A vast majority of Americans – up to 77% – agree with President Obama and Democrats on the heavily debated contraception issue. But don’t tell that to the Republicans, as they all gladly hop on the dune buggy and continue digging down deeper in the gutters.
Americans overwhelmingly regard the debate over President Barack Obama’s policy on employer-provided contraceptive coverage as a matter of women’s health, not religious freedom, rejecting Republicans’ rationale for opposing the rule. More than three-quarters say the topic shouldn’t even be a part of the U.S. political debate.
More than six in 10 respondents to a Bloomberg National Poll — including almost 70 percent of women — say the issue involves health care and access to birth control, according to the survey taken March 8-11.
Mitt Romney finally began talking about some of the things his administration would do to balance the budget, and one if those things seems to be getting rid of Planned Parenthood – the organization that provides health benefits like cancer screenings to millions if women throughout this country. Referring to Planned Parenthood, Romney said, “we’re gonna get rid of that.”
To help nail this irresponsible Romney policy home, the DNC created this video.
Although he won some delegates in Mississippi and Alabama in yesterday’s primaries, Romney’s clear focus on “math” as his only way to winning the Republican nomination is quite frankly, lame. What we are witnessing before our very eyes is a Republican candidate who is proving time and time again, that he simply cannot win a majority of the Republican votes in southern states – something that must be done if he expects to come close to competing against President Obama in the general elections.
Given yet another chance to seal the deal and wrap up this primary process, Romney placed third with 29% of the votes in Alabama with Gingrich slightly ahead. Santorum came in first with 35%. The story wasn’t much different in Mississippi – Santorum 33%, Gingrich 31% and Romney 30%. For entertainment value, 4% of the Republicans voted for Ron Paul. But even with this problem with winning the popular vote in southern States on their hands, Romney’s campaign went on CNN to highlight that they managed to win some delegates in those two states, inching them even more closer to the magic figure of 1144 – the total amount needed to win the Republican nomination. According to a CNN tally, Romney has 489 and leads second place Santorum by 255 delegates.
But can math alone bring Mitt Romney a victory? Newt Gingrich puts it this way: “The elite media’s effort to convince the nation that Mitt Romney is inevitable just collapsed. The fact is that in both states, the conservative candidates got nearly 70% of the vote, and if you’re the frontrunner and you keep coming in third, you’re not much of a frontrunner. And frankly, I do not believe that a Massachusetts moderate who created Romneycare as the forerunner of Obamneycare is going to be in a position to win any debates this fall, and that is part of the reason I’ve insisted in staying in this race.”
If you’re the Republican candidate and you cannot get Republicans in Republican states to vote for you, then you have some serious problems. The math may work to get you the nomination, but at some point, you have to prove you can get the votes.
“…while the campaign’s slow, methodical approach to collecting delegates in obscure, boring, or otherwise un-noteworthy contests has served them well logistically, it hasn’t helped them win the argument. The rhetoric of strength and leadership that could give them momentum heading into the general has been replaced with a list of math-centered talking points that deal with delegate counts, percentages, and margins of victory.
Campaign in poetry and govern in prose, the old political adage goes. The Romney campaign, it appears, has chosen to forego words altogether and make their case with numbers. But how long can the party’s would-be standard-bearer hinge his entire campaign message on math?”
Two weeks ago, President Obama formed the Trade Enforcement Unit to investigate unfair economic practices by other countries.
But even as that organization comes online, the President is taking additional steps to ensure that American products are competing on a level playing field with the rest of the world.
That’s why he made an announcement this morning in the White House Rose Garden:
We’re bringing a new trade case against China — and we’re being joined by Japan and some of our European allies. This case involves something called rare earth materials, which are used by American manufacturers to make high-tech products like advanced batteries that power everything from hybrid cars to cell phones.
We want our companies building those products right here in America. But to do that, American manufacturers need to have access to rare earth materials — which China supplies. Now, if China would simply let the market work on its own, we’d have no objections. But their policies currently are preventing that from happening. And they go against the very rules that China agreed to follow.
The reasoning behind this effort is simple: President Obama believes that it’s too important for American manufacturers to be able to compete in these growing industries for the U.S. government to stand by and do nothing.
Okay Mitt, we get it now. No need to keep pushing it in our faces. Yes, you are rich, very rich. So rich you are Mr. Romney, that your friends are owners of NASCAR race teams and you making $10,000 bets is nothing especially when you collect hundreds of thousands of dollars at speaking engagements.
Appearing on Alabama sports commentator Paul Finebaum’s radio show this afternoon, Romney was asked about which team he thinks quarterback Peyton Manning will sign with. Romney said he wasn’t sure, but noted that he has some very good friends who own NFL teams:
FINEBAUM: You are a Patriots fan, I know that you’ve had a lot of support from that family. Having said that, the most coveted free agent in NFL history is Peyton Manning. I know you want him somewhere away from New England, where do you think he ought to go?
ROMNEY: Well, you know I’m surprised to hear that Denver’s thinking about him, they’re — I don’t want him in our neck of the woods, lets put it that way, I don’t want him to go to Miami or to the Jets. But I’ve got a lot of good friends, the owner Miami Dolphins, and the New York Jets —both owners are friends of mine. But let’s keep him away from New England, so that Tom Brady has a better shot of picking up a championship for us.
We wait on pins and needles for your next revelation and the economic boost this information will surely have on our economy.
The Associated Press reports: A Kentucky-based health care company has sued to protect its name after being involuntarily drawn into the backlash over Rush Limbaugh’s derisive comments about a Georgetown law student.
Louisville-based Humana, the parent company of Concentra Health Services, filed on Thursday for a preliminary injunction to stop the Preval Group of Portland, Maine from using the name Concentra to market memory aid pills.
Humana said in court filings it received angry phone calls, emails and web postings after an ad for Concentra pills aired on Limbaugh’s show Monday. Concentra Health and the Preval Group are not related.
Limbaugh has been criticized for attacking student Sandra Fluke over contraception. He apologized but has lost some advertisers in the backlash.
A few months ago, we highlighted this article by billionaire Nick Hanauer as he skillfully shed some light on the false Republican claim that rich people are job creators. Now, we bring you a piece by another billionaire who warns that capitalism will be our downfall.
His name is Jeremy Grantham, a British investor who manages a hedge fund worth more than $100 billion, and he had this to say;
It gets worse, for what capitalism has always had is money with which to try to buy influence. Today’s version of U.S. capitalism has died and gone to heaven on this issue. A company is now free to spend money to influence political outcomes and need tell no one, least of all its own shareholders, the technical owners. So, rich industries can exert so much political influence that they now have a dangerous degree of influence over Congress. And the issues they most influence are precisely the ones that matter most, the ones that are most important to society’s long-term well-being, indeed its very existence. Thus, taking huge benefits from Nature and damaging it in return is completely free and all attempts at government control are fought with costly lobbying and advertising. And one of the first victims in this campaign has been the truth.
If scientific evidence suggests costs and limits be imposed on industry to protect the long-term environment, then science will be opposed by clever disinformation. It’s now getting to be an old and obvious story, but because their propaganda is good and despite the solidness of the data, half of the people believe the problem is a government run wild, mad to control everything.
Over the last few weeks, some strange events have happened in Afghanistan. Just a couple of weeks ago, there was the accidental burning of the Quran by American troops, an act that increased an already tensed situation in the country between Afghans and American soldiers and caused the president of the United States to issue an apology. Now, we hear the story of an American soldier who opened fire on Afghan civilians, killing at least 16 men, women and children.
Although an initial report suggests that the soldier involved in the shooting went “crazy,” that wasn’t the first thought that came to my mind. Although my reasoning may seemed a bit far fetched, consider this for a moment: the war in Afghanistan is in its final phase and is coming to an end. With the war in Iraq already brought to a successful conclusion, ending this unpopular conflict in Afghanistan would boost president Obama’s favorable ratings among a war-wary American public.
In the middle of an election year with an economy moving in the right direction and with a Republican opposition party determined to make sure this president fails, would it really be that far fetched to wonder if they are behind these random acts of violence? Is it wrong to wonder if money was exchanged to cause more tension in Afghanistan so that Republicans can say, see, we were right. We should stay in Afghanistan longer, but president Obama wants to end the war. He knows nothing about being Commander In Chief. He’s wrong and we were right.
Normally, this would not be the first thing I think about hearing about these different incidents in Afghanistan, but with the current toxic nature of our politics and with the do anything to win mentality of some in Washington, I wouldn’t put it past them to use this war as a political ploy to win an election. They are, after all… politicians. They are, after all… Republicans.
Thanks to the most recent hate episode exhibited by Rush Limbaugh against Sandra Fluke, sponsors and advertisers to right winged talk radio are starting to find their moral grounds and are pulling their ads not only from Limbaugh’s program, but from other shows considered hateful, like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity of Fox News.
Think Progress reports on an article by Radio-Info, that found 98 advertisers have decided to end their support of right winged hate.
When it comes to advertisers avoiding controversial shows, it’s not just Rush From today’s TRI Newsletter: Premiere Networks is circulating a list of 98 advertisers who want to avoid “environments likely to stir negative sentiments.” The list includes carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm) and restaurants (McDonald’s, Subway). As you’ll see in the note below, those “environments” go beyond the Rush Limbaugh show
“To all Traffic Managers: The information below applies to your Premiere Radio Networks commercial inventory...They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).’
Five months ago, Rush Limbaugh took go his radio program and continued his usual lies and misinformation about president Obama. On this particular occasion, Limbaugh blasted the president for sending 100 US Troops to Africa to search for Joseph Kony – the leader of a ruthless guerilla movement in Uganda, responsible for the kidnap and murder of hundreds of thousands of Africans.
The name of the group – Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) – and the fact that Obama was against them was enough for Limbaugh to make his decision on where he stood, and he chose Joseph Kony.
“Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them,” Limbaugh said last Oct. 14, according to a show transcript.
Limbaugh then went on to read from what he said were the group’s self-described objectives, which included “to remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people.”
“Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting,” said Limbaugh, implying that the US had taken the wrong side in the battle.
What Limbaugh did not say was that the list of LRA objectives appeared to have come straight off Wikipedia, according to a contemporaneous New York Times account. Nor did Limbaugh mention that for years the group had been widely accused of torture, murder, looting, and wanton destruction.
Perhaps the other major reason Limbaugh made this faux pas was that he was just talking too fast about stuff of which he knew little. Today over 50 million people have seen the Invisible Children video, which documents such LRA abuses as its kidnapping of children for use as soldiers. But Limbaugh’s discussion of the group occurred long before it became so well known.
In fact, as his broadcast progressed last October, Limbaugh obviously began receiving reports from listeners of the LRA’s real nature.
Near the end of the show he said, “Is that right? The Lord’s Resistance Army is being accused of really bad stuff? … Well, we just found out about this today. We’re gonna do, of course, our due diligence research on it. But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys – and they claim to be Christians.”
President Obama used his weekly address to talk about his all the above strategy for Energy independence, and he compared his plan to use air, solar, oil, wind and biofuels to that offered by the Republicans – the “drill baby drill” plan.
The president pointed out that under his administration, oil drilling is “at an eight year high,” suggesting that if drilling for fossil fuel was the answer, gas prices wouldn’t be where they are today.
And he asked congress to come together and “put aside the bumper-sticker slogans” and work together with him to move America towards a more clean and balanced energy future.
Tele-Evangelist Pat Robinson could not allow the Sandra Fluke / Rush Limbaugh controversy to go unnoticed on his television show. The minister and his special guest blessed us with some right winged knowledge, and guess whose side they took… Rush Limbaugh’s. No surprises here.
Although Mr Robinson admitted that “Rush Limbaugh got a little bit over the top on that thing,” Robinson went down the very same path Rush took. He didn’t call Ms Fluke a “slut,” but the misleading way he asked if Sandra Fluke needed $3000 for contraception implied the same thing – like Rush would say, someone who is “having too much sex” for money.
Both Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robinson are intentionally misleading their audience. Ms Fluke did not say she needed $3000 because she’s having too much sex, she spoke on the importance of contraception to women’s health as it relates to controlling ovarian cysts and other diseases, and the cost to a woman if paid out-of-pocket.
We expected Limbaugh to mislead and misinform, but why would a self-proclaimed man of God dinghies same?
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
