A Must MUST Read

I've never done this before, but I thought this post from Miami Herald political columnist Joy Reid was so good, I'd link it here. I've argued this point before, but never could have put it so well as Reid does here.

Barack Obama and the myth of the progressive ‘majorities’

...Despite the myth-making on the left, Democrats actually held their tenuous 60-vote majority for only five months in 2009: from July of that year, when Al Franken was finally sworn in after winning the recount against Norm Coleman, through November 2009, when Democrats lost Barack Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois to Mark Kirk. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.

Could Barack Obama have somehow rammed through the entire progressive wish list in five months? I find it hard to see how, given the unreliability of the blue dog Senators.

Sometimes You Can't Combat The Stupid

No matter how hard you try, there's no way to combat the amount of stupid in this country. I say that after making a dumb mistake. I replied to a stupid person's comment on this week's YouTube video of President Obama's weekly address. I should have known better. But it was a sincere effort to supply information - unfortunately, there's no amount of facts and truth that can appease the hatred.

Here's what initially got me started (not going to bother acknowledging grammatical errors):

berserker1776: "this is starting to feel like a banana republic ..... Ive been chasing cave men in Iraq for 27 months, almost got blown up rightfully so, i mean if occupier where patroling I-5 in california id try to blow them up too. mr. president, you are nevergoing to get my vote, my familly voted for youand they are disgusted with you. thanks for your part in fast in furiouse that led to the death of us border agents, and thanks for working to take our guns at home .... im going to go read my bible sir"

I responded with a general comment:

Broadway Carl: Reading the comments here thus far, I'm actually appalled at some of the responses. You'd think everything was all fine and dandy on January 19, 2009 but all went to hell on January 20th, 2009. And maybe some of you truly believe that for one bizarre reason or another. But the complaints I'm reading? Come on now.

Iraq? Call me crazy but I thought that started about 8 or 9 years ago. Bank bailout? Yeah, I remember that summer... of 2008.

And you can thank President Obama for restructuring TARP so that the banks would actually pay that $700 BILLION back that Henry Paulson and George W. Bush initially gave away with no strings attached.

Some of you really need to take a step back and actually see what happened before being so quick to blame someone for WHATEVER REASON you might have.

Of course to me, "WHATEVER REASON" is thinly veiled racism. I have little doubt that these kinds of vitriolic rants would be half as angry if we had someone in the White House who wasn't categorized for the last three years as a terrorist loving, Kenyan born, Manchurian candidate, Socialist, Marxist, Communist Antichrist. Oh, and he's black too. He's not a "real American."

The problem in commenting on YouTube is the limited characters allowed and it seems you can no longer include links to back up your information or provide a longer explanation. But it wasn't long before berserker1776 responded. And now I'm getting email notifications from YouTube telling me stupid people responded to my comment.

berserker1776: after 3 years in office the man has accomplished zero of his promises. and after 3 years the wars are now his wars so even if a war is not a war like libya, we have robots to send in to drop love bombs. this president is acting like adolph hitler, he says he doesn't need congress to go to libya, well why have a us flag lets get a UN flag on all our uniforms this is mass insanity. we are not free, and we are loosing everything at home AMERICA WHEN WILL YOU CARE? WHEN YOU HOMELESS?

...Sigh... I opened up a can of stupid. But hey, with "1776" in his handle to show his patriotism, he can't be all bad.

My initial reaction was to respond, which is when I came across the "no links" errors, so I took a step back, calmed down and decided to forget the notion of replying. It's not worth the time to slam my head against a brick wall of idiocy when I'm never going to convince the wall anyway. But what I wanted to say was this:

I don't know what planet you live on, but on my planet January 20, 2009 through July 16, 2011 is actually 2½ years, not three years. And as far as accomplishing "zero of his promises" you might want to visit this site that is keeping tabs on promises kept, 148 and counting. As far the wars are concerned, he said he'd draw down in Iraq, and he has; he said he'd escalate in Afghanistan, and he has; he said he'd surge troops in order to complete the dismantling of Al-Qaeda and then bring them home, which he's doing; he said he'd capture or kill Obama bin Laden, and he has. Just add those to the "Promises Kept" column. As far as Libya is concerned, you can say it's debatable whether the President violated the War Powers Act, but saying he's acting like Hitler is just plain silly. I hope you were just as vocal when President Bush declared war on Iraq under false pretenses.
Also please point me in the directions of the sources you're using for your claims that Obama policies led to the death of border agents and that he's trying to take your guns away. Good luck with bible reading.

I did get a word of encouragement, however:

fonkymaster: Finally! A rational person has appeared! It's super effective!

But it wasn't long before others chimed in:

JUDALATION: so since the president does one good thing we should forget the REAL BIG BAD THINGS HE HAS DONE?He has KEPT Guantanimo, Kept drilling offshore, Kept the Patriot act, Kept tax cuts for Millionaires, kept soldiers in Iraq, Kept Dont ask dont tell, and passed weak regulations on banks, He has surrounded himself with wallstreet people in his cabinet. He is to the right of Bush on Immigration and has deported more illegals than bush. He is AGAINST GAY MARRAGE,He racked + debt than bush

AthenasConquest: This is Hilarious Obama spent more money than all presidents combined.Now he pretends to arrest the problem blatant spending he created.

Well, it's like a crack in the dyke of stupid. I just don't have enough fingers to plug the holes.

Should I go into the fact that Congress voted practically unanimously to defund the closing of Gitmo? That Obama extended the Bush tax cuts in order to also provide and extra 13 months of unemployment insurance and that the tax cut extension wasn't just for millionaires, but for everyone? That he repealed DADT? That enforcing immigration rules, including deportation, is what the government is supposed to do?; but if you look at the numbers, deportation has been on a steady incline for the last nine years. Should I go into the fact that while Obama is personally against gay marriage, that hasn't stopped him from being the most progressive president when it comes to gay rights that all other president combined?

Sometimes you just have to save your energy, pick your battles and shake your head as you walk away from the stupid. At least on YouTube.

Must Reads

Michelle Goldberg: Marcus Bachmann’s Gay ‘Cure’

Dennis G., Balloon Juice: How The Game Is Played

Post Tenebras Lux: Where At Least I Know I'm Free

Extreme Liberal: Frank Rich Crosses The Line Into Fantasyland – Let’s Play The Blame Game!

Leisa Simone: Confessions of An ‘Obamabot’

BooMan: I'm Almost Sad for the Tea Partiers

Russell Simmons: Stop Cryin' and Pay More Taxes!

Adam Serwer: Laughably Bogus Poll Tries to `Prove’ Obama is Losing Jewish Support

TiMT: Say It Loud: "Current GOP Leaders Voted 19 Times To Increase Debt Limit By $4 Trillion"

Ian Boudreau: Just One MFer's View

Monte Bute: Dayton's Critics Should Remember That Politics is The Art of the Possible

Paul Krugman: Getting To Crazy

Rick Ungar: Fake Democrats Lose In Wisconsin Primaries While Exposing Fake Financial Concerns Of Scott Walker

President Obama's Weekly Address - July 16, 2011

Securing Our Fiscal Future

Michele's Bridge to Nowhere

POSTED BY JHW22

Republicans like to say Obama is three years into his Presidency, so using their math, Michele Bachmann is one year into the new Congress -- the Create Jobs Congress. And thus far, she has sponsored seven bills in one year. Yep, seven. And none are titled "Job Creating Bill". From the way she talks, you'd think she has worked tirelessly (like the Founding Fathers on slavery) to create jobs. Nope. Seven bills. None of them job creators. Well, unless you think cutting taxes is a job creator and if you do, well, you don't need to be reading this. Or unless you think building a bridge is a job creator. (In fact, it is a job creator which is why I support federal infrastructure funding. More on that later.)

To be fair to her work ethic, she has co-sponsored 92 bills this year. But that's not really leadership, is it? I mean when you sponsor 7 and co-sponsor 92, ya look like a follower. In fact, she has only sponsored 38 bills ever. Heck, Obama sponsored 121 in only two years -- he sponsored at least one bill for every four bills he co-sponsored when he was in the Senate. In two years.

Now, about that one bill of hers, her one of her many, many (seven) bills that is a job creator. Its goal is

To facilitate a proposed project in the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic River, and for other purposes.

Sounds a little like earmarking to me. Hey, she did the proper thing by filing a bill and submitting it to committees. Heck, she even attached a Constitutional Authority Statement. But, still, when someone uses 1/7th of her bill-sponsoring time on a local district project, it's an earmark, because an earmark is an earmark is an earmark. Well, except when it's not. And this one is not.

This bill is not an earmark because there is no money attached to it. The bridge is estimated to cost between $334 and $373 million dollars. (Remember that other bridge that was going to cost the feds about that much?) But all THIS bill does it get permission to build it because it violates some environmental concerns. She's just asking for the green light from the federal government to be able to later ask for funding for it. So, because they can't build it, there's no need to ask for money and that means she can stick to her pledge to

not seek any earmarks this year [emphasis mine]

It seems rather easy to not seek earmarks when you're not really seeking much in general. I mean seven sponsored bills is an easy way to avoid asking for earmarks. Especially when the one you REALLY want earmarks for, isn't approved for funding yet.

Or IS it? I guess it depends on what your def... oops, sorry. Anyway, DID she avoid earmark requests for this bridge? Well, yes and no. She didn't ask for earmarks this year or even over the last two years. What she did do is send out letters requesting grant consideration for federal funding in 2009 in the ... wait for it ... stimulus!! Yes, the OBAMA stimulus. You know, the one she despises and said hasn't created jobs. She sent letters on behalf of her bridge to ask for funding from the very stimulus she spoke out against before, during and after the votes.

Is anyone really surprised? I mean the gal has a lot of "choots pa", after all.

Now, I was actually for the Bridge to Nowhere before I was still for it. It made sense to me considering the need. The problem was that it became a political football and people lost sight of the need. And, instead, they built a road to nowhere with the money. A bridge would have been the better use.

And I support more federal funding for bridges, light rail, broadband, alternate energy source conduits. I am a Democrat (although I was recently told I am not one because I don't agree with the Angry Left and I was told this by a woman threatening to vote third party so yep, I AM a Democrat). I love when the federal government employs people to make things people will use. I don't care where those things are as long as people work to make them and they make lives easier where they are.

So when a "Constitutional Conservative" who believes

that many of our problems result from the federal government's insatiable — and unconstitutional — grab for power and money

actually makes a money and power grab for a bridge in the middle of nowhere while condemning the very funding source she begs to be a part of, I think to myself, "How's that conservativey, hypocrisy thing workin for ya'?"

Oh, wrong Conservative hypocrite. It's hard to keep those two straight.

President Obama's Press Conference - July 15, 2011

...on the debt ceiling/debt reduction talks.

Charles Krauthammer Is Missing Something

Today's op-ed from Charles Krauthammer has one craaaazy headline: Call Obama's Bluff

Hasn’t the White House leaked that he’s prepared to raise the Medicare age or change the cost-of-living calculation?

Anonymous talk is cheap. Leaks are designed to manipulate. Offers are floated and disappear.

Say it, Mr. President. Give us one single structural change in entitlements. In public.

Now obviously, when in the course of negotiations, it's a pretty dumb idea to float your ideas in public as far as specifics are concerned. And of course, Mr. Krauthammer knows this - surely he's not that stupid. He's just trying to shoehorn his perspective into his piece. But apparently, Mr. Krauthammer hasn't been listening when it comes to statements in public.

Obama signaled at his press conference today that changes to Social Security could be a bargaining chip in a deficit reduction deal with Republicans – something many Democrats have staunchly opposed.

“The reason to do Social Security is to strengthen Social Security to make sure that those benefits are there for seniors in the out-years,” Obama said. “ And the reason to include that potentially in this package is if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now, as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future.”

There's your public statement, Mr. Krauthammer, right in the middle of a news conference, for which the President has taken a barrage of hits from the fringe left that would rather primary him, to the Democratic members of the House. But no matter. He continues:

The Republicans are being totally outmaneuvered. The House speaker appears disoriented. It’s time to act. Time to call Obama’s bluff.

A long-term deal or nothing? The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger.

Well, President Obama has already stated he will accept no short-term deal. The time for that passed, by Mr. Krauthammer's calculation, about 5 months ago. And his premise sits on the notion that the GOP would work in good faith to "work on something larger" and not use the borrowed time to drag their feet until the next debt ceiling increase vote all the way to November, 2012. Past performance has dictated such an outcome. But let's see what Mr. Krauthammer's proposal on "something larger" is:

Republicans should call for urgent negotiations on tax reform along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles commission that, in one option, strips out annually $1.1 trillion of deductions, credits and loopholes while lowering tax rates across the board to a top rate of 23 percent. The president says he wants tax reform, doesn’t he? Well, Mr. President, here are five months to do so.

And that's where Mr. Krauthammer's fist shaking falls apart. He is still under the impression that the Republicans are actually serious about debt reduction.

From the very beginning the Republican negotiators have stated unequivocally that any revenue increase is  a non-starter, including closing tax loopholes, streamlining deductions and even an expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Krauthammer assumes the Republicans will automatically change their mind if only that stubborn, mule-headed Obama would accept a short-term deal to work out the kinks of these reforms in the meantime. ...Please...

And taking a jab at the President as a "born-again budget balancer" when St. Ronnie tripled the debt and George W. Bush doubled it in their respective terms in office is just comical. Look at your own party's White House leadership history when it comes to deficit spending, Mr. Krauthammer. Don't try crying crocodile tears now.

Krauthammer ignores the fact that the supposed leader of these negotiations on the GOP side, House Speaker John Boehner, doesn't even have full support of his own members, where somewhere between 60 and 70 Tea Party House members have stated they wouldn't vote for a debt ceiling increase under ANY circumstances, which means Boehner needs Democratic votes in order to pass ANYTHING. To get those votes he needs to make it palatable. It's called "compromise." So please spare me the Republican superiority. The current crop of Krauthammer's party are the ones who decided to tie spending cuts to the debt ceiling increase in the first place. To cry foul now and project that it's President Obama who is holding the debt ceiling hostage is completely preposterous.

And then he ends with this kicker:

If conservatives really want to get the nation’s spending under control, the only way is to win the presidency. Put the question to the country and let the people decide. To seriously jeopardize the election now in pursuit of a long-term, small-government, Ryan-like reform that is inherently unreachable without control of the White House may be good for the soul. But it could very well wreck the cause.

Ah, the cause. Not to save the economy, but to win back the White House. So ultimately, Krauthammer's suggestion of calling the president's bluff is a political ploy to implode the economy in order to gain traction in winning back the Presidency, apparently not aware of polls showing that if there is a US default, the American people will blame the Republicans in Congress before the only adult in the room occupying the White House. How will that bode for the 2012 elections up and down ticket? It is to laugh.

The President Has What Now?!

Michele Bachmann says President Obama has a lot of... a lot of... uh... "chootspa"? Is that a disease?



Does her religion forbid her from using the Yiddish pronunciation?  ...Oy vey!

The Stupidity! It Burns!!!

Behold, the Mr. Bean of the House of Representatives, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa, IOWA for fuck's sake!) getting together with Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert (now that's a trifecta of idiocy) claiming that there is no risk of default.

WARNING: Watching this video will increase your blood pressure, cause you to lose some brain cells (and not in a good way) and possibly induce stroke-like symptoms. If you smell toast, immediately cease viewing.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Who Are You Going To Believe?

Day 4 of the debt ceiling talks ended today, with differing acounts.

According to Luke Russert via Twitter:


So did Obama storm out? Who are you going to believe? The guy who's been at the table constantly looking for a deal or the guy who had already walked out of previous meetings and hasn't budged in his ideology?

UPDATE: Jake Tapper weighs in.

Sherwood Schwartz Dies at 94

Reuters: NEW YORK (TheWrap) - Sherwood Schwartz, the Emmy-winning television mastermind behind "Gilligan's Island" and "The Brady Bunch," has died at 94.

"He had a lot of favorite projects and a lot of favorite shows and his favorite one was always the next one," his son and producing partner, Lloyd J. Schwartz, told TheWrap. "He didn't really die. He just ran out of time to do things."

Not only did Schwartz give us those enduring TV shows we grew up with, either originally broadcasted or in rerun, but he also co-wrote the theme songs. Now that's gold!

The Base

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama collected $86 million combined for his re-election campaign and the Democratic party during the past three months, giving him a large fundraising advantage over the Republican field seeking to challenge him in 2012.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a video posted early Wednesday that it raised more than $47 million and the Democratic National Committee brought in more than $38 million through the end of June, building a foundation for advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts in next year's election. Obama's team had set a public goal of $60 million combined.

And here's the breakdown:



Contrary to popular belief, this is the base. You can get more detailed information from the Jim Messina video.

So I say once again, if you're in favor of an Obama primary opponent, you're not the base.

Lawrence O'Donnell Gets It

Here's Lawrence O'Donnell, one of the few lead pundits that has actually worked in government, explaining the Obama strategy when it comes to negotiating the debt ceiling increase with a Republican Party that has painted itself into a"If Obama's for it, we're against it" corner on pretty much everything.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Some still don't get it. Like Ed Schultz. Rachel Maddow, while literally raising the white flag in her mocking of the GOP collapse, never mentioned that part of that collapse has to do with the Obama strategy of calling their bluff. But that's okay. They'll catch up eventually.

Republican Leadership! HUZZAH!

You gotta hand it to the so-called leaders of the Republican Party. If they don't get everything they want, they sure know how to take their ball and go home.

TPM: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has proposed creating an escape hatch for Congressional Republicans, who have put themselves in a box by threatening not to raise the national debt limit if Democrats don't agree to trillions of dollars in cuts to popular social programs.

Yes, after all the yelling and screaming that the debt ceiling sky is falling, and digging in their heels saying they wouldn't approve a raise in the debt ceiling unless substantial spending cuts were taken to offset the raise considering one cent in revenue increases unacceptable, all at the expense of US defaulting on its loans and a possible domino effect short circuiting the global economy - tantamount to blackmail, something they do so well - little Mitch McConnell is taking his ball and going home, dragging little Johnny Boehner by the hand with him.

JM Ashby over at Bob Cesca's blog does a great job summing up McConnell's toothless legislation proposal:

If the legislation proposed by McConnell is passed, President Obama can raise the national debt limit without a single cut to spending. Congress will then have the opportunity to pass a series of symbolic resolutions condemning the president for doing so. And in a worst case scenario, President Obama would have to propose entirely hypothetical and imaginary spending cuts he would make if it were up to him.

Considering how crafty and elusive the administration can be when it wants to, the threat of requiring phantom spending-cut proposals and the passage of ineffectual congressional resolutions condemning the debt ceiling seems completely impotent. What will stop the administration from including tax-hikes and long-term cuts to defense spending in every proposal? It’s all hypothetical!

All this in the name of protecting tax loopholes for the rich, continuing to subsidize big oil companies despite record breaking profits year after year, and helping corporations continue to avoid paying little to no federal income tax with offshore tax havens.

So let's review. House Speaker John Boehner and the GOP were adamant about not raising the debt ceiling at the risk of US default unless it included spending cuts equaling or exceeding the amount of the debt ceiling raise, particularly cuts in the form of popular social programs like Medicare and Social Security. The Republican Party was looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of a $2 trillion worth of spending cuts without any increase in revenue - even on the backs of the poor millionaires and billionaires' tax loopholes. President Obama called their bluff and said 'if you're actually serious about debt reduction, let's look at a $4 trillion cut. Let's look at Social Security and Medicare. But it's not going to come at the expense of the middle and working classes. Let's look at tax reform, loopholes, and having the top 2% actually pay what you think they're paying.'  Eric Cantor walked away from the table. Boehner blinked and walked away from the table. Mitch McConnell is now walking away from the table for political cover. And President Obama knows it.

President Obama did not walk away from the table or the American people when it came to defaulting on the US debts. It was the perfect move. And now with McConnell's proposal, President Obama, the only adult in the room, is getting what he wanted in the first place, a no strings attached debt ceiling increase.

ADDING... I have unsubscribed from several "progressive" organizations after receiving emails trashing President Obama for selling out the middle and working classes by putting "Social Security and Medicare cuts" on the table, something he NEVER said he'd do, and asking for donations in the process.

From the beginning of these negotiations, the "professional left" freak out has pissed me off to no end. Instead of attacking the party threatening to default on country's debt and using it as a hostage tool, their default position was to attack the President for trying to get a deal for ALL Americans. There is no longer any reason to consider these organizations the "base." Anyone thinking or suggesting that a primary challenge to President Obama is a good idea should in no way be considered, "the base." The base should be considered the base because they are the core support for the party leader. If you don't support the President more than 50% of the time (and that's being generous) you're not the base. If you don't support President Obama but still consider yourself the base, do yourself a favor and don't come back here. You won't like what you read. Or come back and make your points in the comments section. The real "base" welcomes the debate.

Oh, and This Happened Too.

While everyone is in a tizzy after the President's press conference because either A) he nailed it, B) he schooled the Republicans or C) he sold out the liberal "base," this also came to light:

PWIRE: Journalists from across Rupert Murdoch's News International "repeatedly targeted" the former British prime minister Gordon Brown, "attempting to access his voicemail and obtaining information from his bank account, his legal file as well as his family's medical records," the Guardian reports.

"The sheer scale of the data assault on Brown is unusual, with evidence of attempts to obtain his legal, financial, tax, medical and police records as well as to listen to his voicemail. All of these incidents are linked to media organisations. In many cases, there is evidence of a link to News International."

Holy fuckballs! A Murdoch operation hacked the Prime Minister of England?! Is a world wide investigation to see if NewsCorp has tried this elsewhere the next step? In hindsight, it's no wonder they decided to fold NOTW so quickly. This may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Conservatives Don’t Believe in Democracy

Posted by Desert Crone

A most serious problem in the United States, in my view, is that there is a subset of Americans who believe that government is illegitimate if their chosen leaders aren't elected. They simply don't believe in democracy. Voting is a ritual for them, something one does, like going to church. But it's expected that their preferred leaders will always win and their preferred agenda is the only one that will be enacted. (In one of the greatest ironies ever, they are undoubtedly the same people who stuck with George W. Bush to the bitter end --- the most illegitimate president ever.) They get very, very agitated and angry whenever they are not "in charge."

I watched it happen in the 90s in the unrelenting attacks and hearings on both of the Clintons. Obviously, Bush v Gore was successful in unseating the real President-elect. Candidate Reagan possibly negotiated with Iranians to undermine and unseat President Carter. We saw this obsession to unseat an elected president rise up almost immediately after President Obama was elected. The right wingers believe that they are "the people" in “We the People,” and Americans who disagree with them are either unworthy or irrelevant --- or they don't actually exist. And I’m not even discussing the hijacking of SCOTUS in this piece, which is also undermining our democracy.

While I do believe that racism motivates some of these right wingers, that is not the only impetus. The birth certificate issue, the communist grandparents, questioning of academic credentials, etc. are all methods used to delegitimize the President. Sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish between the racism and the typically perverse right wing trickery. And it really doesn’t matter, does it? The goal is always the same—delegitimize a democratically elected President if he is a Democrat.

The latest attempt to undermine Obama’s legitimacy is to disenfranchise and suppress voters who would most likely vote for him. States that have passed new “Jim Crow” voter qualification laws are targeting minorities, students, and the poor. One way or another the right wing will bring down this duly elected President.

A companion piece to the voter registration laws is the conservative Christian pledge signed by many conservatives, including Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. The pledge claims that slaves were actually better off than today’s African-Americans are under the leadership of Obama. Clearly, Americans have always been in denial about the atrocities of slavery, which Toni Morrison calls the “American holocaust,” but this pledge is beyond comprehension.

What is so insidious about this latest egregious attempt to divide President Obama from a segment of his base is the assumption African-Americans are so ignorant, illiterate, and apathetic that they would not know their own history. (As an aside, there are those on the Left making the same attempt to turn the African-American vote away from the President.) The idea behind the pledge is so evil in its absurdity, assumptions, and arrogance that it just leaves me breathless.

The Republicans remind me of one of those huge rollers used to level asphalt. They are rolling over us. We cannot and must not let President Obama fight this battle alone. The motto is “Yes We Can,” not “Yes I Can.” We must fight at the local, state, and national levels to stop this insidious assault on our democracy while we still have a shred of it left.

Sorry, Family Leader. Too Little, Too Late.

The Family Leader's controversial "Marriage Vow" pledge they are trying to garner GOP presidential candidate signatures for is now being revised:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.

Well, isn't that nice? They think that it was better for African-Americans during the good ol' slavery days because hey, at least you had two parents. But seeing the ruckus this single sentence is causing, The Family Leader decided to drop if from their pledge.

But it's too late, because Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum had already affixed their names to it while the comment was still included. Whether they thought it was a casual little line, that they could later disagree with or deny is irrelevant. We now know A) they truly feel this way or B) they'll say anything to anyone for support, including crazy shit like this.