Tea Partiers take heart:

This primary election cycle the GOP changed the "winner take all" rule to proportional representation. Romney will get 7 Iowa delegates, Santorum will receive 7 Iowa delegates, Paul will get 7, and Gingrich will get 2 as will Perry. Obviously three of the "Anybody but Romney" group can combine their delegates and have a majority.

Romney will likely do well in New Hampshire, but I doubt he will get a majority. In fact, I doubt he will get a majority of delegates in any of the state primaries. When the primary election process is over Romney may have the most delegates, but not a majority. In other words the GOP presidential nominee will be selected at their national convention.

Like all conventions, there will be horse-trading, deals cut, winners and losers. Currently the GOP/TP is owned by big business and operated by Tea Party members. The Koch brothers (Americans for Prosperity) and Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Colburn (Club for Growth) and other conservative groups will be arm twisting to nominate a more conservative candidate than Romney. Even though Romney may have the plurality of delegates, conservatives will likely attempt to block his nomination.

Who knows, in light of all the weak conservative candidates, the convention could become so deadlocked they pick a nominee who didn't even run in the primaries…like Sarah Palin.

Yesterday I made the argument that someone should immediately take Barry to court to invalidate his “recess appointments” to the CFPB and NLRB because they were a clearly unconstitutional abuse of the recess appointment provision in the Constitution, which requires the Senate to actually be in recess. Barry is arguing that the pro forma sessions are not valid and he thinks the Senate is really in recess. (BTW, the use of the pro forma session to prevent recess appointments was initiated by the Dems to stop GWB from making them. What goes around comes around. LOL!!!)

I have since changed my position. Barry is doing this to provoke just such a legal action in order to enhance his re-election strategy of running against Republicans in Congress. As today’s WSJ points out, the questionable constitutionality of the appointments leaves EVERY action taken by, or on behalf of these appointees open to court challenges by ANYONE affected by the actions.

I now believe the best course of action is to let the appointments stand in order to deny Barry his desired re-election talking point. Then let the process take its natural course through the courts as possibly hundreds of plaintiff’s line up to challenge these appointee’s actions. If the appointments are unconstitutional, as I believe they are, ALL of the actions will be struck down and our Constitutional law professor President will be shown for what he is, inept and incompetent.

1. Article 1 Section 5: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days,

The House of Representatives did not consent to the Senate being in recess and, therefore, the Senate MUST meet at least every fourth day.

2. Article 1 Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,

As far as I can determine, NOTHING in the Senate rules prohibits this type of session. In fact, the Senate web site has the following info:

pro forma session - A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.

3. The Executive branch claiming it has the authority to determine whether or not the Senate is in session is a clear violation of the separation of powers that is the most fundamental concept of the Constitution.

I think Barry has forgotten some of his constitutional law professor lessons, and the White House lawyers he is relying on are morons.

How does Romney handle it?

My guess would be in the fetal position - blubbering about 'why is everybody picking on me'?

I still think Willard has a 'glass jaw' to complement his plastic hair!

"By opposing the appointment of Richard Cordray to run the first-ever consumer watchdog bureau, Mitt Romney today stood with predatory lenders and Republicans in Congress over the middle class.

Game ON Willard! lol

Bleak Showdown n the Hoe down tut-tutting Sarah Palin of Reality TV —

The GOP/ Tea Babeggers loathe the big move of the President doing recess appointments. The NLBR couldn't even reach a quorm becuse the Republican Congress has held the country hostage with their obstrustist and filibuster tactics. Ditto Richard Cordray to head Consumer Financial Protection Buro. They are tripping and spinning all over each other telling the President what he can and cannot do. I would like to add parenthetically that Micth Mcturtle can choke all he wants. What that turtle speaking Minority Republican leader of the House doesn't want to admit is Pro Forima says the Presiddent can make recess appointments in order to make the government run. That's in the Constitution.

As Evans explains, “the text of the Constitution does not differentiate expressly between inter- and intrasession recesses for the Recess Appointments Clause,” and “the main purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause—to enable the President to fill vacancies to assure the proper functioning of our government —supports reading both intrasession recesses and intersession recesses as within the correct scope of the Clause.”

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/03/396384/president-obama-reportedly-will-make-recess-appointments-today-or-tomorrow/
Real americans and most of american think you right wing fools and GOP/T- BAGGER candydidates are a joke. this is evidenced by the 5% approval rating Congress has. The GOP/T- BAGGER candydidates ride around in that Klow Kar throwing fire bombs at our President and the American people.

They want to blame the President for the economy. The truth is and I happen to remmeber the Glas Stegall Act of 1939 which Reagan rolled back in the 80s. Then in 2007 the economy collaspes. So tell me, how can you put this dbacle at the feet of the Black Man in the White House?

Real americans know why you right wing people are timid racicts and will are too coward to admit your timidty. Rather you'd rather lob bombs filled with the fear and hatred.

White Collar Auto

Hey Bev, try spell check for God's sake.

Your posts are unreadable.

I do know, however, that you know how to spell racist so how did you get that wrong?

It's your battle cry, eh?

Thank you Stiff Collar Auto

My computer is running slow this this morning. As I was editing my mistakes the time ran out. The title was supoosed to be ..

Bleak Showdown ofut-tutting Sarah Palin of Reality TV —

Wow, WCA: Stalking Beverly much?

Wow, WCA: Stalking Beverly much?

Turn abouts fair play. I hope the Repug candidates tear Romney's campaign to shreds. I have no love for Gingrich, but what Romney did with his SuperPacs was inexcusable. Let's hope Romney ends up on the bottom of the pile of losers like usual.

Obama in 2012.

Sorry for the double post, FR is having issues. Or maybe I'm not. Important enough to say twice!

No NDD, I just take exception to being called a racist.

Responding to a post that is clearly a mess, I don't believe, is stalking. Bev seems to be a bit out of it this morning.

Heck, I was just trying to help the old gal out.

You, however, seem to be very enthralled with me lately.

It's kind of creepy.

Ron,

Thankyou for bringing up the fact that "winning" the Iowa caucus by eight VOTES, does not translate into taking all their delgates to the convention. I only just learned a little about this yesterday, by reading an article on the ABC website. I haven't heard the TV reporters informing people of this fact (of, course I don't have cable, so maybe they have.) Seems like the establishment is in a big rush to annoint Romney the Republican nominee, but the reality is, he's got alot of opposition from within his Party.

As creepy as you tagging along with Beverly when she posts? I don't think so. But, good try at projection.

Sorry again Stiff Collar Auto,

I think my computer is running a background check which causes it to run slow

My computer is running slow this this morning. As I was editing my mistakes the time ran out. The title was supposed to be ...

Bleak Showdown of the tut-tutting the of Reality TV — The GOP/T-Bagger KLOWN Kar.

Also, you know what racism mean no matter how it is spelled.

I have no love for Gingrich, but what Romney did with his SuperPacs was

You got that right Tom!

Wounded Newt, is doing more to expose Citizens United & Super PAC's then Democrats could of EVER dreamed of! ;o)

@NND - you noticed how poor WCA is always riding some liberal womans leg too?

Wonder why he NEVER goes after the guys...?

Best to keep some rolled up newspaper handy for the little critter, until he's housebroken! ;o)

Good morning Bev, So True. Thanks

When the Republicans did it, the Democrats whined and stood on arcane parliamentary procedure to thwart the practice. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, the Republicans whine and use the SAME arcane parliamentary procedure to do the same. When a Republican was President, Republicans supported the "recess appointments" and Democrats cried "Foul" Now A Democrat is President and Democrats will support and defend the very practice they said unconstitutional before, while Republicans cry "Foul!"

Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, and George W Bush, to name a few, ALL used some form of the "recess appointment" to circumvent the congress. The opposition ALWAYS cries foul, until they're in the same boat...So, moral-equivalent away!

Dangerfield...if I could "vote up" your comment 1,000 times I would! Well said sir!!

I hadn't noticed til just this moment, Feisty, but you are right!

And then we add poor Alan into it.

Dangerfield, the old wave is like the new wave, wet and you still can't breath.

President Reagan used the recess appointment procedure more than most.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

Sorry for the double post, FR is having issues. Or maybe I'm not. Important enough to say twice!

newday,

You and your posts are important enough to be said forever and ever because you speak the beautiful truth.

ADP said 325,000 jobs were created in Dec. Expectations were 175,000.

New unemployment claims below the 400,000 bench mark at 372,000. Below expectations again.

The 4 week average is at the lowest level since June 2008.

Job1

President Reagan used the recess appointment procedure more than most.

He sure did. 170 times to be exact

The Senate, of course, does not meet as a body during a pro forma session. By the terms of the recess order, no business can be conducted, and the Senate is not capable of acting on the president’s nominations. That means the Senate remains in “recess” for purposes of the recess appointment power, despite the empty formalities of the individual senators who wield the gavel in pro forma sessions.

Moreover, even if the Senate could stave off a recess by convening in the Neighborhood of Make Believe, it is simply not true that three days must pass before the president’s recess power kicks in. Though it’s true that Katyal once said that “I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days,” an off-the-cuff comment by the Deputy Solicitor General does not have the power to change what the Constitution actually says. As the highest court to consider issue explained, “[t]he Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President’s appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause.”

Source: think progress

Joe in Albany is outraged over President Obama using the same recess appointment method used by President Bush to make revoltin' John Bolton UN ambassador. Where was your outrage then, Joe? With your two faces and Romney's two faces, we could have a two man flesh and blood Mt. Rushmore here!

Dennis, this is because the private sector is correcting itself, not because the anointed one has done anything to correct its path...

Alan = angry tea people GOP republican.

Hugs, Beverly!

Dennis, thank you for posting what is important information that has not come out about Romney. The American people need to know what they are in for if he is elected.

Dennis...gotta be careful with the ADP numbers in December. Without going into too much boring statistical stuff, the ADP numbers from December tend to overreact to seasonality. Last December the same thing happened. ADP said 297,000 more jobs (up from 93,000 more jobs the month before), but the government report showed only 113,000 more jobs. Has to do with differences in how the indices are calculate. However, the drop in new unemployment claims is DEFINITELY a good sign! :-)

@Frank

Dangerfield...if I could "vote up" your comment 1,000 times I would! Well said sir!!

All I would ask is where is the "Change" we were promised. After the passing of NDAA, which could have been predicted from Senator Obama's vote to protect the telecoms companies in 2008, this Administration is no different from the previous one.

Debt - No Changes

Civil Liberties - No Change

Executive Power - No Change

Wars - No Change

It's just the same Merry-Go-Round.

Auntie Fascist His excuse most likely "Da I forgot". Thats about right huh joe.

Frank,

You are correct and even ADP said today that they, themselves, do not have much confidence in the number.

But it is an indicator. Hope for good news for the American workers tomorrow !!

Alan = angry tea people GOP republican.

Alan = Fed up voter angry at the two party system and the dysfunction that is Washington. Fiscally responsible and disgusted at the deficit run up over the last 11 years. Sees no hope for the next year, or next Administration if something does not change. Sees very little difference in the attitude or policies or policies of Democrats and Republicans and will only vote based on an individuals' policy or record, not the letter after their name.

Ron, interesting thoughts about the GOP race. It will be fun to watch.

Beverly, true, well said.

WCA, are you head of the spelling police or just a Karl Rove deflector who didn't like the truth in print so change the subject to spelling? FYI: spell check isn't perfect either because it just told me "deflector" wasn't spelled correctly and then listed the same spelling I had typed.

Morning ladies and gents!

A little bit of news, Dr Paul picked up three NH newspaper endorsements over night, Mitts not real happy about it he's been chasin those for three weeks now... ;-0)

Alan...not sure why you are quoting me. I was just agreeing with Dangerfield's statement that both sides of the aisle are being a bit hypocritical on the recess appointment issue.

Dangerfield,

The flack about Obama making a recess appointment shines a spotlight on the dysfunction of Congress.

The Congress folks are not in Washington. They have been on vacation from mid December until later this month. So they want us to believe they are in" pro forma" session??? Two guys running in and saying" Present" and then leaving 1 minute later is a joke.

I suggest if any of us try that at our place of their employment, your clients, co workers and boss would say you are nuts. You are either at work or not....

According to a blog post written by Speaker John Boehner's staff, the Cordray appointment is unconstitutional because Obama defied an imaginary time-limit on his recess power and failed to respect the Senate's decision to pretend that it's actually doing something:

First of all, Boehner needs to learn to count. For constitutional purposes, the Senate has been in recess since December 23. Although a single senator has opened a pretend session that lasts about half a minute — what is known as a "pro forma" session — every three days since then, these pro forma sessions have no impact whatsoever on the president's recess appointment's power. As Steven Bradbury and John Elwood, two key constitutional advisors during the Bush Administration, explained in 2010:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397578/bush-administration-legal-advisers-said-obama-can-recess-appoint-cordray/

==============================================================

In My perceptive John Boehnor are doing just that pretending.

The Tea Baggers live in a make believe world; simply put.

Alan = Fed up voter angry at the two party system and the dysfunction that is Washington. Fiscally responsible and disgusted at the deficit run up over the last 11 years. Sees no hope for the next year, or next Administration if something does not change. Sees very little difference in the attitude or policies or policies of Democrats and Republicans and will only vote based on an individuals' policy or record, not the letter after their name.

Well said!! Neither party has been serious about fiscal responsibility for a long time. We've had every conceivable combination of GOP and Dem control of Congress and the White House and the debt still goes up and up.

Dennis...I've said it before and I'll say it again...I don't care who is in power, I want to see good news on the employment front. That is something we should all be able to agree on.

Nah Jody, as I said, just trying to help Old Bev out.

For an article that makes sense of what Bev is trying to insinuate, you might try this one:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/24/reagan-depression-banking-regulations-opinions-columnists_glass_steagall.html

Interesting that it was actually the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed most of the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act.

NEWS FLASH

President Obama Has Made Far Fewer Recess Appointments Than Any Recent President | Despite the inevitable conservative complaints that President Obama is engaged in some kind of massive overreach by recess appointing Richard Cordray as the nation’s chief consumer financial protection watchdog, the truth is that Obama has used his recess appointment power very sparingly. After today’s appointment, President Obama will have made a total of 29 recess appointments. By comparison, George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments; Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments; George H.W. Bush made 77 recess appointments; and Ronald Reagan made 243. When you divide these numbers by the number of years each man spent in the White House, it reveals that Obama is far and away the least likely president to invoke this power.

Here is a chart:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397589/president-obama-has-made-far-fewer-recess-appointments-than-any-recent-president/

Joe, who is Barry?

Alan...not sure why you are quoting me. I was just agreeing with Dangerfield's statement that both sides of the aisle are being a bit hypocritical on the recess appointment issue.

Only emphasizing that there is no real difference between the last two Administrations.

On your other comment I can only agree. When there is low unemployment everybody wins. Here's hoping for some good numbers. It's also why I call out racist comments as much as possible because if unemployment is low the President will be re-elected. Nothing to do with race.

Stiff Collar

Nah Jody, as I said, just trying to help Old Bev out.

For an article that makes sense of what Bev is trying to insinuate, you might try this one:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/24/reagan-depression-banking-regulations-opinions-columnists_glass_steagall.html

Interesting that it was actually the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed most of the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Help, your own willfully mis-informed self it was both Reagan and Clinton. Surely, you can agree to that?

We failed to learn from the Savings and Loan Scandal of the Reagan era and so we repeated the error with the Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom scandals.
by Russell G. Davis
(centrist)
Monday, April 18, 2011

We failed to learn from those scandals and so we repeated the error with the Housing Bust and the current Great Recession. Even now people are indulging in Revisionist history and working to ensure another financial fiasco while rolling back the meager financial reforms enacted by Congress. For the sake of our country and future generations, let’s set the record straight regarding the Reagan record straight!!!

http://www.nolanchart.com/article8564-the-real-legacy-of-ronald-reagan-part-1.html

The opposition ALWAYS cries foul, until they're in the same boat...So, moral-equivalent away!

______________________________________________

Yes, every modern President has used the recess appointment power provided in the Constitution to circumvent the opposition in the Senate. However, as pointed out in an FR article yesterday, what Barry is doing is something NO OTHER President has ever done, not even the evil GWB:

“However, his opponents will likely criticize him for making a move that George W. Bush never made -- making a recess appointment while Congress is still in session, albeit in a pro-forma session.”

ALL other President’s have used the recess appointment ONLY when the Senate declared itself to be in recess as required by the Constitution. Barry is trying to say the Executive branch has the authority to declare the Senate is not “really” in session, a clear violation of the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution.

WCO, didn't your mother teach you not to call a lady old? Why don't you go all the way and add fat, senile, sagging, wrinkled ...

Think Progress is not a source. It is an incredible garbage pit of whiners and appeasers. Who ever quotes them immediately invalidates any thing else they say. Find the Senate/Constitution rules, read and quote them (in their entirety instead of a trash website. How ignorant. BTW, did you like recess appointments when a Republican president did them???? Were they wrong then??? Well, only hypocrites would say they are not wrong now.

Also, congratulations to my alma mater WV in trouncing a highly touted Clemson team last night. That was an awesome display of football and all the ESPN idiots (what do you xpect thought since Keith Oberman once worked there) had to back peddle and eat crow.

To quote Jon Huntsman, "Nobody cares." Nobody cares about John McCain's endorsement and nobody cares about the results in New Hampshire. At least they shouldn't care.

The whole point of the nomination process is to get enough delegates to secure the nomination, not to win a state primary/caucus or even a majority of state primaries/caucuses. In 2012, all the early states have proportionally allocated delegates. It has been calculated that Romney could receive anywhere from 7 to 13 delegates of the 25 Iowa delegates. The state of New Hampshire would normally have 23 delegates, but because they violated the Republican National Committee rules by moving their primary to an earlier date, they have been penalized by 50% reducing their delegates to 12. Assuming Romney receives 50% of the vote, it would net him approximately 6 delegates.

A WHOOPING 6 delegates and it takes 1,144 to win the nomination. To put that in perspective that would be approximately 0.5% of the delegates needed to win the nomination.

I think it is very undemocratic that the media and pundits are trying to push candidates out of the process when it has hardly begun. All of the early states in this election cycle have proportionally allocated delegates. Unless candidates start dropping out early, it most likely will take some time before any one candidate has acquired enough delegates to win the nomination. The only thing that should be causing candidates to end their campaigns is if another one has obtained enough delegates to win the nomination or their campaign runs out of funds to continue. It is shameful what I am seeing on all channels from Fox News to CNN to MSNBC. Let the process play itself out, we will get to November and the general election soon enough. Please cover the news and stop trying to make it.

President Ronald Reagan used the "recess appointment" an average of 30 times per year. President Obama has used the recess appointment fewer times than any modern, previous president and the GOP goes berserk the few times he gets tired of playing nice with an obstructionist GOP which has abused its power on just about everything for over 3 years. Democrats blocked nominees but nothing like what this group of GOPers has done. Our courts function poorly because they hold up every nomination without justification except for the fact that a democratic president nominated the person.

I agree democrats did their share of whining about recess appointments, it's the nature of the beast, but the difference is that democrats did NOT block a nominee while extolling the excellent qualifications and credentials of the nominee in press conferences on the steps of Capital Hill (ala the GOP praise of Richard Cordray) and instead have used their power to block a nominee simply to try to nullify a law which was legally passed by Congress and signed by the President. Disgusting and inexcusable behavior on the part of the GOP.

Joe in Albany is outraged over President Obama using the same recess appointment method used by President Bush to make revoltin' John Bolton UN ambassador.Where was your outrage then, Joe?

________________________________________________

Auntie, Barry is NOT "using the same recess appointment method used by President Bush to make revoltin' John Bolton UN ambassador."

And THAT'S my point. See #1.46.

But Bev, I didn't see, in your very unreadable post, where you mentioned Clinton?

Really, Bev, if you are feeling OK and I do hope you are OK, click the link and read the article.

It actually is pretty helpful.

Sh!tty says: Auntie Fascist His excuse most likely "Da I forgot". Thats about right huh joe.

______________________________________

See #1.51

Moron.

Well ideology, she called me a racist.

"Old Gal" is actually a term of endearment in many places.

Which is worse?

Plain and simple fact. If you are not in Washington working, you are on recess. Then if you are not in recess, get your butts back to Washington and do your darn jobs and quit pissing and moaning.

Job1 are you still on Christmas break from your middle school?

If they offer a Civics class (That would be American Government) you should take it.

You might actually learn something.

WCO, and your problem with taking the high road is? Terms of endearment are used with people you are endeared to.

Dangerfield:

Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, and George W Bush, to name a few, ALL used some form of the "recess appointment" to circumvent the congress. The opposition ALWAYS cries foul, until they're in the same boat...So, moral-equivalent away!

You don't seem to know what the Republicans are actually screaming about. It's not recess appointments per se, it's about the appointments Obama was forced to make to keep government agencies running while Congress was on vacation but kept in what they call "pro forma" session because a Senator goes in every three days and turns on the lights in the Senate chamber. The Republicans are right that what Obama did was unprecedented. But so is the Republican attempt to disrupt the functions of the executive branch.

The courts will decide whether the appointments are valid The interesting thing is that the Republicans can't bring suit because they have no standing, according to experts I've heard. Even if Obama loses the suit, I think it will still help him politically if the outfit that "has standing" is some loan shark outfit that sues because they can't legally bamboozle elderly people from getting loans they don't need as long as Cordray is blocking them.

Well, ideology, besides not answering my question, how do you know I am not endeared to Bev?

According to NDD I am stalking her, so I must care about her, right?

mattpfl; Mere numbers alone won't tell the whole story when it comes to this particular election cycle. First off, you still have five people in the race for the GOP nomination, even though it's only a matter of time before Romney starts to separate himself from the rest of the pack. The endorsements from Bush-41, and McCain pretty much assure him of the nomination. The numbers are always "split" early on when you have that many people still hanging around.

The most telling statistic(s) at this point are the most recent polls that show just a 1.6% "spread" between Obama and Romney head to head. That is quite remarkable given Obama's popularity early on, and the fact that Romney has been the subject of so much of the media's very negative coverage of the GOP debates.

It also says that Obama CAN be beaten in this cycle. Especially given the fact that a "generic" Republican candidate beats him by 1.3%.

That along with a number of factors which are very similar to the way things were 20 years ago, when Clinton upset Bush 41, make this general election cycle "primed" for a surprise.

So, fasten your seat belt, and hold onto your hat.....the 2012 "general" is going to be a bumpy ride.

WCA: You still trying to make yourself right about this? Short message. You aren't. The more you try to spin your insulting and demeaning message to Beverly, the more clear it becomes that Feisty is right.

Beverly, that WCA is still blathering on about this is a measure of your success. The more he tries to dig himself out of that very large hole he is in, the more ridiculous he looks.

Now, WCA: do try to post on the issues of the day, that is, if you can.

Nobody should care about South Carolina or Florida as well. Both states have diminished their potential impact by playing leap frog with the calendar and thus having their delegate count reduced by 50%. South Carolina would normally have 50 delegates, but will only be granted 25 and Florida would normally have 99 delegates, but will only be allowed 50. Even if Romney managed 50% in both states, which he won't, it would net him approximately 13 and 25 delegates respectively. Those are the only 4 states with primaries/caucuses in January. At most Romney will have 57 delegates by the end of the month or roughly 5% of the delegates he would need to win the nomination...but yes, lets get the anointing oil out and dub Romney the nominee now. Hell, lets just make him President now. Who needs elections?

It is strange that all of these candidates speak of fiscal responsibility, but when it is clear that they have no chance at winning they are still wasting millions of dollars on campaigning. Its funny to me, either you are a fiscal hawk about all spending including your own or you are not. It is as simple as that.

NDD rarely adds anything of value to Newsvine with silly statements like that. She is one I just don't pay any attention to as I scroll down.

Stiff Collar, No I didn't. However, it still does not negate the fact that both Reagan and Clinton rolled back Glass Stegall which caused the economic crash in 2007 which ugly, timid, racist lay at the feet of the Black man in the White House. Can we now agree this economy had nothing to do with President Obama?

In fact if you look at all indicators the President has turned the economy from the 750000 jobs we we hemorrhaging when President Obama took the Oath of Office. Ditto the moral bankruptcy of the social fabric tea baggers ensconce on America with their racist underpinning.

Stiff Collar, No I didn't.

However, it still does not negate the fact that both Reagan and Clinton rolled back Glass Stegall which caused the economic crash in 2007 which ugly, timid, racist lay at the feet of the Black man in the White House. Can we now agree this economy had nothing to do with President Obama?

In fact if you look at all indicators the President has turned the economy from the 750,000 jobs we were hemorrhaging when President Obama took the Oath of Office. Ditto the moral bankruptcy of the social fabric tea baggers ensconce on America with their racist underpinning.

@Greg -- My prediction is that at the convention when there is no clear consensus, a Republican that has not been battle wore will emerge.

Hey NDD, other than stalking me, what relevant "issues of the day" posts have you bothered to throw up here today?

You guys are so easy to tweak. I especially like how you all try to gang up on someone to scare them off.

You think that if enough of you say go away or you have been 'smacked down', that makes it so.

Only, sadly, in your little world is that really true.

Now NDD, ideology, Feisty and Bev, I am bored with this bit of fun, so carry on.

Thank you Ben. I consider that a great compliment.

Bored, WCA: or tired of being humiliated? The evidence is the latter.

WCO, appears you and Bev were just trading spelling barbs on this thread to me.

"Hiya kids, Hiya, Hiya"

Froggy here with a little reminder, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

(crickets, crickets, crickets)

Surely someone out there has something nice to say about your friends on the other side of the fence?

(crickets, crickets, crickets)

Oh well, never mind.

That's an interesting thought, that Perry remaining in the race for South Carolina will help Mitt Romney.

Huh? I think that's probably true. Santorum, Perry and Gingrich will probably split the Tea Party/Evangelical vote and that will dilute their influence and allow Romney to have a strong showing.

Huh? You don't think that Romney is talking to Perry about a VP slot do you? NAAAAAAH. Or could he? T-Paw will be mighty disappointed.

No, I'm going with my original thought that Romney could not be that dumb or desperate. T-Paw will be the VP nominee, he's earned it. Perry is just being...well, Perry.

Gosh, it's only been 24 hours and I miss Michelle Bachman already.

Naaaah, I'm just pullin' your chain.

Plunk your magic Twanger Froggy!

Obama/Biden 2012

@WCO -- You are correct. They have totally lost it on here. Reasoning has left and snipes are all that remain.

Job1,

Another example of Congress using smoke and mirrors to keep the government from working.

And we keep paying these yahoos. Maybe they should receive a "proforma" paycheck for awhile.

Ron Indiana

Who knows, in light of all the weak conservative candidates, the convention could become so deadlocked they pick a nominee who didn't even run in the primaries…like Sarah Palin.

Ron, should that happen America will be a Reality show to the world for real.

It is kind of coincidental that you mention that bird brain because as you can see from my first post originally I started to write about her; but changed my mind. I'm sure the FOX NATIONALIST and Murdoch will trot her out to breathe her stupid life into the soul-less t-bagger rallies.

Congress was out on recess. Recess appointments have been used by most recent presidents. Whether holding pro forma sessions when they are out on recess would disallow recess appointments is a very fuzzy area that the courts would need to rule on.

The fact that the GOP held the sessions for the purpose of blocking any recess appointments plays right into the argument that the GOP is being obstructionist in every way. The fact that the appointment made enables the consumer protections that most Americans want to go forward and that the GOP would challenge that could do them some real damage in an election year as being anti middle class. If the GOP was smart it would sit on its hands and let this one go, but the Tea Party and extreme right will want to force this as an issue. Those loose canon factions of the GOP could end up costing them the White House and some Governor and Congressional seats.

I'm expecting the mainstream GOP to realize it must torpedo those factions and distance itself from them, even if that means giving up the White House run in 2012, just to stop the long term damage of losing so many seats at the local and national levels as voters see the GOP more an more as a tainted brand.

"Joe, who is Barry?"

"But Obama had friends from many different backgrounds. Other friends at Occidental, including his freshman roommate, Paul Carpenter, never heard Obama called Barack at all. At times, he was still asking to be called Barry. Anne Howells, who taught him Introduction to Literary Theory in the winter semester of 1980, had noticed Obama's full name on the enrollment list of about 15 students. She was curious about it, wondering if it was a Hawaiian name. But when she went around the room asking each student how he or she would like to be called, Obama answered "Barry.""-From the Daily Beast

Barry Soetoro..................Do you know who he is Job1?

Alan, NJ

Can I recommend some Pantene shampoo for those hairs your splitting? If you want to get your fruit of the looms in a bunch,...be outraged over something that makes a blind bit of difference, why don't you?

I am pretty sure that these recess appointments will expire in one year - and, assuming your 'predictions' about the November election are TRUE,...this will all be a non-issue, right?

Jody, as usual, you've brought the point to basic clarity. PS. Live by the obstructionist sword, die by it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

robiscoole

Perfect! That's what I've been saying about Romney. The Meg Whitman approach of spending MILLIONS and still not moving the dial,...how is THAT fiscally prudent? Not to mention all his flip flopping. LOVE the ad that ran in New Hampshire yesterday that McCain ran against Romney four years ago.

So, evangelicals, tell me - Is Romney Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Do you care? I dare you to KNOW the truth about Mr. Say Anything! (including the I NEVER said, statements!) bwahhaaaa

Say Skippy. Remember when you were trying to educate us on how the revenue bill had to proceed through Congress and were wrong. Sort of like Feisty who predicted a "record" low turnout in Iowa. ROFLMAO!!!!! You will also be wrong about the Biden part. There will be another running mate for this failed president who has enough albatrosses around his neck that he doesn't need a gaffing loud mouth anchor plunging him to the bottom. As soon as the Republican nominee names a woman and/or Hispanic as a running mate -- Biden's a hot potato. "The Taliban are not our enemies."

@Ron -- You are on to something I believe, but it won't be Palin.

dammit, typo there - ...those hairs you're splitting...

Ron in Indiana

I welcome the change. Winner take all made my vote worthless in 2008 because a lot of Republicans felt they had no say by the end of March. Ohio moved it's primary up because of this.

Kock Brothers are pointless. More important would be action by Palin or Trump. Being structured this way, yes you could see Palin jump in anyway. I'd venture a guess that Trump is preparing to run as an independent. I think he is doing this as a safety valve for if he thinks the Republican Candidate is not to his liking. Candidates he has been more positive about include Gingrich, Palin, Santorum. He is a little less so of Romney and Paul.

Sort of like Feisty who predicted a "record" low turnout in Iowa.

In case you missed it from yesterday;

Yes booby bennie - I was wrong about the record low turnout!

Not that you would have a clue about how refreshing it is when you are able to admit your error! ;o)

At least Amy & I have the courage to make predictions, unlike you & the rest of the cowards who don't even have the balls to pick a candidate!

Then again, if you want to brag about these numbers, be my guest! lmao!

Total Registered Republicans in Iowa, 1/3/2008 = 576231

Total Registered Republicans in Iowa, 1/3/2012 = 614913

Total Increase = 38682

Percent Increase from 2008 = 6.71%

----------------------------------------------------------

Total Votes in 2008 Iowa Caucus = 119188

Total Votes in 2012 Iowa Caucus = 122255

Total Increase = 3067

Percent Increase from 2008 = 2.57%

So much for enthusiasm! lol

Dennis, Columbus - ADP said 325,000 jobs were created in Dec. Expectations were 175,000.

New unemployment claims below the 400,000 bench mark at 372,000.

_________

Don't get me wrong Dennis, happy to see the better job market. Always happy to see good news. But the "job creators" won't let it continue much longer unless they get exactly what they want.

Per MSNBC Boeing was going to close a big portion of its manufacturing plant that has been in Wichita Kansas for more than 80 years. Those job creators are doing it again. They are leaving Kansas, cutting about 2100 jobs in what used to be a huge manufacturing sector. Where are they going? Well they are going to San Antonio, Texas.

Would like to see what Kansans think about this? Before the GOP mantra of (job climate) begins. I understand red state Kansas is a right to work state as is red state Texas, so it wasn't the big bad union that killed these jobs. Per a report this morning on NPR - City leaders had given tax breaks and bent over backwards over the years, but Boeing basically made up their minds to leave in the middle of the night on 12/30. Too bad for all of those jobs they will cut this year.

Even though they are moving to San Antonio, I doubt they will move all of those 2100 jobs.

Whatever happened to Kansas?

Joe in albany

I think you are correct to oppose this appointment. Here is the fact. The Senate (not the House) is not in recess. The word is to the Senate did not declare a full recess to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The Senate is Run by Democrat Harry Reid. Hmmmmm

White Collar Auto

Hey NDD, other than stalking me, what relevant "issues of the day" posts have you bothered to throw up here today?

Now NDD, ideology, Feisty and Bev, I am bored with this bit of fun, so carry on

Stiff Collar,

If you think emphasizing what most of America wants and agrees with President Obama is doing and intents to do is irrelevant, it only shows how much you are of little important as evidenced by the polls ; exclude Rasmussen and FOX NOISE polls. As you may or may not know Rasmussen and FOX NOISE polls are robo calls emanated from Rush Limbaugh, the titular head and Biggest (pun intended) Liar of the RepubliCons, and the Brain Room of Roger Ailes' "Fear Factory" over @ FOX NOISE.

You are bored with me, Fiesty and newday? You are a FOX NOISE LIAR. I dare you to stop responding to us and to put us on ignore. OKAY????

Yellowdog,...

I heart you!

I guess you can say that Governor Brownback is doing a "...heckuva job there..."

I live in Missouri and work in Kansas and I can tell you that the stateline poaching of jobs is pervasive. It does make you wonder what San Antonio is offering in specifics. Are they centralizing any operations or streamlining any efficiencies?

It is a cutthroat business climate and the only winners I see are the corporations.

Mark, what I read about the Boeing action is that it was due to Defense cuts specifically:

The decision was not entirely unexpected. The company said in November it was studying whether to close the Wichita facility, which specializes in modifying commercial aircraft for military or government operations, to address Defense Department budget cuts. (CBS News)

Here is what the Mayor of Wichita had to say:

Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer said the city, which prides itself as being the air capital of the world, has a long history with Boeing in the community. Brewer noted he worked there for 20 years before the company sold off its commercial operations.

“Many people — generations upon generations — have had an opportunity to be employed there and that could very easily be the end of that … They are a very important part of us here,” Brewer said.

But the mayor said the city would move on and take care of those families and continue working to be the “air capital of the world.”

“This is not the first time we have had something of this magnitude. We have had other challenges and we have always managed to work through it and been able to survive,” Brewer said.

Now, I have no idea if he is a Democrat or Republican, but he could be my Mayor any day of the week.

I too, doubt they will move all those jobs. Wouldn't make sense.

Seems to me Boeing is doing everything it can to continue to be profitable and employ as many people as possible. Can't do that if they are bankrupt or losing money.

80 years in Kansas, though, so it is a shame.

Yep, Beverly: WCA can use ignore. But he won't. He has no other purpose on FR. Just trying to insult people

WCA,

According to NDD I am stalking her, so I must care about her, right?

I can't let this go. "Stalking" someone has nothing to do with "caring" about someone. In fact, it is quite the opposite--all connotations in regard to stalking are negative. It is anti-social behavior.

It was a joke, Jack.

Lighten up.

Ben,

NDD rarely adds anything of value to Newsvine with silly statements like that. She is one I just don't pay any attention to as I scroll down.

You couldn't be more wrong. Newday is one of the most lucid commentators on this vine. You would be well-advised to give what she says serious consideration.

WCA,

Well, then the joke is in poor taste. I know people who have been stalked and they cringe at the word. It's like "rape". No one thinks it is funny.

Joe in Albany

Yesterday I made the argument that someone should immediately take Barry to court to invalidate his “recess appointments” to the CFPB and NLRB because they were a clearly unconstitutional abuse of the recess appointment provision in the Constitution, which requires the Senate to actually be in recess. Barry is arguing that the pro forma sessions are not valid and he thinks the Senate is really in recess. (BTW, the use of the pro forma session to prevent recess appointments was initiated by the Dems to stop GWB from making them. What goes around comes around. LOL!!!)

Learn something , teabagger.

If you really want good government you'd stop being a Karl Rove FOX-IFIED troll. You are are a very, very, very, comical troll at that.

The Senate, of course, does not meet as a body during a pro forma session. By the terms of the recess order, no business can be conducted, and the Senate is not capable of acting on the president’s nominations. That means the Senate remains in “recess” for purposes of the recess appointment power, despite the empty formalities of the individual senators who wield the gavel in pro forma sessions.

Joee come out of your act; you little elf. Trolling is not god for your little gnome mind; leprechaun!!!!

Learn that obstructionist and filibustering tactics, as well as holding government and America hostage is not good governing.

the reports are coming out about voter fraud in iowa.lights are going out in the tallying.trucks were missing.districts not reporting.dumpster were full of ron paul tickets.and carl rove saying rick and ronmey agreed on numbers from some districts.and the biggest smoking gun of all rick gets second place when he couldnt draw more the 100 people at one time.and the votes were counted in SECERT at a secert location.and ron paul in all the polls were at 50 percent or more before the election.humm

smells like al gore george bush flordia all over again

we need to come out in bigger masses to vote from now on to expose the cheating and bring your cameras and take pictures

So Jack, I didn't accuse anyone of stalking. NDD did.

Was it funny then? Did you tell her it was in poor taste? (Just found out today that apparently NDD is a female) Did you educate her with stories of people that you know that have been stalked? (Which BTW I doubt)

You seem to be upset with the wrong person.

See how easy that was?

The entire point of having Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina as the early "contests" was so that those states would be relevant. However, because of how GOP delegates are actually chosen, the very process makes the contests more and more irrelevant.

I think the best alternative would be if, somehow, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum each get knocked off the pedastal so that not one of them is left standing. Ron Paul will never drop out of the race. At the same time, I don't think anyone other than his die hard supporters like him.

I urge Democrats across the nation to become Republicans, go in and vote for Ron Paul. It would just be such fun to see the FOX commentators (particularly Carl Rove) heads explode as the nominee turns out to be Ron Paul.

WCA - As not to relitigate the super committee's failure, defense cuts are on the table as are other obligated areas.

I get your point, but how long does this continue? How long will corporations use this concept of uncertainty as an excuse for job cuts. Somehow I think that even if defense cuts weren't on the table...

Boeing would be going.

Don't have the NPR transcript but the Mayor also said he felt like a family member was leaving and shocked since Boeing had recently agreed to work with the city and add more jobs. He also wondered why Witchita wasn't given a chance to counter offer.

So it is all about uncertainty? What I'm trying to understand WCA is that the normal talking points don't apply here. Being from Detroit and all I guess you understand the manufacturing sector better than me but without knowing the specifics it would seem easier to retool there vs. come here (Texas).

Clara - Thanks for your input. Back at you. Good to hear from someone from that part of the country. That is why I believe that if the GOP take all three branches, they will make a serious shift toward the right. In the name of eliminating uncertainty and creating a job climate they will harm the nation's equilibrium.

WCA,

So Jack, I didn't accuse anyone of stalking. NDD did. Was it funny then? Did you tell her it was in poor taste?

Wow! You really are clueless, aren't you? And/or you don't know how to read. It was about your use of "caring" in juxtaposition with "stalking". You said you stalked Bev because you care about her. Go back and read my response in #1.89.

Mark,

If I understand it, Boeing is consolidating operations, Probably moving tooling rather than building new, so the costs would be minimal. This allows all duplicate operations (Usually HR, IT, Finance and some manufacturing ) to be halved. Just went through it where I work.

It has a lot to do with the uncertainity in the ever growing Global Market, IMO.

What is going on in Europe can not be ignored.

I do believe, that if President Obama is defeated this year, that the markets will improve. I believe corporations feel he is against them. Boeing has every right to believe that after what he had the NLRB threaten.

It will continue to be an uncertain year, at least until November. One way or another, after the election, we will be certain the direction we will be headed.

I do not believe the nation is, for now, in any state of equlibrium though. Seems to me chaos is reigning supreme just about everywhere.

Yellowdog-Mark: I get your point, but how long does this continue? How long will corporations use this concept of uncertainty as an excuse for job cuts. Somehow I think that even if defense cuts weren't on the table.

Until the uncertainty diminishes. Even today Obama will be at the Pentagon outlining his defense cuts. That seems to be the only area of his non-existent budget Obama is prepared to cut. How much the cuts will be, and where they will be made will be based on political calculations and not on business considerations, so there is the uncertainty being experienced by Boeing.

Boeing is not obligated to Kansas or any other state. It is obligated to it's stock and bond holders to produce a profit, and to do so in a difficult and diminishing production environment, especially where the government is concerned. No longer can Boeing depend on the government for the contracts it was receiving, so they (Boeing) are reacting to the new reality.

I just take exception to being called a racist

Then stop bringing it up.

If I were President, whether Republican or Democrat, I would not allow legitimate posts to remain vacant. The politicians in Congress would have an opportunity to vet and pass on my appointments, but if they refused to allow any and furthermore made it clear they would never approve any of my choices, they would find EVERY position filled during the next 'recess'.

And it would KEEP ON happening until they became reasonable.

Reagan did it, Clinton did it, Bush did it, and now Obama is doing it. And no wonder. Compromise is one thing, obstructonism is another, and trying to prevent government from functioning is worse still.

Puppet - do you have any links on the voter fraud you are reporting? I cannot find articles that discuss the issue.

WCO - I also agree that the nation is out of balance. The left absolutely hates the right and they express it all the time. They hate us because we try to stop them from taking us further to the left. The rope is taught with liberals pulling very hard against an unmovable force. While they are pulling, they are complaining that we have our feet dug in and won't budge. Maybe one of these days they will realize that the right isn't willing to give up much more... we've already handed the left a lot of what they want, but they still want more. Even if we give them more, their unsatiable appitite to throw the pointer all the way to the left will never cease.

It's always the right that conceeds to the left... I wonder why. The left never bends, they always pull. The right in this country has lost much ground because the left continually changes their rules. They change their language and their tag lines. They have learned that if they pull too hard, they won't get anything but if they step back a little they get one piece at a time to eventually get what they wanted in the first place. When was the last time the right has taken something from the left? It doesn't happen.

The proof is in the pudding. Who do the liberals call the party of no? Who do the liberals blame for every ill under the sun? This is all part of their game... and that game is what is throwing this country off balance.

Brianb

Sorry to throw cold water on your theory - and I apologize for not being able to credit the appropriate person for this analysis yesterday; but the RIGHT are the ones creating the hysteria.

The Obama proposals are NOT radical Socialist plots. Many of them including healthcare reforms have been LONG TIME Republican proposals. MANY! But in the climate of oppose Obama at all costs,...the portrait being painted is moving the Right to the extreme edges.

This isn't just my opinion - this is practically a direct quote from a pundit I heard yesterday - and I apologize for not being able to credit the source. Might have been NPR, could have been MSNBC. You know what, I actually think it was Katty Kay on Joe Scarborough. Again, not sure.

At any rate, to any OBJECTIVE and casual observer - this is exactly what has happened. President Obama hasn't been divisive. THE REACTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN DIVISIVE.

And therein lies the 'rub'. And if you really believe the 'right concedes to the left' - you must be living in frickin' la la land.

Beverly and other liberals posting about the recess appointments, yes every president has done it, except President Bush did NOT circumvent the will of the Senate when Harry Reid came up with the "pro forma" idea to keep President Bush from making recess appointments (can any of you on the left name one appointment by President Bush while the Senate was in pro forma session?). I did not hear or see the left wingers complaining about that, but instead was cheering the Democrats on.

Remember the Senate & the House get to make their own rules of how they will operate will out interference from the WH, it's called "separation of powers".

According to the Senate rules, Adjournment for more than 3 days: Under the constitution, neither chamber may adjourn for more than 3 days without the approval of the other. Such approval is obtained in a concurrent resolution approved by both chambers. Can anyone here show where there was a concurrent resolution approved by both chambers, if so, please publish it?

This action by Obama was nothing more than a political ploy and to try and appease his left wing base. I doubt if it will be challenged in Court expect by maybe the Chamber of Commerce or another organization. Obama knows what he did was in violation of the constitution but is more concerned about his reelection campaign. It might win him points with his base but I believe it will offend the majority of Americans who believe in the separation of powers.

Yes, Washington is broken and right now is dysfunctional as I have ever seen it, but that does not give the President independent authority to violate the constitution for his own purposes. The two agencies are not going to have profound effect on the economy or jobs creation which is what Washington should be concerned about instead of political posturing.

They change their language and their tag lines.

The right wing fanatics never do this, such as changing their abortion stance/language/tag from anti-abortion to pro-life, which is an out-and-out lie.

WCA, JAS1 and Brianb

I don't put anyone on ignore by the way, and appreciate a discussion.

WCA - Thanks for adding your thoughts about manufacturing. Also it is truthful to add that the European climate is a reason for limited job growth as well. All of this uncertainty can't be placed at the feet of the President.

That said, I disagree with you and Brianb about the proverbial arrow between right and left. Even with this Democratic president and as some on the right disingenously say all three branches were Democratic for two whole years, the arrow has shifted markedly to the right.

I think that the president could have shown fairness by allowing all of the tax cuts to expire at the end of 2011. It wouldn't have been seen as an attack on business or the rich. Yes it was political to talk about private jet owners etc. while he pushed middle class tax cuts. I think we all need to pay more taxes and entitlements have to be reformed. I think he could have gotten behind Simpson Bowles on deficit issues. Perhaps it would have been easier for Boehner to accept Obama's Great compromise of $4 trillion over ten years?

JAS1 so if Boeing or any other company only has obligations to the shareholders, who was the obligation to help the people? If it is all about dollars and sense, why would anyone hire? The regulations that some on your side decry as the sole reason for our hiring problems looks at only one side of the story. With obligations to shareholders only why would business care about self regulating?

Brianb - I see it that the left always conceeds to the right. A reason I criticize Obama on occasion. See what Clara mentioned above, I agree with her.

It's always the right that conceeds to the left...When was the last time the right has taken something from the left? It doesn't happen.

Great, now I need to go out and buy a new irony meter. My old one just exploded. Oh well, I'll tell myself I'm stimulating the economy...

What I see is a bunch of fruit cakes, they do their party more harm than good, they show their bigotry to their own, they won't back Romney because he is a Mormon, they used Cain to come off as not Racist, hate to say this but people know better, Romney is the best the GOP has and if they even won't a slim chance they better get their SH_T TOGETHER. Romney can get the Democratic votes, none of the others can even hope to do that ...

This article suggests that up until now, Romney hasn't been subject to attack. Apparently Chuck Todd and the guys at First Read don't read this site, where the regular crew of lefties automatically attack anyone to the right of Stalin and Chairman Mao......in the ugliest, crudest terms possible.

Thank you, Jack. I am honored indeed. Right back at you!

Morning there lady, looks like your back is covered...

Mitt Romney's top campaign contributors: Goldman Sachs $235,275
Citigroup Inc $178,450
Merrill Lynch $176,125
Morgan Stanley $170,350
Lehman Brothers $154,800U
BS AG $125,150
JPMorgan Chase & Co $123,800
Bain & Co $121,475
Marriott International $121,150
Bain Capital $118,550
Kirkland & Ellis $111,700
The Villages $110,900
Credit Suisse Group $104,900
Compuware Corp $103,550
Huron Consulting $102,050
PricewaterhouseCoopers $92,250
American Financial Group $87,550
Affiliated Managers Group $82,112
Cerberus Capital Management $79,450
Sun Capital Partners $77,850WHO DO YOU THINK THIS GUY WORKS FOR?

Mark,

I don't put anyone on ignore either and, like you, I appreciate a discusion. You seem to be the only person on this board I can ever have one with without being called a name and I appreciate that.

I, however , disagree with the direction of the country. I am sure that our disagreement on that point comes from our beliefs.

Seems, every day I read about another far left group trying to persuade our children.

We do agree on the tax cuts. I wish the President had let them expire. If nothing else, it would have been one less talking point. I doubt if we ever would have known the effect on the economy. To many variables to point to just one thing.

Regarding Boeing, as I mentioned earlier, it has an obligation to profits. Yes, that benefits shareholders, but it also benefits workers. They continue to be employed and I don't know about Boeing but many companies have profit-sharing programs for their employees. I have worked for companies that lose money. Nobody wins if that is the case.

Yellowdog-Mark D:

I do live in Kansas. For an honest insight into not only Kansas, but a number of other red states, you would do well to read Thomas Frank's book, What's the Matter with Kansas?.

Kansas has a remarkable history. It was admitted to the union as a "free state". However, the slavery issue is written in blood, with the state being known as Bleeding Kansas. Anti-slavery types carried Beecher Bibles, which were actually Sharps rifles. Yet, I have never lived in a place where the n-word is used so freely. (That is the biggest reason I feel such contempt for those who insist that the hatred of President Obama has nothing to do with his ancestry. Liars, the lot of them.) The separate but equal doctrine was struck down in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education in 1954, almost a hundred years after Kansas' admission to the union. The creationism debate continues to rage today.

It is remarkable that Kansas gave the nation Dwight Eisenhower who introduced the Interstate - a socialist enterprise if there ever was one. Bob Dole is from Kansas. Without a doubt neither would be welcome in the Republican Party of today. President Obama? Well, his grandparents are from Wichita, and his grandmother actually worked for Boeing. You'd never know the President was in any way associated with Kansas. You might also recall that Wichita is where Dr. George Tiller was gunned down in church by a pro-life type.

In the main, Kansans are loath to discuss politics. They get an (R) after their name as a rite of passage and that's the end of it. They are startlingly ignorant of the state of the union. For all the pap about the liberal influence on schools, it is pure BS. Teachers know that Republicans are destroying the schools, but that is discussed rarely and even then, only in hushed tones. There is most assuredly no liberal influence in Kansas schools, with the lone exception of the Lawrence area.

When Brownback ran for governor, he promised that, by gum, he was going to make Kansas a haven for job growth. He must have lost sight of that when he decided to go after the state's abortion clinics by creating building restrictions that were excessive by any measure. This naked attack on women was properly rebuffed. The clinics are still open, but the attacks continue. He has led the fight to restrict voting rights, and he is asking for massive cutbacks in school funding. His level of involvement in such demanding tasks is such that he apparently forgot to remind Boeing he was their very willing lackey when he was a Senator.

The indisputable truth is that were it not for federal money, Kansas would blow away. Crop subsidies, the military, the ethanol subsidy that is finally disappearing, huge V.A. hospitals, and Leavenworth prison all bring in huge amounts of federal cash.

If Kansans think they hate government now, they would call for revolution if the government turned off the money tap. They really don't get it and truth to tell, they aren't true Republicans. They are RINO's. Eisenhower and Dole were Republicans, and frankly, President Obama isn't all that different from those two.

David,

Well, here I am posting. Despite my disavowals, I can't resist taking a peek.

As always, a great post. But I was especially intrigued--and enlightened--by your description of Kansas and its politics. I've only been in the state once, driving through on a road trip, and know very little about it. Isn't Bob Kerrey from Kansas?

Boeing is re-locating to San Antonio due to the growing business population in that city. It is one of the fastest growing cities in the U.S. Jobs are plentiful and it has plenty of military to which there are 3 Air Force bases. Kelley and Brooks belong to the city, therefore Boeing does not have to build hangers, etc.. They have a workforce that has experience working/manufacturing aircraft parts etc...

It is a win-win situation for the company, stockholders to which I own a few...lol...There are a lot of 401k's tied up into Boeing stock so I don't think those people mind the move.

This 2012, companies are going to move where there is money to be made period. That is how you remain a business.

White Collar Auto:

No, it was not a joke. People would find it funny were that the case. NewdayDAWNING has pegged you perfectly.

Yes, you are a stalker. Several of us have had direct experience with your very unhealthy obsession. Your obsequious post at 1.13 was pathetic. Your post to Bev had nothing to do with discussion. You came to inflame.

We have read enough of your pretzel logic and weasel words to know what you are. Your positions are pure ideology. Hell, you were busted outright yesterday by newdayDawning. We know the ideology, it's old, it's discredited. Certainly you can expect nothing more than to be ignored.

Mark - reasonable discussion is always appreciated. Although we have disagreements, they are quite civil. Makes for more interesting reading and learning.

The differences of opinion are, of course, ideologically based. When we are talking about piviotal issues, RVW, specialty rights, call them gay, lesbian, etc., women's rights, and others, I find those to be left leaning issues. I, personally believe everyone has the same rights as written in the Constitution... and the ammendments to incorporate the races. I am for equality, I am not for extraequality. I should have been more specific in my statement earlier, but you know the limits of time... without occupying too much readers time and my typing time I can't be more specific on every occassion.

Legislation to give a group of people additional rights, to me are usually pulled by those leaning left. While there are some forms of inequality, based on the perceived notion of male dominance, once the scales are balanced, the issue should die. Unfortunately in many cases those issues linger on and become barbs. While racism isn't dead, it's dying. This generation is way less racist than the last generation. Forced legislation to eliminate it is a waste of time. Women's rights are evident and more women climb the corporate ladder today than 50 years ago... it's time to let go of it, not further it. I won't get into abortion because I will offend many with my stance... but it's law.

While I will state that many left pulling issues made necessary corrections to the social environment of this country, to further these causes is overkill. The tide has shifted and withholding some sandbars, the causes have been covered.

I could keep going, but my post is large enough... other than to say, the homogenization of this country is wrong on many fronts. This is where the right is losing the battle.

Jack:

Kerrey is a Nebraskan, a nominal Democrat succeeded by one of your favorite guys - Ben Nelson. There's no denying he has a rather impressive background, but these days, it's hard to accept the notion that he's anything more or less than a tool of big business - think Lawrence Summers.

ITM,

Please explain to me how States competing with one another for jobs by offering big tax incentives from State tax payers is good for the country, how that increases jobs in America.

Sure it provides bragging rights for a State but what about all the displaced workers the companies leave behind in the sole name of a small, temporary increase in profits?

Yellowdog: JAS1 so if Boeing or any other company only has obligations to the shareholders, who was the obligation to help the people? If it is all about dollars and sense, why would anyone hire? The regulations that some on your side decry as the sole reason for our hiring problems looks at only one side of the story. With obligations to shareholders only why would business care about self regulating?

So what regulation improves the ability for Boeing, or any other corporation to hire? Capitalism is a for profit venture. No profit, no hiring. Boeing is reacting to the lose of government contracts. Without the government business, they no longer have a market to sell to, and they either have to find additional customers for their products, or downsize their production capacity.

Yellowdog: If it is all about dollars and sense, why would anyone hire?

When they see the potential to increase market share and profits.

And please explain "obligation to the people". A corporation is obligated to its shareholders and bond holders, and at last look, those are people.

Jack in Portsmouth: Isn't Bob Kerrey from Kansas?

Nebraska.

Google keywords: bob kerrey wiki

David, do us both a favor and put me on ignore.

David Walker that's the name of the book I was looking for in my first post's last line. I read it a while back as well. I had hoped you would have commented, remembering that you were from Kansas. However I thought the "Beecher Bibles" were the nickname for Harriet Beecher Stowe's book 'Uncle Tom's cabin' (anti slavery book depicting the pre civil war south)

JoAnna Smith you proclaim that business has no obligation to the people, therefore I say government is obligated to play a role in protecting people with (regulations).

By the way when I lived in Nebraska, I used to like first Governor Bob and then Senator Bob Kerrey.

Good discussion. Can't respond to you all. I hear some of your points, but we are set in our ways and political views.

Yellowdog: JoAnna Smith you proclaim that business has no obligation to the people, therefore I say government is obligated to play a role in protecting people with (regulations)

I did not say businesses have no obligations to the people.

Ever notice how hypocritical Republicans (and particularly Baggas like Joe from Albany on this blog) become whenever they get outsmarted by political opponents? Or how they engage in tortured analysis of the US Constitution (a document they hardly understand other than the 2d Amendment right to bear arms) in order to justify their inane logic? Or how they make up facts from whole cloth or twist them to claim that President Obama has gone rogue and done something NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS DONE IN HISTORY?

So now their argument is as follows: Recess appointments made by the Democratic president during Congress’ short intrasession recesses are unconstitutional because Congress is not really in “recess” as that term is defined in the Constitution, specifically, Article I, Section 5, Clause 4. To support its gimmickry, the House leadership will appoint one of its members to gavel a “session” open every couple of days, followed by a quick prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance and then gavel the “session” closed almost immediately thereafter. None of the people’s business is conducted during the 3 minutes or less that the House remained in “session”. So, the argument goes, a recess appointment cannot be made since Congress is not in recess. (Even though we all know that the Senate and House members have retreated to their hovels, hamlets and insider-trading palaces and are partying their asses off for the duration with hardly any intention of returning to Washington to do ANYTHING meaningful)!

(For those Baggas with Short-Term Memories Who Simply Won’t Let Facts Temper Their Frothy Faux Rage):

Fact 1: Bush’s intrasession appointment of William Pryor to the federal appeals court similarly outraged Democrats including Ted Kennedy who filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of the appointment. The 11^th Circuit ultimately rejected the challenge and ruled that (and this is a direct quote for you Baggas who like to challenge the authenticity of facts and all things reasonable), the Constitution

does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President’s appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause.

The Supreme Court refused to take up the case and that opinion in the 11^th Circuit is still good law today!

Fact 2: As recent as 2010, two of Bush’s former DOJ deputies argued that “the use of pro forma sessions to block Recess Appointments was improper.” (Oh wow, Republicans with mental acuity--such a rare commodity in the modern day GOP dominated by rabid, partisan ignoramuses).

Fact 3: Just because this gimmick exists doesn’t change the fact that Congress is not conducting any business whatsoever during these sham “sessions”. In fact, the resolution that gave rise to their existence explicitly says that no business shall be conducted during the “session”.

So, a Congress with the worst favorability rating ever, that has been rendered largely ineffective through Republican filibuster and Tea Baggery now wants to claim through Republican surrogates (including Mr. Flip-Flopper himself) that it’s technical session during which it conducts no business should effectively trump the President’s Recess Appointment authority. And that the President’s exercise of that Executive power expressly granted by the Constitution to carry out a law of the land to protect its citizens and consumers from abuse should be held hostage once again by the Bagga fools. Oh yeah? I say bring it on!

Joe in Albany wrote: Yesterday I made the argument that someone should immediately take Barry to court to invalidate his “recess appointments” to the CFPB and NLRB because they were a clearly unconstitutional abuse of the recess appointment provision in the Constitution, which requires the Senate to actually be in recess.

I have since changed my position.

Joe, now isn't that exactly the problem the American public has with Republicans? That they will change their minds to whatever they "think" will make the POTUS look bad (and the fact that those Republicans are so inane that they have to change their minds in the first place)?

But that's just what we already know about Republicans.....they don't care what will help the majority of Americans. They only care about getting power and helping the 1% take over the country. The fact is that the Republicans only demanded a pro-forma session so they could continue to block nominees just because they can. The Republicans want to play games and they suck at doing it. You really have to laugh at these Republican buffoons.

Bring the argument on.....the POTUS protecting the rights of the middle class while his Republican right-wing opponents are attempting to protect the robberbarons. Could it get any better?

It's time for all of you posters to take a break from your keyboards (after going to www.faircampaignreform.us) and DO SOMETHING about this Congressional mess. For those who like to blame on the administration(s) for the mess this country is in, remember that it is CONGRESS, not the administrations ,that passes the laws and appropriations, and approves nominations (or as the case with the last two Senate sessions, holds up most of the nominations). It is the voters who keep putting these same people we complain about into office. If you really want to see change in the way Washington works, then join me in the Popular Amendment Movement and help get the two constitutional amendments passed. That is what grassroots movements are all about....getting upset individuals involved in bringing about change (both the TP and OWS movements ARE grassroots movements with little organization.) The Constitution grants us the power to petition our government for change. That is what the PAM is all about.....petitioning our Secretaries of State to call for constitutional conventions to pass these two important amendments.

Let's face it. These millionaires/billionaires who are financing all of these campaigns (through the super PAC's especially) need to be shut out of the political process and made to put their money where it is really needed.....in JOBS for the American citizens. They are using their corporate money, as well as their personal money to buy control of Congress and the administration and the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling gave them that legal bypass to do just that. It eliminated the campaign finance rules that limits contributions. The proposed ECFR will limit personal campaign contributions to $200 per individual/$500 per family living within the same household, restrict a candidates out of pocket expenditure to just 60% of the total of individual/family contributions, and ban ALL corporate, union, non-profit, PAC/Super PAC, etc. contributions AND third-party advertising. It also sets ONE National Primary Day just eight weeks prior to the general election with just 60 days prior to the NPD for filing to get on the ballots. Each federal candidate must also include as part of their filing petition a "Contract with the Voters" that spells out his/her position on every POSSIBLE issue that MIGHT come before them if elected to office. It would be a binding contract that the voters can file "breach of contract" in court if the elected official does not live up to that contract.

Oops, I got interrupted before I could edit my comment...."to blame on" should not have had the word "on." I was thinking "put the blame on" but left out the "put."

Mad in CT,

Fact 1 above - The congress was not in "pro forma" session when Bush appointed Judge Pryor to a judgeship. the court's ruling has no effect on the appointment process since the "pro forma" was not used until 2007 and was written into the congressional rules by the democrats to prevent further recess appointments by Bush. (Congress not the President or Courts have the right to write their own rules and procedures.

Fact 2 above - The two Bush DOJ deputies are only stating the OPINIONS and carry no weight of law or constitutionality. Everyone has a right to an opinion, doesn't mean a thing.

Fact 3 above - just left wing babble and has no facts what so ever. Hell congress doesn't do much when they are in regular session.

I for one would like to see the Senate democrats weight in on this issue since they came up with the pro forma session gimmick. Can anyone give me a quote from Reid, Schummer, Durbin or other liberal democrat?

It's always the right that conceeds to the left... I wonder why. The left never bends, they always pull. The right in this country has lost much ground because the left continually changes their rules.

Are you serious?? For two years I have heard Boehner say OUT LOUD their goal is to make Obama a one term president.... Well, they have obstructed themselves right into a corner with no escape! Their sole purpose should have been to do what they were elected for... Run congress, make a budget and stick to it, but instead they have decided to hate their own ideas JUST to obstruct progress... that is their legacy and now they can live with it!

Sfcret--

You are once again demonstrating your historical inability (evidenced by this and prior inane posts) to articulate a sane argument based on fact. If you conducted any research whatsoever (other than blindly accepting the inexcusable nonsense in the Fox echo chamber) you would know that the resolutions that gave rise to these "pro forma" sessions specifically state that no business will be conducted during the scant minutes they are convened. That's not left wing babble as you put it. That's FACT! But I don't expect a brain-addled nincompoop to appreciate that glaring truism.

One of Romney’s Bain business partners has said that he “never thought of what I do for a living as job creation.” “The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors,”

That guy isn't running for office for Pete's sake! So he doesn't have to lie. Romney does have to lie. About almost everything.

@Dennis -- You know that the majority of what Bain Capital has done helped businesses survive. There will be some that are beyond saving -- that will not succeed -- and thus liquidation and layoffs are the inevitable. There is nothing abnormal about that. And so what if someone makes money. God forbid. That is what being in business is all about. What about your stockbrokers and financial advisers that make money on Americans whether the investors make money or not???? This is the way the system works -- look at Corzine. So quit whining and put on your big girl panties.

Yeah thats who we need for President! A flip-flopping Corporate raider who is the poster boy for the 1%. Lots of luck on that one!

Cutting jobs would be an endorsement for someone wanting to run the federal government.

Dennis, terrific information, well said.

Dennis - Yes, Bain cut jobs on other places, but you are failing to recognize that Bain BOUGHT FAILING companies to turn the companies around. Cuts were made to make them profitable again. Sometimes that works, and Sometimes it doesn't. An example of a failure: A failing company Bain bought was making photo albums. Bain was able to cut and get them profitable, but once the Digital age took over and foreign competition stiffened, the company became a money loser in just three years, and Bain pulled the plug on it. Anything that is saved is a plus in my book.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom says the 100,000 figure stems from the growth in jobs from three companies that Romney helped to start or grow while at Bain Capital: Staples (a gain of 89,000 jobs), The Sports Authority (15,000 jobs), and Domino’s (7,900 jobs).

This tally does not include job losses from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved — and is based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain.

Because if you're Mitt Romeny, the only things that make you look good are your hair, your bank account, lies, and more lies.

Yes Bain Capital sucks at creating and saving jobs. Wonder how they would have done with 800B to blow?

Bain also bought profitable companies to raid employee retirement funds and sell off liquid gold assets to fatten the pockets of investors. Employees of those companies were also laid off. Bain is not about buying failing companies in hopes of turning them around. Bain is about buying any company and exploiting the dismantling of those companies to line their pockets.

Romney does have to lie. About almost everything.

Exactly.

Always has, always will.

RedDevPS

As Julia Roberts said in Pretty Woman,..."...We both screw people for money..."

Willard is the less attractive counterpart to Richard Gere in this scenario,...for those who can't make the leap!

Clara - at least the Roberts/Gere characters found redemption. If the show had featured a Willard character, the ending would have been along the lines of Mitts absconding Roberts assets, tossing her off the roof, with a closing scene of him roaming the streets looking for another whore to exploit, with his dog tied to the roof of the car.

Mitt Romney's top campaign contributors: Goldman Sachs $235,275

Citigroup Inc $178,450

Merrill Lynch $176,125

Morgan Stanley $170,350

Lehman Brothers $154,800U

BS AG $125,150

JPMorgan Chase & Co $123,800

Bain & Co $121,475

Marriott International $121,150

Bain Capital $118,550

Kirkland & Ellis $111,700

The Villages $110,900

Credit Suisse Group $104,900

Compuware Corp $103,550

Huron Consulting $102,050

PricewaterhouseCoopers $92,250

American Financial Group $87,550

Affiliated Managers Group $82,112

Cerberus Capital Management $79,450

Sun Capital Partners $77,850

IT's quite obvious the bloody yank works for the Banks and the corporations. Please america Learn from yor mistakes. Don't let another Bernake into the White house.

Mitt Romney's top campaign contributors: Goldman Sachs $235,275

Citigroup Inc $178,450

Merrill Lynch $176,125

Morgan Stanley $170,350

Lehman Brothers $154,800U

BS AG $125,150

JPMorgan Chase & Co $123,800

Bain & Co $121,475

Marriott International $121,150

Bain Capital $118,550

Kirkland & Ellis $111,700

The Villages $110,900

Credit Suisse Group $104,900

Compuware Corp $103,550

Huron Consulting $102,050

PricewaterhouseCoopers $92,250

American Financial Group $87,550

Affiliated Managers Group $82,112

Cerberus Capital Management $79,450

Sun Capital Partners $77,850

IT's quite obvious the bloody yank works for the Banks and the corporations. Please america Learn from yor mistakes. Don't let another Bernake into the White house.

A lot of those companies were failing and needed to be closed. The companies that were created or survived is thriving. Yes people lost jobs but a lot people gained a job too and may still have it today. Talk to some of them.

BTW: Where are all of those DOT.COM jobs created during the Clinton era that he obtained a rep from???

That is always a good nugget.

@Greg in New York

@Mike 466

@David Walker

Mutlitpe conversations on different points on this above.

First time I could get in to thank all three of you for your comments.

Greg in New York, it is all about delegate count going forward. As a Democract I don't really know the specifics of the GOP when counting and use of their superdelegates?

David, What I like about FR is hearing from people from all over the US fillling me in on history of their locale.Great history lesson about Kansas.

Thel4ugh!ngm@n

Obama Campaign donations

Goldman Sachs $1,013,091

JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799

Citigroup Inc $736,771

Sidley Austin LLP $600,298

WilmerHale LLP $550,668

Skadden, Arps et al $543,539

UBS AG $532,674

General Electric $529,855

Morgan Stanley $512,232

Latham & Watkins $503,295

I just read that conversation, Nash. If O' Reilly had the sense that God gave a goose, he would have ripped Santorum a NEW one.

What reasonable person is going to buy that?

Wait. You are right, we have some right here.

this may elicit from some of our more unhinged posters . . . J. Merle and Damage I am looking at you! ;oP

Hey Nash - you forgot the nut job from NJ!

You know how much Donna from Lincroft hates to be left out... lol

Nashville, I've never been one to "play the race card," as they say, however, recent events in Maine have highlighted a racist strain in the rightwing establishment. A state house reporter was fired from a news service financed by the conservative Maine Heritage Policy Center, a service that was created to counter Maine's Republican-owned newspapers not giving our Teapublican governor the glowing coverage they expect. Democratic operatives uncovered this reporter's history of racist remarks, including his participation in a white supremest Facebook group, and forced the Heritage Policy Center to fire him. Pretty shocking stuff.

http://ericrussell.bangordailynews.com/2012/01/04/new-state-house-news-service-fires-reporter-for-racial-online-comments/

PS

In case anyone reads the article I linked to above, and believes the reporter's comment that he is the victim of a liberal attack, here is story that gives a more blunt description of this conservative's beliefs about the racial superiority of white people:

http://www.downeast.com/the-tipping-point/2012/january/employee-history-statements

Fan, I am not a Santorum supporter but I do have to tell you that what MSDNC and other leftists are reporting is not what he said. They cut off most of it so it would sound like that is what he said. I watched the full version and also heard the full version on the radio. The station that I head it on ran both versions. The cut off version first, then the full version.

Good morning ladies . . . you know, I am not one to "play the race card" either, but to me, race is just like any other topic . . . if someone says something that does not make sense about race, I am gonna point that out.

All the over-the-top posturing and ranting is usually just an effort to change the subject and muddy the water.

P.S.Thanks for the link Amy . . . I will definitely check it out.

P.S.S. Now Feisty, I certainly don't want to activate any more trouble for the good folks of NJ than they they are already dealing with in the Governor's office . . . so I just left that be!

Nash -

Thanks for the update! I now think Santorum makes a very good point - you really can't make "blah" people's lives better by giving them other people's money. You obviously need to give them other people's personality or charisma! And if there's anyone who knows first-hand about "blah" people, it's Rick Santorum..... :)

sonmanvb:

I have seen several versions of the comment as well . . . and it sounds like he said black to me . . . but as I said above, if that was not what he meant to say . . . or if he was misunderstood . . . that is great with me . . . just curious that he could not have clarified it all sooner.

I do not feel that this was some type of plot to put words in his mouth, when you watch the clip, that is what you hear . . . he could have nipped this in the bud immediately if he chose too. . . but as far as I am concerned, better late than never.

P.S. When I originally brought this comment up, the defense was the comment was "out of context" . . . now its "he didn't say it" . . . here's hoping that wherever the truth lies, Mr. Santorum doesn't believe what he did/didn't say . . . sadly it seems many of his supporters do, based on the response to the initial comment.

Edited to add: So true JoAnne . . . so true! lol

Santorum

"I looked at that, and I didn't say that," Santorum told O'Reilly. "If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of -- blah -- came out. And people said I said 'black.' I didn't."

So now we know, it's those darn Blah people who are getting all that money Obama is taking from white people. Get out the pitchforks!

Did anyone else notice that Santorum says "I don't use the term 'black' very often. I use the term 'African-American' more than I use 'black," - and then goes on to say "black" twice in the very next sentence?

Or maybe he meant historically "blah" colleges......I graduated from one of them myself!

There goes Nashville again with her race obsession. Hey! I ran across an old Santorum quote from years ago: "If the Negro cannot stand on his own, then let him fall." Oops! Wait, actually Frederick Douglass said that...150+ years ago. That dastardly racist!

You really need to get over it, Nashville. I personally don't believe that Obama's goal is to "take from White people" but, considering your past statements that "any whites who live comfortably today had their luxurious lives handed down to them from their ancestors"....I think it's safe to say that YOU, in fact EXPECT OBAMA TO DO JUST THAT.

Obama's real goal is the goal of all liberals. To make sure there is equality of results, not just equality of opportunity. To see to it that all people are guaranteed LIFE, LIBERTY and HAPPINESS, not life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.

There is nothing wrong with using the term "black."

Hell -- Obama calls himself black and African American people "mongrels." Sheesh get over this.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/07/obama_calls_african_americans.html

WASHINGTON--President Obama was asked by Barbara Walters on "The View" why he calls himself black when he is biracial, the product of a white mother and a black father. In answering, Obama may have used a word that may spark some controversy. He called African Americans "sort of a mongrel people" though "true for white America as well."

Here's the exchange:

OBAMA: Well, you know, when I was young and going through the identity crisis that any teenager goes through -- I wrote a book about this.

WALTERS: Yes. ... We all read it.

OBAMA: You know, part of what I realized was that if the world saw me as African American, then that wasn't something that I needed to run away from. That's something that I could go ahead and embrace. And the interesting thing about the African-American experience in this country is that we are sort of a mongrel people. I mean, we're all kind of mixed up.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Yeah.

OBAMA: Now, that's actually true for white America as well, but we just know more about it. And so I'm less interested in how we label ourselves. I'm more interested in how we treat each other. And if we're treating each other right, then I can be African American, I can be multiracial, I can be you name it. What matters is, am I showing people respect? Am I caring for other people? That's, I think, the message we want to send.

Well, that didn't take long, Nash....there is damage right on cue.

Dear Ben and Damage:

The issue is not the use (or non use) of the word black. The issue is that Mr. Santorum's comment (or lack there of) implied that black people (myself included) were in some way receiving more government help than other groups, or that other groups were being disadvantaged solely to benefit us.

Take the time to get the original point before you rush ahead trying to make one of your own.

Thanks.

P.S. Damage . . . my race obsession? . . . pot . . . meet kettle! rotflmao

OK Nash -- But answer me this -- with non-biased sources -- that blacks are NOT receiving more government help than other groups. If it turns out to be a TRUE statement, then why would it be wrong to point it out? Just askin'.

Ben:

Black people make up less than 15% of the population.

Do the math.

And let me be crystal clear . . . Rick Santorum can say whatever he wants about whomever he wants . . . and so can I. I had a problem with what he said and how he said it. I said my peace, and now, he has said his. . . so on to the next kerfuffle as far as I am concerned.

As far as me finding "unbiased" sources for ya, that is your job, not mine . . . you are personally responsible to educate yourself. If you want to believe that black folks are some type of priviledged class sucking the Republic dry, I really don't have problem with it.

Truly . . . do you Ben . . . do you.

Amy - "I've never been one to play the race card"

And then plays it.

Coals getting a little hot Amy?

BTW Mike Wallace works for 60 Minutes on CBS.

White Collar Auto:

The way I learned it, you play the hand you are dealt, even if the folks you are playing against would prefer you didn't . . . if you don't like the race card to be played, stop dealing it in the first place.

Just a thought.

Ahhhh, "newday". You now gonna ask me "are you really an A-hole or do you just play one on First Read" ???? Or is that one the other whiners that uses that all the time? I dunno. So hard to tell you people apart. Uh oh! You see that, Nash? I just said "you people". Yet another innocuous phrase turned into a slur by professional victims and complainers.

Anyway. Who cares if Black people like Santorum or not? They vote nearly 100% Democrat and the Repubs have shown year after year that they don't need the "black vote" to win the White House. The Dems, however, cannot win without it. Why do Repub politicians always worry so much over that demographic? When they do, it makes them sound like Dems.

I just hope Obama starts in with this "poor, poor me, I'm black and being picked on" BS during the campaign. It will send moderate and indepenent Whites SPRINTING for the Republican lever in the booth. Unfortunately, Obama is smart enough to know this. Unlike numbskulls on this board.

Nashville, thanks for the information. It's like Newt telling people he really didn't say what he said on MTP and anyone who tries to use it against him is a liar. No doubt there are some who will claim to believe Santorum's blurry explanation but deep down most know it's hogwash.

Well, will you look what I found;

NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a statement Wednesday
that "Santorum's targeting of African Americans is inaccurate and outrageous,
and lifts up old race-based stereotypes about public assistance."

Jealous pointed out that federal benefits are determined by income level, not
race. In Iowa, for instance, 9 percent of food stamp recipients are black and 84
percent are white. Overall, 91 percent of Iowa residents are white, and nearly 3
percent are black.

When CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor Scott Pelley asked Santorum
about his remarks, he said he could not recall the context of the comments and
stressed that he wants to make life better for Americans regardless of race.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503544_162-503544.html

Bold added for emphasis.

Kind of shoots little Bennie's 'theory' to @!$%#, now don't it? lol

OK Nash -- But answer me this -- with non-biased sources -- that blacks are NOT receiving more government help than other groups. If it turns out to be a TRUE statement, then why would it be wrong to point it out? Just askin'.

Ben, my question for you...

How will you define "more"? Will you be reviewing a breakdown of the percentage of total welfare recipients by ethnicity or will you be reviewing the percentage of each ethnicity that is on welfare?

Nashville_fan

The way I learned it, you play the hand you are dealt, even if the folks you are playing against would prefer you didn't . . . if you don't like the race card to be played, stop dealing it in the first place.

Just a thought.

And one I can agree with, Comment voted up!

My name is Egilman and I approve this message!

Feisty @3.21 One up for you too!

JoAnne,

As usual you pick RIGHT up on my issue:

"...I use the term 'African-American' more than I use 'black," Santorum said. "I can tell you as someone who did more work for historically black colleges, I used to have -- every year, I used to bring all the historically black colleges into Washington, DC to try to help them,.."

They say this stuff with absolutely NO sense of irony. It is astounding. Curse those damn Blah people anyway!

Oh, and for the Cusak fans,...I want my TWO DOLLARS!

Ben, considering the denial of life, liberty and freedoms of African Americans and the basic ability to pursue and accumulate wealth the first -ohhh.. 200-300 years of this fine country, basic Civil Rights being established a mere 50 years ago...isn't it reasonable to assume they might need a little more Government help and even restitutions to get on track in their pursuit of the "American Dream" which was denied them for so long? just askin...

And while we are asking, what is the excuse for all the white people getting government help these days? seems 300 years of preferencial treatment, free labor, etc would have given them the jump start not to need it now, don't you think? ...just askin'

Feisty,

Facts are indeed a wonderful thing.

Ben needs all the help he can get.

Joe in Albany, Your post is right on target. Congress was not in recess when Barry made these appointments. The only thing I do disagree on is that if speaker Boehner really had any gull about him, he would start the impeachment process on Barry and make him fight that as well as a failed re-election bid.

Who is Barry?

Jody,

Actually the reason Santorum did so great and the Dr so poorly was because of the Iowa GOP itself manipulating the results....

presstv.com/usdetail/219170.html

Radio Interview....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQXVB9buAmc

(the press TV link isn't working right now Probably because I've posted it to a large number of sites but the your tube one is)

You tell 'em, Jody! Iowa just did it's civic duty, vetting the field of Republican nominees, (that can't have been fun), and now the pundits diss Iowa because they didn't confirm the establishment theory that Romney is the presumptive nominee? There's gratitude, for you!

Joe in Albany, Your post is right on target. Congress was not in recess when Barry made these appointments. The only thing I do disagree on is that if speaker Boehner really had any gull about him, he would start the impeachment process on Barry and make him fight that as well as a failed re-election bid.

Aren't we forgetting that part about "high crimes and misdemeanors"? You'll have an easier fight going to the courts to challenge the appointment on the basis of the pro forma sessions or to challenge that Dodd-Frank does not give authority to the director of CFPB until "confirmed by the Senate".

the pressTV link in now working....

Jody---I think you & Amy are on to something. The people of Iowa---both parties, depending on the year, do a lot of the job that the media should be doing by going to town halls and events and asking in depth questions of the candidates. We need that kind of microscope on our candidates when we make the important decision of who should be a major party's candidate for President.

Was interested to learn that you were one of approximately 25,000 Democrats who attended their party caucuses----No Joe had posted (without source) yesterday that it was approximately 3500. How shocking that she was wrong.

Amy, SF, you're right. Iowans do the work the press often fails to. Iowans expect candidates to meet them in coffee shops, diners, homes and they expect them to explain their ideas and policies. We go to the campaign rallies, listen to what each says and make a decision. It really is true, Iowans take great pride in the caucus, they take the vetting process seriously. It isn't perfect but the people who attend the caucus are the ones who have been paying close attention to the candidates. It makes sense that a caucus is a good choice for the first vote rather than a primary because activist voters thin the list to those most likely to have a chance elsewhere.

It seems Albany Joe and sonmanvb think Congress was in session yesterday when President Obama made the recess appointments. They adjourned in mid December folks and went home for the holidays. Some guy from the minority party coming in and using a gavel, staying a minute and leaving is not the same as the Senate Majority Leader authorizing business. If Congress was in session, what have they done? Oh, that's right, to do something requires all the legislators to return to Congress. Standing and saying open for business to an empty room is smoke and mirrors.

Go ahead, GOP, sue President Obama and make yourselves look even more stupid and incompetent than you've looked the past 3 years.

Watch, in the next election, the dems will be fighting each other until they can get someone they think will be able to beat Mitt.

That want happen, because President Obama will win re-election. Perhaps, The Gov. can try again in 2016.

Danderfield, I am surprised that Santorum did not swing south immediately to SC. There are going to be a lot of round house punches thrown in the weekend debates and this is not his forte ... swinging or debating. Even if he gets talking time he will be ignored. All eyes will be on Newt and Willard.

I think the debate this weekend will be Santorum's debut to larger audience.

But when all is said and done he is nothing but a Bachmann version from PA, and a Newton" wanna be" in trading his name for lobbyists jobs since he was defeated in PA as a sitting Senator.

You go where the money is....

I believe and have been writing that the Republican party has been threatening to snatch electoral defeat from the jaws of victory by staging a battle between ideological purity vs "electability" that has the real potential to cost the eventual candidate the general election.

The need for an anti-Romney, the perception that Mitt is not conservative ENOUGH, is the 800 pound gorilla in the race and I think your going to see Newton don that garb for better or worse, for the rest of the contests. Newton is now the only REAL rival to Romney for the nomination (Barring JEB!!!), and his only hope of defeating the Romney machine at this point is to throw a monkey wrench, (and maybe a Molotov cocktail or two) into the works. Mitt has money, organization and the backing of the Republican establishment, Newt has a sharp tongue, a quick mind and (to his way of thinking) nothing to lose.

While I believe strongly that Mitt is not just the eventual nominee, but the best candidate the Republicans can run, the ideological "war" raging inside the party and personified by Newton and Mitt, while truly fascinating must see TV, threatens to be a oppo-bonanza for the Democrats and saddle the "winner" with a crushing load of unwanted baggage....

Oh, Santorum is inconsequential....

I will say "Santorum is inconsequential" only after SC and perhaps stretching it to after FL.

Dangerfield,

I agree.

The Republican primary races is a battle for the soul of the Republican party.

And it won't be pretty.

As a liberal Democrat I am enjoying this immensely. ;0)

ideology

He's gonna be toast after SC, he may hang for FL but that is all, besides the powers that be want as many to stay in as long as possible.

I am no Constitutional scholar but I have to think this is a fight the president wants. And I have to think we are in muddy waters as to the constitutionality of this. Obviously ones political bent fuels ones interpretation of the hallowed document as our very own Supreme Court has shown us time and again with their politically charged conservative, activist rulings. The narrative that plays out in this makes Obama appear to be the champion of the people and the opposition comes off as the champion of large corporate interest bent on taking advantage of the common man. However the courts decide, people will see the President in a positive light. People really don't care about constitutionality, they care about fairness. Our constitution has been amended many times to right unfairness. Constitutionality is essentially an abstract notion subject to interpretation and to change.

In other words, the president can only recess appoint when the Senate has adjourned for more than three days, and the Senate cannot adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the House.

There is no need for "interpretation" here. The house did not give the senate consent to adjourn, remember.

Not to mention, where in the constitution does it give any one or branch the authority to "interpret" the constitution. The constitution was ment to be followed as written no "interpretation" needed. You don't need to be a "Constitutional scholar" for this. It was intended for all of us to read and understand.

What then is the purpose of the judiciary? All law is subject to an interpretation based upon ones reading and understanding of the constitution which was wisely written to be vague and subject to context. Besides as I stated earlier regular folks don't give a fig for constitutionality, they care about right and wrong, fairness, and justice. The political reality of this is it is a winner for the President, and another loser for a congress deemed to be the worst in US history.

oats -- i suspect that as long as the regular folks care about right and wrong, fairness and justice is the same thing you believe to be correct then doing something unconstitutional is ok. what happens when the president does something extra-constitutional that you dont like -- will you suck it up and accept that he knows what is best for you?

this is a very slippery slope your are supporting because we all know that one day those you consider to be everything bad for America will return to the legislative and executive branches in the majority and using the same approach as this president do things that will anger you to no end. but if they tell you that they care about right and wrong, fairness and justice then there is nothing you can do but say than-you.

I find it odd that the left thinks it's o.k. if Obama does it but would have a fit if Bush had done it. Bush respected the will of the Senate, Obama does not.

BTW, I wonder what Senators Reid, and the other liberal Senators think of the action taken by Obama. Haven't seen any MSM coverage from the democrat Senators who used the same tactic against President Bush.

Obama thinks he is entitled to get everything he wants. One reason he is the most divisive President in history. No wonder he feels he needs ONE BILLION DOLLARS to conduct his campaign, most of which will be used for negative advertising since he has few accomplishments to campaign on.

sfcret

only thing missing here is the gripe about teleprompters and reverend wright. could you work on some NEW material? m'kay, thanks.

Gromit sounds good to me ... I'll go with that from now on.

Ideology -

That one only rang a faint bell with me, so I googled it and came up with this:

http://www.wallaceandgromit.com/characters/

Is it just me, or does Wallace kind of remind you of Rick Santorum with the sweater vests?

Joanna,

LOL.

Mittens got 2% unbelievable.....

Ideology,

Is Gromit even a real word?

I kind of like "Mittens"----kind of warm & fuzzy, which Romney certainly isn't. It is so cold in my office today that I wish I had some mittens on but it would be hard to type with them!

JoAnne/Northstar ... I also googled it and was going to post but FR blinked out on me

Of course I immediately thought of Wallace and Gromit. Gromit is the dog in those tales,...See all of them; but the Curse of the WereRabbit was fairly mainstream!

Who doesn't love warm mittens? lol

Rick, the difference is they were in "recess" where they were not in this case. Read the constitution, or is it just to out dated for ya?

Ah, but the question becomes to "pro forma" sessions count as being in session?

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without
the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three
days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two
Houses shall be sitting.

Seems pretty clear to me. . .

So the Democrats try to counter Republican recess appointments with a "pro forma" session, which the Republicans don't think to challenge in the courts. When a Constitutional law professor becomes President, he and his staff conclude that pro forma sessions don't preclude recess appointments and the Republicans object. Seems to me they had their chance and blew it. Good for you, President Obama---just another reason why I am glad you are my President and I will be proud to vote for you again!!

Steeler Fan, Where does it say in the constitution that the President can decide when the congress is or is not in session? The Senate and the House have the constitutional right to set their own rules and procedures. Since there is no law, it is doubtful that the courts will intervene as they do not like to get involved between the legislative and executive branches disagreements.

I would still like to see what Senator Reid and the other liberal Senators think of the Presidents actions since it was Reid and the liberals that came up with the "pro forma" sessions as a way to stop Bush from making recess appointments.

Has anyone read Krakauers "Under the Banner of Heaven". The Mormon thing could get ugly at some point unless Romney can convince a lot of people that Mormonism is not a "cult". One of the problems with Mormonism is that it is a very closed Religion, they do not respond to outsiders or a lot of scrutiny very well.

"...because he is a mormon."? Is that like "obama will never be president because he is black"? Or "obama will never be president because he is a muslim"? How about "obama will never be president because he is a freshman senator."?

hey sig i hate to say this but people are stupid and can be herded. thats a major problem we are having with elections. people are undereducated and react only to easy to understand slogans that are mostly half truths aimed at discrediting the opposition. now i understand that both sides are guilty but shouldnt our american election process have a little more dignity?

Pitt: I agree with much of what you say, although not quite as severe. But the effect of slogans is weakening--for example, the polls show "Pelosi" and "Socialist" do not create a reaction outside the base that they used to, and "smaller government" is understood by many to be code for things like "deregulate Big Oil accountability for toxic oil spills". And the public was VERY aware of the payroll tax cut issue, Republican "NO_NO_NO" and brinksmanship--where the public want jobs and Medicare and Social Security protected.

An ad must resonate to persuade. This one bounces back. I support dignity and civility. But since Lee Atwater and Willie Horton, negative ads--if "well" done, like Romney's--are in fact devastating. That's why candidates use surrogate individuals and benefit from Super-PACS--while staying above the fray humming homilies.

sig,

You are so right.

This year all the money behind the superPacs will do the dirty work.

Get ready fort he most negative, most expensive election in the history of the US.

but with the use of the Internet, blogs like this, voters need to get the facts, understand that theory, opinion are not facts.

Oh please. That reminds me of the ignorant statements about Barry Goldwater. Use your head/brain for something other than a place to store your hat.

You lost me at "President Gingrich"!!

hey da noid, hopefully perry is there as he is pretty entertaining in these debates.