2012 Presidential Election

AP – The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that a survey of its 12 banking districts found that they all reported solid growth at the start of the year.

Read more:
Highlights from the Fed’s economic survey
(AP)

AP – Disheartened and angry over the latest Texas voting maps handed down by federal judges, Democrats and minority rights groups looked Wednesday to a separate court in Washington as their last likely hope of cutting deeper into a solid Republican majority in the 2012 elections.

Go here to read the rest:
Minority groups: New Texas voting maps ‘devastate’
(AP)

A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy. Further evidence that when government officials usurp the role of the free market to choose winners and losers, they inevitably shuffle taxpayer dollars across the table to … losers. The Heritage Foundation’s Lachlan Markay reports: President Obama used a weekly address in July 2010 to tout his stimulus package’s support for the solar industry. One of Read this post

Pyongyang will allow for the return of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Yongbyon facility

Link:
N Korea agrees to suspend nuclear tests

No member of Rupert Murdoch’s family will have any direct role in management of News Corp’s UK press assets

More here:
James Murdoch steps down as NI head

Damn it Vinnie! Quit posting these! H/T Hot Air

Continued here:
I Know What The First Comment Is Going To Be

Inspirational Underlings Day edition. And you thought I was going to say “Leap Day edition.” Ha! Seriously, I don’t make these “holidays” up.

View original post here:
Pookie’s Toons 2-29-2012

Nah. This would be the same amendment that’s co-sponsored by presumptive VP nominee Marco Rubio. Another damaging stumble the morning after a big primary victory? Sure sounds like it, says lefty Greg Sargent, citing an Ohio TV reporter: I just got off the phone with [ONN-TV's Jim] Heath, and he graciously played me the audio. Heath View the video

I’m watching this unfold now on Twitter, after the original answer from earlier today. In an interview with Jim Heath, an Ohio reporter, Romney said he was against the Blunt Amendment which would exempt religious entities from being forced to provide female contraception: “I’m not for the bill. But, look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I’m not going there.” Romney attempted to clarify the answer : Responding to my request for comment, Romney’s spokesperson Andrea Saul emailed me this to clarify: Regarding the Blunt bill, the way the question was asked was confusing. Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith. For the sake of context, here is a longer transcript of the conversation: HEATH: “He’s brought contraception into this campaign. The issue of birth control, contraception, Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it? He (Santorum) said he was for that, we’ll talk about personhood in a second; but he’s for that, have you taken a position?” ROMNEY: “I’m not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there.” I’m not exactly sure what was confusing about Heath’s question. Let me illustrate, my emphasis: HEATH: He’s brought contraception into this campaign. The issue of birth control, contraception, Blunt-Rubio is being debated … Heath didn’t say bill , he simply named the title of the amendment … I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it? Banning or allowing employers to ban the forced provision of female contraceptives. It wasn’t the most graceful way to phrase the question, to be sure, but disagree with claims that it wasn’t easily understood. Is there further dialog that we’re missing? We’re told this is the conversation in its entirety. My initial reaction is to cast a distrustful eye towards most media, but there doesn’t seem to exist any claim of media malpractice here. Either Romney didn’t know what Blunt-Rubio was, in which case he should have refrained from comment and admitted such, or he’s actually against the amendment and is now looking for a way out given the reaction. Only Romney can clarify further. I’ll update with anything that will shed light on this. Related question: Is there anything sexist about only mandating female contraception? *UPDATE 1: Some say that the addition of Rubio’s name (Blunt-Rubio) made the question confusing. However, I’ve heard a combination of both. Jake Tapper also remembers: Regardless, it’s irrelevant to the context of the question. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it? “Allowing employers to ban providing female contraception …” It doesn’t take a full set of wits to conclude in a few milliseconds that this means employer freedom, no federal mandate. Yes, you should support it. *UPDATE 2: Watch the video of the Q&A and judge for yourself: Again, Heath sucks at asking concise questions, but it’s pretty easy to understand. I’m not sure I follow Romney’s clarification here. *UPDATE 4: The Romney camp released a statement affirming support for the amendment. Blunt and Rubio both have separate amendments, the latter which is more limited in terms of services to which employers can claim conscientious objection, but Rubio did also co-sponsor Blunt’s amendment. You could argue that they’re so similar, it’s almost silly to use this as a basis for confusion. Additionally, I don’t think it’s “making hay over nothing,” as a friend alluded in a private discussion, for the simple reason being that if it wasn’t clarified, this could have negatively impacted the vote scheduled tomorrow on the amendment. And adding to this further — if Romney was confused about the nature of the question, his negative answer left alone would have been spun by the media to create a bigger wedge between his camp and grassroots voters. It’s not about birth control; that’s a ruse progressives use to scare people way from the real issue: religious liberty. Aren’t you glad it was clarified? *UPDATE 5: Romney says he thought the question was about a state law .

See the original post here:
Romney Camp Blames Blunt Amendment Answer On ‘Confusing’ Question *UPDATED: Statement Released

As reported exclusively this morning at Big Journalism , citizen journalist provocateur James O’Keefe filed a lawsuit against Keith Olbermann, David Shuster, and Al Gore’s Current TV for defamation. The most serious and damaging allegations involve Shuster claiming on Current TV’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann on February 24, 2011 that there is a “rape allegation” facing O’Keefe. The rape allegation did not arise in a vacuum, however. As far as Shuster and Olbermann are concerned, James O’Keefe may be collateral damage but the bigger target is Andrew Breitbart, and the goal of the false smear against O’Keefe is to help cover up the very real rapes and assaults at Occupy Wall Street that Breitbart has exposed. The factual feud over Occupy assaults began when Keith Olbermann and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas attacked Andrew Breitbart and giggled at the notion of rapes at Occupy. Then, Olbermann claimed there were “no Occupy rapes” and suggested that none of the rapes or assaults were committed by Occupiers . These were all provably false claims , and those on the Countdown program likely knew they were false. At this point, Countdown’s Big Lie strategy became clear – since the facts weren’t in their favor, they would accuse Andrew Breitbart of covering up rapes himself. According to the official transcript of the show from February 24 th , David Shuster first teased the allegations by saying: Why can’t Andrew Breitbart apply his own standard in condemning alleged rapes when they involve, possibly, his own associates? Later in the program he teased it a second time: Andrew Breitbart couldn’t resist making wild rape charges about the entire Occupy movement and yet, when it comes to testimony under oath against one of his own protégés, Breitbart is “hear no evil and see no evil.” Then he teased it again: Just ahead, there were indications today that Andrew Breitbart has a double standard when it comes to his concerns about victims of alleged sexual assault. And a fourth time: Just ahead, we got more proof today that Andrew Breitbart seems to be concerned about alleged sexual assaults only when it’s politically expedient. We’ll bring you the allegations involving his own colleagues. And finally, tease number five: But up next, Andrew Breitbart is giving the silent treatment to his former protégé James O’Keefe and it makes that outburst against the Occupy movement even more amazing. We will explain. Oh, wait – one more tease! Andrew Breitbart claims to be a champion of alleged victims of sexual harassment, except when the allegations are made by one of his own bloggers against a former Breitbart associate. And then, it’s silence. Finally, after Countdown viewers had been pummeled with SIX different teases claiming that Breitbart was silent about sexual harassment, sexual assaults, or rape, David Shuster arrived at his story: SHUSTER: All this week, this show has been doing a nightly mash-up of Andrew Breitbart’s unhinged rant against Occupy protesters. With Keith Olbermann out tonight, we are putting the mash-up on hold. However, there is something I would like to contribute. Andrew Breitbart’s overall claim is that Occupy members and journalists covering the movement have shirked the obligation to report rapes and sexual assaults. Breitbart’s allegations, as you’ve seen on this program, don’t hold up. Still, the great irony, at least to me, is that — while Breitbart has proclaimed to be an aggressive champion of rape victims — he has said virtually nothing about one of his own female bloggers, Nadia Naffe, who has made some stunning allegations against James O’Keefe. O’Keefe, as you may recall, is a Breitbart protégé, conservative activist, and convicted felon, who is infamous for his ambush-style, selectively-edited interviews. As “Countdown” first reported in December, here’s the background on O’Keefe’s incident with Naffe: according to courtroom testimony, O’Keefe asked Naffe, in October, to participate in an undercover plot targeting Occupy Wall Street. As part of their discussion, O’Keefe allegedly met Naffe at a New Jersey train station. O’Keefe then stopped to purchase alcohol before bringing Naffe to his parents’ home. During the evening, there was apparently a dispute and Naffe says she told O’Keefe she wouldn’t participate in his scheme. She testified, however, that O’Keefe refused to drive her back to a train station, was verbally abusive, and repeatedly insisted she stay overnight in a barn on his parent’s property. Naffe also testified that she felt increasingly incapacitated: “I found it hard to move and control my muscles.” She also testified, “It was his intent to persuade me to spend the night in the barn.” When Naffe threatened to call police, she says O’Keefe finally agreed to drive her to the train station. She passed out in the car, woke up at the station, and then got on the train. A few days after the incident, Naffe testified that O’Keefe offered her money to stay silent. Naffe refused. She testified he then harassed her privately and publicly: “He made me out to be a tramp. He used other people to torment me.” In late December, the judge presiding over Naffe’s criminal complaint dismissed it on a jurisdictional ruling, which found there was insufficient evidence to show O’Keefe’s alleged harassment originated in the court’s town. However, the judge urged Naffe to take her claims against O’Keefe to civil court. Now, this afternoon, I asked Andrew Breitbart for a comment on this incident and he refused to address it. Breitbart’s silence, of course, stands in remarkable contrast to his attack and condemnation of the entire Occupy movement. (Excerpt from video clip) BREITBART: Stop raping people! Stop raping people! Stop raping people! Stop raping people! SHUSTER: Andrew, let me be clear. Your silence in the O’Keefe/Naffe matter is actually appropriate. You didn’t witness anything. You weren’t involved and this matter may continue in the courts. This approach, though, towards O’Keefe — in light of that outburst about Occupy — underscores what Democrats and many Republicans have been saying about you for years. You are a hypocrite and a frequently unstable, publicity-seeking hack. Andrew, get some psychological help. The target here was clearly Andrew Breitbart. In order to smear Breitbart, Shuster had to smear O’Keefe. And Shuster’s attack didn’t stop on Countdown . He took to Twitter : Hey  @JamesokeefeIII apologize to  @nadianaffe . And @AndrewBreitbart why wont u condemn his alleged sex assault plan? By following the narrative, it’s easy to deduce that while Shuster, Olbermann, and the rest of Al Gore’s network are no fans of James O’Keefe, they have their sights set on a bigger target: Andrew Breitbart.

Link:
Revealed: Al Gore’s Current TV Smeared O’Keefe to Target Breitbart, Protect Occupy Wall Street