Is it just me, or is Tony "No, I didn't star in Psycho but I play one in real life nevertheless" Perkins looking more and more like Ross Perot, only with a better-fitting suit?
Crooks & Liars has the video of this garbage - in which non-Psycho-movie boy essentially tries to make the case that "picturesque"-ness of Ponchatoula, Louisiana trumps the establishment clause (as you can tell from the image, they also rant about the lack of taxpayer-funded christianism that will be inflicted on people who go through the new Capitol Visitors Center - though I have to admit that I kinda agree with them that Harry Reid's remark about being able to smell the tourists was dumb - even if, aromatically, it might have happened to be true.)
But, back to the fake war.
As David Neiwert observes:
I'm sure they don't want to hear this (and would pay no mind if they did), but someone should tell them that nobody cares. Really. OK, there's a platoon of elderly koolaid drinkers who do everything BillO and Dobbs get them outraged about, but they're becoming just like their heroes: Irrelevant.
The only people who might make these rants relevant are the psychologically unstable haters out there in wingnutopia who decide to "do something about it" by acting out violently. Though no doubt, Dobbs will somehow find a way to blame illegal immigrants or liberals for that too.
That quote comes from Lou-O:
Dobbs: I've got to say -- it's an outrage, it's an outrage.
... Somebody needs to do something about it, I've gotta tell you.
... People have just got to wake up to what's happening in this country.
Uh...Lou? That's what we did on November 4th.
Majorities of Latinos, voters without a college degree, and those age 55 and older also backed the measure, which passed by a 4-point margin (52% yes, 48% no).In a history-making presidential election that energized voters, California's 12 state ballot propositions generated high interest as well. Eight in 10 voters (81%) report that they followed news about the measures at least fairly closely, and a solid majority (63%) say they were most interested in Proposition 8. The survey, which polled 2,003 voters from November 5-16, finds these differences between Proposition 8 supporters and opponents:
* Evangelical or born-again Christians (85%) were far more likely than others (42%) to vote yes.
* Three in four Republicans (77%) voted yes, two in three Democrats (65%) voted no, and independents were more closely divided (52% yes, 48% no).
* Supporters of Republican presidential candidate John McCain were far more likely than those who backed President-elect Barack Obama to vote yes (85% vs. 30%).
* Latinos (61%) were more likely than whites (50%) to vote yes; and 57 percent of Latinos, Asians, and blacks combined voted yes. (Samples sizes for Asians and blacks are too small to report separately.)
* Voters without a college degree (62%) were far more likely than college graduates (43%) to vote yes.
* While most voters (65%) consider the outcome of Proposition 8 to be very important, the measure's supporters (74%) are far more likely than those who voted no (59%) to view the outcome as very important.When voters are asked the separate question of whether they favor or oppose same-sex marriage, they are divided, with 47 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed, and 5 percent unsure-a result consistent with responses in the October PPIC pre-election survey.
"In our surveys, Californians have been closely divided on the issue of same-sex marriage for the last three years," says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president, CEO, and survey director. "Proposition 8 had highly motivated supporters and a well-funded campaign, and in the end, they prevailed."
The reason that voters most frequently cite in voting for Proposition 8 is that marriage between only a man and a woman should be recognized (63%); 16 percent mention religious objections. Most Californians who voted no (70%) say they did so because same-sex couples should be given the freedoms and rights guaranteed to everyone.
Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli promised that his company, recipient of a previous government-subsidized rescue loan in the 1970s that it repaid, would repay taxpayers by 2012 and would devote itself to manufacturing "fuel-efficient cars and trucks that people want to buy."This whole too-big-to-fail matter is getting tiring as it is frustrating. Of course something needs to be done for Big Auto, but when does it stop? How many industries will be deemed critical to the nation's economy -- and how many will be allowed to fail? After all, the GOP has long been the champion of the small business owner, to get the government off their backs -- well here's the flip side. Uncle Sam is off of the back of small business, and giving them a kick to the groin. No one is going to save Joe's Pizza when it goes under, while banking and auto execs get to keep their jobs and spend money given to them that we may never see again. There will be thousands of homeowners who will go under and lose their homes because they will not meet the criteria set by the government. They aren't too big to fail.Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the panel, complained that the pricetag on the package had jumped since the trio last appeared just two weeks ago. He pressed the automakers to explain why, and to justify how such aid would not simply "prop up a failed business model for a few months ... and how are you going to pay it back to the taxpayers?"
Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., supports helping the industry, but said that detailed plans submitted earlier this week on how the companies would use low-cost federal loans to reorganize still left a lot of questions unanswered. But Dodd also said that doing nothing "plays Russian roulette with the entire economy of the United States."
Several lawmakers in both parties, including Dodd, have pressed the automakers in recent days to consider a so-called "pre-packaged" bankruptcy in which they would negotiate with creditors in advance and downsize, then file for Chapter 11 protection in hopes of emerging quickly as stronger companies. The Big Three have publicly shunned the notion, but executives have indicated in recent days that it might ultimately be necessary.
GM's survival plan envisions an administration-led restructuring overseen by a government oversight board.
I was listening to a discussion about that on NPR the other day, and the expert on there said that "pre-packaged" bankruptcy is attractive (to the auto companies) in some respects because it would allow them to nullify contracts with current and former employees who are on pensions.
How do they get out of the mess they created?
Subscribe to Reader feed
Subscribe to daily Email
No comments:
Post a Comment