Remember when Mr. Tea Party, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), was going to shake up Washington, change how it's done down in DC....?? Yeah, right. More BS eaten up by naive supporters.

"Every day, more than 100 million cubic feet of natural gas is flared this way — enough energy to heat half a million homes for a day. The flared gas also spews at least two million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, as much as 384,000 cars or a medium-size coal-fired power plant would emit, alarming some environmentalists."

Bloomberg: continued high unemployment could lead to expanded rioting.

"Congress spent over $120 billion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. Tell them it’s time to rebuild America."

How many investigations on Solyndra, four? And amounting to $500 million, it's the only failure of close to $40 billion invested in green energy, or about 1% of funds. What an outrage. Meanwhile, how many investigations were assigned to the $18 billion in cash missing in Iraq under GW's reign??