My friend Daniel here is high on Wisconsin Republican (former Governor and HHS Secrtary), Tommy Thompson …
Thompson has a GOP Primary contest coming up on August 14…
And Tea Party people are after him for being a bit ‘moderate on Healthcare in the past’….
“While Tommy Thompson has always been at the forefront of health care reform, he has been an aggressive, consistent and outspoken opponent of Obamacare as it harms both the quality of care while introducing 21 new taxes further burdening businesses struggling to make ends meet in an economy driven to a low point by President Obama,” Nemoir said in a statement. “Any effort to say otherwise would be a gross misrepresentation of his position.”
A Marquette Law School poll earlier this month showed the race was tightening ahead of the Aug. 14 primary, with wealthy businessman Eric Hovde closing in on Thompson, and Neumann and state Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald well behind. Thompson still had a double-digit lead over his opponents and was the only Republican candidate ahead of Rep. Tammy Baldwin, the Democrat running for the seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl.
The race has enormous implications nationally. A GOP victory in the state would give Republicans a major shot at regaining control of the Senate, which currently stands at 53-47 in favor of the Democrats.
Thompson’s tea party opponents believe that his health care stances give them an opening with GOP primary voters who detest the law. While Thompson has laid out an ambitious plan to replace the health care law, some comments he made before he became a Senate candidate are coming back to haunt him.
In 2006, he hailed the individual mandate included in the Massachusetts health care law. In 2009, he called a Democratic bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee an “important” step to expand coverage and provide “affordable, high-quality health care for all.” Eager to hear praise from a prominent Republican, Obama touted Thompson’s remarks.
The big pressing issue that is on everyone’s mind today is Chick Fil A. That is basically all that is being discussed.
Do government entities, such as politicians in Boston and Chicago have been suggesting this week, have the right to stop a business from operating, simply because they do not like a personal opinion held by the business owner? In this case, it is regarding the owner of Chick Fil A’s religious views opposing same sex marriage.
This is not at all a discrimination issue involving who the restaurant serves or hires but simply because the guy who founded the chain opposes gay marriage?
Whatever your view on the marriage issue, what these groups, and liberal politicians in Boston and Chicago have been saying this week should be quite abhorrent to anyone who claims to believe in tolerance and civil liberties.
Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chain known for putting faith ahead of profits by closing on Sundays, is standing firm in its opposition to gay marriage after touching off a furor earlier this month.
Gay rights groups have called for a boycott, the Jim Henson Co. pulled its Muppet toys from kids’ meals, and politicians in Boston and Chicago told the chain it is not welcome there.
Across the Bible Belt, where most of the 1,600 restaurants are situated, Christian conservatives have thrown their support behind the Atlanta-based company, promising to buy chicken sandwiches and waffle fries next week on “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.”
The latest skirmish in the nation’s culture wars began when Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press that the company was “guilty as charged” for backing “the biblical definition of a family.” In a later radio interview, he ratcheted up the rhetoric: “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.'”
That fired up gay rights advocates, including a group that waged a campaign against the company in recent years by publicizing $3 million in contributions that the Cathy family foundation has made to conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council….
byChris Bowers @Daily Kos…..
As the White House kicks off its national campaign to get Congress to pass modest job creation legislation, we are continuing our brainstorming sessionto develop a comprehensive list of ways the White House can create jobs and otherwise improve the national economy without any congressional action whatsoever. After all, even in the unlikely event that Congress passes meaningful legislation to create jobs, our economic crisis remains so acute that all available paths to recovery must be exhausted.So far, the Daily Kos community has submitted hundreds of ideas in the comments of our campaign kickoff post yesterday, and also through our online submission form. If you thought the executive branch had only limited options to improve the economy without Congress, you might change your mind after taking a look at what has been proposed.
Here is one idea:
Require all federal purchases down to pens and toilet seats be of products made in the USA by union labor.
There were a lot of variations on this call to buy American. Hiring American was one of them:
Any bases overseas… must have all services fulfilled by US personnel.
Another common plan was to end the wars, and then use the defense budget to spend more money in America:
Use the defense budget to pay for domestic transportation repairs, since the troops need highways and bridges. How are we going to move equipment around the country to meet defense needs if our bridges are crumbling?
It can certainly be argued that or power grid is susceptible to attack. Use the ample defense funds to upgrade our power grid with diversified solar and wind farms and a smart power distribution network.
There were also many proposals to use executive powers to expand investments into green jobs:
Use the EPA to crack down on CO2. That will get banks (sitting on $4 trillion in idle cash) to loan to utilities to invest in green jobs. Details.
Here is a particularly concrete example of what can be done to create green jobs:
Direct the federal power agencies, Bonneville and Tennessee Valley, to work with their electric utilities to develop a no-down-payment home weatherization and efficiency program with initial loan to be repaid on monthly utility bill.
One World Trade Center is rising into the NYC sky….
The ‘pools’ outlining the footprint of the orignal buildings are working….
And the construction moves on…
Within the whole 11 acre site in lower Manhattan…
As this country does indeed….
Michael Arad, designer of the Sept. 11 memorial in New York, pauses in front of the project in April. (Seth Wenig, Associated Press / April 7, 2011)
Michael Arad has taken on a lot of roles since 2004, when he beat out 5,200 others vying to design the memorial to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the site of the fallen World Trade Center. He has been the architectural wunderkind emerging from obscurity to win the coveted job. He has been the stubborn outsider battling the powerful establishment to preserve his vision. He has been the crestfallen artist on the losing side of some of those squabbles. He has been the new father rejoicing in his growing family while immersed in the sorrow of those who lost their own loved ones 10 years ago.
Now, with the memorial nearly complete, he is the anonymous man in a hard hat, kneeling in the dirt, eyeing the lines, the lettering, the carefully carved corners and the rivulets of water, noticing tiny flaws that are invisible to most but infuriating to Arad.
“I’m the drill sergeant with the white glove,” Arad says with a laugh, trying to describe his latest role in advance of the formal unveiling of the memorial this Sept. 11. The creation, called “Reflecting Absence” and dominated by waterfalls flowing into the massive squares that once held the World Trade Center’s twin towers, opens to the public the following day.
Even as crowds begin strolling across the plaza to peer into the watery voids and to run their fingers over the names of victims carved into bronze parapets, construction cranes and heavy machinery will be grinding and hammering around them…..
That seems to be a recurring theme for the US and NATO thru the years….
As this piece from the Atlantic by James Joyner points out…..
Mommar Gaddafi is gonna be out of Libya sooner or later….
When that occurs…..
What’s gonna happen?
As we see in several countries …
Replacing the bad guy running the show creates a vacuum…
That creates unrest…
Unrealistic expectations by the masses…..
And of course an oppountity by an organized opposition that often finds itself as the ONLY organized body…
All this the country has to continue running itself with with same corrupt people stealing from its population even if the head of the bad guy is gone….
So as in Iraq and Egypt….
What will happen in Libya when the time comes?
“Getting Libya back on its feet will be an unwieldy, and probably fractious, process in which many scores are settled against those who once supported the Gaddafi regime. But the problem is, of course, that much like in the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe, virtually everyone at one point or another had to deal with the regime to survive. Unless political authority can be restored quickly, the sorting out of claims will undoubtedly be a bloody affair in light of the pent-up frustration that is now being released.”
James Dorsey noted for Al Arabiya recently, “The immediate problems Libyans and the international community will have to address once Mr. Qaddafi departs are huge and so are the potential pitfalls. The problems include restoring and maintaining law and order; securing basic services such as food, water and energy; achieving international recognition of a post-Qaddafi government; resuming oil exports to ensure funding for the new government; and kick starting Libya’s stagnating economy.”
He noted, “Anticipating the need to maintain security, avoid violent revenge and retribution and ensure that a post-Qaddafi government gets off to a good start, some US commanders, including Admiral Samuel Locklear, NATO’s joint operations chief in Naples, and General Carter Ham, who runs the US military’s Africa Command, have suggested that United Nations or African Union peacekeepers would have to be inserted into Libya once Mr. Qaddafi has been removed from power.”
The parallels with Iraq are eerie. In his seminal work on that conflict, Fiasco, Thomas Ricks quotes Major Isaiah Wilson, the official Army historian of the spring 2003 invasion and later strategic planner in Iraq saying that there was “no single plan as of 1 May 2004 that described an executable approach to achieving the stated strategic endstate for war.” Joint Staff officer Gregory Gardner explained why: “Politically, we’d made a decision that we’d turn it over to the Iraqis in June” 2003. Additionally, an Army War College study found, what little planning there was for post-conflict stabilization was predicated on the unfounded assumption that “the international community would pick up the slack.”
The map at the top of the post is showing how many people are “of color” in America and where they are living. It is part of a series of maps which show the increase in the numbers and distribution of these said “people of color”.
It shows how, perhaps, non whites will be the majority in the United States by 2030. Naturally this has been blown up by various sites, and some newspapers like the British Daily Mail that really ought to know better. All are basically reworking the old “yellow peril” nonsense of yesteryear, purporting directly or just subtly to show how the white man is being bred out of “his” country. Now you see, I don’t think it shows anything of the kind. What it shows is something really very healthy in America. The falling away of racial hypocrisy.
It is called “America’s Tomorrow” from PolicyLink on Vimeo and if you click on the link here it will take you to all the maps.
America had, even when I was a boy, an appalling attitude to black people and arguably an even worse one to those who were of mixed race. Despite laws being in place which said all people are born equal, black people and those “of color” could not use the same restaurants, drink from the same taps, eat at the same restaurants or sit at the front of a bus. America still practised apartheid every bit as rabid and vile as South Africa. As for job opportunities forget it.
The map here shows the states that would not sanction mixed race marriages, which they called “miscegenation” well into the sixties. The last seventeen states (yes 17!) only relenting after being dragged kicking and screaming into the nineteenth century by Loving v Virginia 388 US1 1967. You can bet those states would do their level best to arrange statistics of mixed race peoples as advantageously as possible. Check those seventeen from this map to the top map.
Gray No Laws against mixed marriages.
Green Repealed before 1887
Yellow Repealed 1948 through 1967
Red Repealed 12 June 1967
How did you know if you were black? Well the slightest hint of a heavy tan, or curly hair was best avoided. Hair strengtheners and skin whitening creams were there for those that needed it. The “one drop rule” reigned supreme. This loathsome doctrine ascribed a black outcome to any person who had down to one sixteenth black ancestry, condemning them to sit at the back of the bus of life forever. Worst of all this rule was never some hangover of a benighted past, but was a product of the enlightened twentieth century……
Please read the first comment to this post over@ Talkandpolitics….
It is the prime example of problems we still have even with a ‘black’ mixed race President……
There are places that are not safe to go to ALL places, black, white and yellow….
Why point out just the black ones?
I touched on this briefly after the Egyptians sent Mubarak packing….
The truth is no matter how much the media hypes it up…
The United States is just a bystander in the Middle East and North Africa….
The Saudi’s know that…
They have watched American President’s come and go….
The fact is …
There is no peace ….
By Bush II beating up Iraq and Saddam Hussein …
He upset a natural balance in the region….
Most people forget that the US had been working WITH Iraq to keep their eight war going on….
Iran had no time to mess with other countries in the region with Saddam constantly probing the Iranian’s militarily….
After Iraq ceased to be a fighting force…..
Iran looked around the region and began to export instability and influence….
Then the Egyptian political thing happened and the ‘democracy’ was off to the races….
That movement was strong but not channeled…
It struck out across the Middle East and North Africa and probably scared the shit out of ever ruler….
And the Iranians of course saw a means to spread their brand like all political systems do….
America with its hands full in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and relief work in Japan has been ineffective in dealing with Iran….
Several infantile attempts at over throwing the Political system in that country have resulted in crushing lock downs on its young people….
All this while that countries leader’s pursue the ‘Nuclear Option’…..
Which the west and Israeli’s have been force to attack with computer viruses instead of direct action…
No wonder the Saudi’s have decided to combat eth influence of Iran on it’s own….
The United States constantly has this internal argument in the media on WHEN will we leave the region with our Armies , Navies and Aircraft…..
So they have stuck out on their own …
Which of course in the right thing for them to do…
It’s their butts that are on the line…..
And we shouldn’t be so worried at the linked piece below declares…
It’s about time someone else is leading the band…
We American’s are tired….
Saudi Arabia is rallying Muslim nations across the Middle East and Asia to join an informal Arab alliance against Iran, in a move some U.S. officials worry could draw other troubled nations into the sectarian tensions gripping the Arab world.
Saudi officials have approached Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and Central Asian states to lend diplomatic support—and potentially military assistance in some cases—to help stifle a majority Shiite revolt in Sunni-led Bahrain, a conflict that has become a symbol of Arab defiance against Iran.
Saudi Arabia’s efforts, though against a common enemy, signal increasing friction with the Obama administration. Its invitation to Pakistan in particular could complicate U.S. security goals in South Asia. The push also complicates U.S. efforts to guide popular uprisings in the Middle East toward a peaceful and democratic conclusion.
The chief of the Saudi National Security Council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan al Saud, asked Pakistan’s powerful generals in March to lend support for the operation in Bahrain, according to Pakistani, U.S. and Saudi officials briefed on the meetings.
Prince Bandar—who was the Saudi ambassador to Washington for more than two decades—told the Pakistani generals that the U.S. shouldn’t be counted on to restore stability across the Middle East or protect Pakistan’s interests in South Asia, these officials say.
U.S. officials working with Saudi Arabia acknowledged in recent days Riyadh’s frustration with Washington’s policies but believe the relationship can be stabilized. “They are not happy with us, and are really nervous about Iran,” said an American official. “But I don’t think they are going to go too far.”
- BDog @ PolitcalDog 101
- Breaking News
- CD @ PolitcalDog
- Chilean Earthquake
- Daniel G @ PolitcalDog
- DSD @PoliticalDog101
- Economic Data (Zeitgeist)
- Manila @ PoliticalDog
- Open thread
- Other Things
- Political Satire
- PoliticalDog Calls
- PoliticalDogs Merlin
- PoliticalDogs SE posts
- September 11
- Sneakers (Kicks)
- The Economy
- Up 4 Discussion