FactCheck.org FAILS Bachmann (AGAIN)

Bachmann doesn't do well when up against any of the fact checking entities; she has done particularly poorly with passing the scrutiny of politifact.com; but this week Bachmann fails to pass the scrutiny of FactCheck.org, a project of the Anneberg Public Policy Center.  Michele Bachmann, a true Minnesota LOON.

from the latest emailed update of factcheck.org:

FactChecking Bachmann


June 16, 2011

We are periodically taking a look at past claims from the 2012 presidential candidates. Today's topic: Michele Bachmann.

The Republican representative from Minnesota announced during this week's debate that she was running for the nation's highest office. Several claims from Bachmann have appeared on our site before, including:

■Earlier this year, Bachmann falsely claimed that $105 billion in spending was "hidden" in the federal health care law and that this was done "secretly, unbeknownst to members of Congress." But Congress had debated several items Bachmann referred to as "hidden," such as $40 billion to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program for two years, $11 billion for community health centers and $5 billion to set up high-risk insurance pools.

■In March, she wrongly said that the Obama administration had only issued one new oil drilling permit since the president took office. The real number was 276, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement’s online database, as of the day of Bachmann's speech. It's now 296.

■In a response speech to Tea Party Express activists after this year's State of the Union address, Bachmann said the bailout, or Troubled Asset Relief Program, signed into law by President George W. Bush, had cost taxpayers $700 billion. Actually, the net cost at the time was $25 billion. The Congressional Budget Office has since updated its estimate to $19 billion.

■Last year, Bachmann made the greatly exaggerated claim that "now we have the federal government … taking over ownership or control of 51 percent of the American economy." But total government expenditures were 20.6 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. You have to go back to 1944 to find a time when government spending was close to 50 percent of GDP.

■She twisted a report on Medicaid recipients and abortion into a bogus statistic when talking about the potential impact of the federal health care law on abortions. She said that "if there is taxpayer funding of abortion, there will be 30 percent more abortions." That would be about 360,000 more abortions each year. But the congresswoman was actually referring to an unrelated report from the Guttmacher Institute that said if Medicaid provided coverage for all abortions, there would be a 28 percent increase in the number of abortions among Medicaid beneficiaries in states that don't already pay for abortions beyond what federal law allows. Besides, the health care law doesn't change Medicaid rules on abortion funding.

■Bachmann also has done her fair share of spreading false Internet-fueled rumors, like the off-base claim that Rep. Nancy Pelosi ran up a $100,000 "bar tab for alcohol" on congressional trips, and the highly doubtful assertion that Obama's trip to India last year cost $200 million per day. On the president's trip, Bachmann told CNN's Anderson Cooper that "these are the numbers that have been coming out in the press," but the unsupported figure came from one India news report based on an anonymous "top official" in Mumbai. She also was wrong when she said in June 2009 that the community group ACORN "will be in charge of going door-to-door and collecting data from the American public" as part of the census. ACORN was just one of more than 30,000 "partners" the Census Bureau had recruited to help publicize the 2010 census to encourage participation.

See our previous posts on claims by President Barack Obama and Republican candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum.

– Lori Robertson

Counties Finally Paid......But What Does This Say About Our Recount System?

by Dog Gone

I read about Tom Emmer paying off the debt for his part of the recount expenses from December 2010.

I applaud Tom Emmer for stepping up and paying off the counties that have been waiting, and waiting, and waiting.  It has been more than six months 20 counties have gone unpaid.

But to be fair and objective, it is not as if Emmer was using his own money, and it is not as if this unpaid debt has been a big secret either. It has been well publicized.  Candidate Emmer should have cared enough about the recount on his behalf to have followed up on this long before when it became obvious that Tony Sutton was either indifferent or inadequate to resolving the problem (including apparently NOT talking to Emmer). Better late than never is not the same as good, it is only an improvement on bad and worse. 

Emmer and his organization caused those expenses to be far worse than they needed to be by making bogus ballot challenges.  They were aggressive in pressuring those counties to toe their time line, while the Emmer campaign and the GOP and their recount entity have NOT been similarly time conscientious.  They have employed an offensive and hypocritical double standard while claiming to stand for fiscal responsibility.

Counties left holding the Emmer campaign recount bag have considered demanding payment up front in future.  I don't think that is the answer. 

Fair and accurate recounts where appropriate is something that is important to all of us, not just the candidates.  We have seen, in the recent Wisconsin recount, just how less efficiently, how costly, and probably how inaccurately a recount CAN be conducted.

In view of the recent recount history from the last two election cycles, we would be wise to require all parties involved to post a bond prior to demanding a recount other than the recounts mandated by our current election law.  That would require a fraction of the full costs of the recounts to be posted.  It would save the counties from suffering from the lack of commitment to their responsibilities that were demonstrated by the GOP this time around.  Let the payment of money be between the political parties that seek an optional recount and the provider of their bond, rather than the counties.

That would reduce the problem to a simpler equation, by making the transaction between fewer parties. County governments and county taxpayers - the 'we the people' who get so much lip service and so little REAL service from the right - would not end up being the victim next time of these political private choices.  We need to perform recounts; Minnesota sets examples of how to do so that are highly regarded in election law.

Lets do more than we do now.  Lets make sure that there is a funding mechanism that doesn't penalize the smaller, more local levels of government, the very ones that did an excellent job of performing the recount, at the whim of political parties.  God only knows what harm the transfer of state costs to these county units are going to do the next time we need to do a recount.  They may very well NOT be able to perform a recount as well next time because of the prohibitive costs and the risks of being left on the hook for them.

So, lets prepare for that eventuality now.

John Boehner Sex Scandal? Will HE Resign too?

So we have had any number of sleazy, hypocritical Republican congressman who claimed family values for themselves, while behaving privately in ways as bad or worse than those they publicly condemned across the aisle. You never saw John Boehner or Eric Cantor or Mitch McConnell, or any of the others who have been howling for Weiner to resign calling for the resignation over the more serious misconduct of their political colleagues on the right.

Here is John Boehner demanding that Congressman Weiner resign for essentially talking dirty and sending naughty photos of himself - which was, I fully admit a bad thing. But Weiner simply talked and sent pictures; he did not meet the women to whom he sent the tweets, sexting messages, or photos, or engage in sex with anyone other than his wife.

There are rumors now that there is a similar scandal, a more serious scandal that is going to hit the news, or so the word is from the National Enquirer. I wouldn't ordinarily consider the Enquirer a news source, except that they DID break the story on John Edwards. So this scandal IS a very real possibility, and this is not the first I have heard these rumors. I only call our readers' attention to them NOW so that they can keep in the front of their attention the behavior on the right about Weiner, IF and/or when this story does officially break about a Boehner infidelities.  Mrs. Boehner neither confirms or denies the accusation.  I have to admit that the absence of a denial from either Mrs. Boehner or the women seems.....curious.

This story was hot back in freezing February.  I wonder if or when something new might occur?   And if it does.......will Boehner and the Republicans be hypocrites, or act as they speak? 

I have long been critical of the special interest money that Boehner takes, including his handing out checks from the Tobacco industry on the floor of the house for what could be argued are payoffs to politicians for voting favorably for an industry in return.  So, while I hope to be pleasantly surprised, I'm not holding my breath that Boehner or his colleagues will behave as ethically as they demand from others.  Want to bet there will be a double standard in play? No?

The real life soap opera that is politics; make a bowl of popcorn, sit back and watch the fireworks explode.

from EdSteinInk

Ed Stein achieves his usual genius.  Obama comes off the winner without even having to attend.
(thank you, Ed!)

Anthony Weiner resigns

By Penigma.

As my co-blogger DogGone writes, today NY-D House Rep Anthony Weiner will resign after attempting to "outlive" a scandal which pointed to his lack of fitness to hold the office. He was unfit because he clearly used his power and influence as a seductive tool, both in deluding himself and in offering the "mystique" of being around powerful people to his sexual conquests. He also proved himself unfit by trying to "ride this out" and further giving evidence of his enormous hubris. He embarrassed his office, his supporters and himself not just with his initial conduct, but with crass attitude about recognizing what his responsibilities were now.

Unlike DG, and I do not say this as a criticism, just a difference. I do not condition this condemnation upon any words which hint at "yes, but you do it too." Too often my conservative friends don't care about very reprehensible conduct of their politicians or leaders, but that doesn't matter to me, nor do I think it matters to DG. Clarence Thomas long ago proved his ethical lapses are frequent and myriad. I hold no illusion he will change. His conduct has nothing to do with that of Anthony Wiener's, even tangentially or in contrast. Anthony Wiener did the wrong thing (many times), got caught (which doesn't make what he did MORE or less wrong), and should have immediately stepped down for his own health and that of his family. He should leave public life until his egoism is in better check.

Breaking News - Weiner Resigns, Will Justice Clarence Thomas Do the Same?

from:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/anthony_weiner_18.php

​The Times reports that Weiner "came to the conclusion that he could no longer serve after having long discussions with his wife, Huma Abedin," who had returned on Tuesday night after traveling on a global diplomacy mission with Hillary Clinton. (Abedin is reportedly pregnant.)

Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, among others, had both urged Weiner to step down, with Pelosi telling reporters she would "strip Mr. Weiner of his committee assignments if he did not leave."

House ethics committee investigations over Weiner's conduct are likely to end with his decision to resign, since he would no longer be a member of Congress.

Already rumors are circulating that Weiner could run for election in the next election cycle, aftre he has remediated his image and resolved his personal problems.  My sympathy to his pregnant wife, and sincere hopes that the Congressman resolves his destructive personal problems and improves his emotional IQ so as to make healthier choices in the future.  If he does that, there is quite a lot of good that he can do.

We can only hope that resignation or not, that Weiner continues to pursue the issues surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and his alleged profiting from the Citizens United decisions.  There remains a great deal of good that Weiner can do despite his scandal.  I wonder if Thomas will have the grace to resign that Weiner has shown?  I'm guessing NOT.

http://www.truthout.org/judicial-insider-trading-justice-clarence-thomas-and-wife-ginni/1307895791

Affinity Scam, part 8: Chris Pettengill Makes a Plea-Bargain Deal by Rolling Over on His Partners

In July of 2009, two too-long years ago, Dan Browning of the Star Tribune broke the story about an Affinity Scam involving Trevor Cook, currently in federal prison for a very long sentence.

What interested Pen and I was that the Affinity Scam scandal also implicated Gerald Durand and Christopher Pettengill, who were sponsoring the David Strom show on WWTC 1280 A.M. radio (known as the Patriot) from January 2009 into September 2009.   In conjunction with the show, Durand and Pettengill, along with Strom, were promoting what the FBI characterized as scam investment seminars, despite the clear indications in July 2009 that there were serious issues with the status and integrity of these two individuals.  Clearly by participating in these seminars as the person who introduced them, and using his show to promote and advertise them, along with his website on the WWTC internet site, the radio station and David Strom gave credence and respectability to these two men and to their seminars as safe, as legitimate, and as reputable and expert.

That, effectively, was what Pettengill and Durand were 'buying' from Strom and the Salem network: respectability they did not deserve, and the use of that reputation to persuade the Strom/Salem target largely right wing audience to part with their money.  The shows clearly demonstrated the right wing efforts to create fear regarding the economy, and the image of expertise in order to generate interest in the seminars.  While slightly more subtle, they followed the same sort of fear-inducement that characterized the Pat Kiley radio shows used in the earlier Cook/Beckman/Pettengill/Durand investment sales, and the earlier Durand/Pettengill shows called Wealth Management, on Salem sister station KYCR.

In fact, David Strom doesn't appear to know anything about the financial services and investment sector, or economics generally, much less the expertise of someone in that business.  The attitude Strom expressed to Pen, Dan Browning and I about this appearance of endorsing the expertise of Pettengill and Durand, and the legitimacy of their seminars was 'caveat emptor', if these people get ripped off, too bad for them so long as he and the station made a buck.  Yet the usual pro forma disclaimers that would warn listeners were frequently absent from the Strom show as was the usual requisite statement that this was air time purchased like an infomercial rather than part of the Salem programming.

Further, the Strom show represented that it was sponsored not by Durand and Pettengill, but by a non-functional, non-profit educational organization, despite both Pen and I calling the attention of the station and David Strom to this not being a legitimate entity but rather seemed to appear to be a similarly named prestigious educational non-profit - another attempt to give an appearance of undeserved legitimacy to the show, to Pettengill and Durand, and to the questionable seminars they pimped. The use of sounds-alike names similar to legitimate entities was part of the deceptive pattern used by Cook and his colleagues, including Pettengill and Durand.

In fact, the FBI is investigating the transfer of $30,000 a month to Durand and Pettengill, while those two men were allegedly using either that money, or co mingled funds, to pay for the radio show and seminars. Instead of investigating, or ending their association, Salem Communications, and Strom, Durand and Pettengill would hang up on anyone who called during the Strom radio program with a question about their credentials or their investment schemes, past or current.

On his first show after separating from Durand and Pettengill, Strom joked that he needed a sponsor who could pay $10,000 a week to pay for his show.  Perhaps coincidentally, the purported monthly figure for  radio time paid by Bradlee Dean, of recent prayer scandal fame, who has also left the Salem network, was quoted at $39,000 a month; a very similar fee for approximately the same amount of radio time.  Dean had a later two hour time slot on Saturdays, a few hours after Strom's two hour program.

I find this attitude highly unethical.  It is even more reprehensible that Strom, who claims not to have researched either the credentials or the companies associated with Pettengill and Durand, or the validity of the fake non-profit, would become the Tom Emmer Research Director for Emmer's 2010 Governor's campaign.  Because clearly, Strom doesn't do the research that he should.

However, I find that attitude that anything which puts money in their pockets, no matter who it hurts or how shady, is acceptable to be consistent with the right wing efforts to gut consumer protections, to deregulate and defund the enforcement that would prevent fraud, and to allow and condone risky practices that harm less-sophisticated investors and even occasionally the more sophisticated investors.

I have tremendous sympathy for those investors who were presented with fake documentation, who were profoundly harmed, by Pettengill and Durand, either during the Cook scam, or subsequent activity.  According to the FBI agent's affidavit which accompanied the Durand search warrant, the FBI investigation was targeting not only the earlier Trevor Cook/ Pat Kiley/ Bo Beckman/ Chris Pettengill/ Gerald Durand scam that hit the news in July 2009, but the subsequent alleged investment scam activity of Pettengill and Durand into 2011.  It also appears, from our sources, that there will be a claw back action to recover the money from the Cook/Kiley et al Affinity Scam that appears to have gone directly from Trevor Cook into the pockets of Durand and Pettengill up until July of 2009, money which appears to have paid for at least in part the David Strom show and the seminars.

For more background, please read the Dan Browning Trevor Cook/Pat Kiley Affinity Scam series at the Star Tribune, and the 10 earlier segments of this and related series on Penigma.  The most recent Browning story is here.

"He [Pettengill] faces up to 10 years in prison on the money laundering charge and five years each on the securities fraud and conspiracy charges."

Those possible sentences are just for the Affinity Scam with Cook; the affidavit from the FBI agent for the warrant addressed alleged scams by Pettengill as co-defendant #1 and Durand continuing through the early part of 2011.

I would like to take a moment here to commend the fair and accurate investigative reporting of Dan for having kept this scam on the front burner at a time when too many cases of fraud have had to compete for the too few prosecutorial resources.

I can only say that I am pleased that after far too long, finally Chris Pettengill is going to be behind bars along with scam scumbag Trevor Cook.  I look forward to seeing some future action that holds Gerald Durand and Bo Beckman accountable for his conduct, and to seeing the defrauded investors get back whatever money may be recoverable.

Nutty Gingrich Loses Support

Mr. Super-Pseudo-Patriot, my love of country made me cheat on my wife Gingrich, who was calling for the resignation of President Clinton while he himself was having a more sexual affair, cheating on his first wife while she was recovering from cancer, and subsequently cheating on his second wife while promoting himself as a family values candidate, has rats leaving his sinking ship.

Newt Gingrich campaign manager and senior aides resign in jolt to presidential bid


Article by: DAVID ESPO , Associated PressWASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's campaign manager, senior strategists and key aides in early delegate-selection states all resigned on Thursday, a mass exodus that leaves his hopes of winning the Republican nomination in tatters. 

Rick Tyler, Gingrich's spokesman, said he, campaign manager Rob Johnson and senior strategists had resigned, along with aides in the early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Other officials said Gingrich was informed that his entire high command was quitting in a meeting earlier in the day. They cited differences over the direction of the campaign but were not more specific.

The officials declined to be identified by name, saying they were not authorized to discuss private conversations.
Gingrich told the group he intends to stay in the race, they added.

An Open Letter to Anthony Weiner and Men Everywhere

Dear Congressman Weiner and Men Everywhere,
from Dog gone:

On behalf of the women of the world, we really do not want to see pictures of your penis, not realistic photos, and certainly not photo shopped ones.  It doesn't matter if you have some shred of subtlety left in your soul, and only snap a shot in your shorts, or if you take the picture naked.

It isn't really all that exciting for anyone but yourself.  Unlike the display of an unfurled tail of a peacock, it is not particularly pretty, and it is never as impressive as you think it is.

It's not just you, Congressman; this is the age of 'sexting', it is widespread.  When my friend Amy was recently divorced, even before the divorce was final, her ex-husband's friends were sending her pictures of that part of themselves.  Not just one or two, but many of them - and these were her husband's FRIENDS.

The fact is, that with the possible exception of these guys unless you can be as witty, entertaining, and funny, when next you get the urge, unless you've been specifically requested to do so --- just don't.

Just DON'T. 

A good rule to remember? If it wouldn't be fun to look at with a bowl of popcorn, if it isn't something - like the penis puppeteers have done - to show off to your mothers while performing on a stage, DON'T DO IT.

I'm not a prude. It has nothing to do with prudery, and everything to do with how differently we see you from how you see yourselves. Your wives or girlfriends will thank you for not embarrassing yourselves and them.  The painful truth is, when we women get together and talk among ourselves, we laugh at you and talk about sex toys that are more satisfying alternatives, however much we love you (and we do love our husbands or partners).  We also tend to laugh at all the boner pill ads, to be fair. 

You might want to rethink giving your 'bits' pet names too; those tend to come in for a share of the laughter.

So whether you are a Congressman, or just the pool boy or the pizza delivery guy, whether you are rich and famous, or politically powerful, or a failure living in your parent's basement, whether you know us or whether we are strangers, please, not by twitter, not by email. not by any other means do NOT send us photos of your penis. 

PLEASE.

We'll be happier, and you'll have a lot fewer embarrassed apologies to make.

P.S.  We're really not all that thrilled about unsolicited photos of your other body parts either.

John Edwards (and now Anthony Wiener)

One of the characters we judge ourselves and those with whom we interact by is the ability to acknowledge our own (or their own) failings. Without such acknowledgements others find us (and we them) to be arrogant, deaf to criticism, and normally unable to comprimise because they fail to be able to grasp the comparatives to their own conduct, which in others they complain about, but seem unable/unwilling to see themselves doing.

I supported John Edwards for President. I didn't give him money, but I spoke (out) on his behalf. He seemed, unlike most of his peers, to understand the plight of working class Americans who see their jobs off-shored/outsourced, their health care costs run amok, and their pay languish. He seemed to understand that the issue wasn't a lack of corporate profits (which were high and higher), but rather a lack of decent pay.

Nothing he stood for though, excused his apparent/alleged conduct with contributor cash. Even if he didn't violate the letter of the law, he absolutely violated the spirit of the law assuming the allegations are true that he used cash as payoff money to keep people quiet about his affair with a campaign aid.

Equally, nothing excuses taking advantage of your powerful relationship to woo an impressionable young staffer.
Nothing excuses having an affair, and continuing to do so, when your wife is dying of bone cancer. All of us have libidos, but all of us must put our personal desires aside for the benefit of our children and the people we promised to love until death parted us, who is in the fight of her life to stick around for those children.

I, without reservation, condemn and repudiate John Edwards for his conduct. It was immoral, it was wrong, it was disgusting and his fall from grace was of his own making and entirely deserved.

Ditto for Anthony Wiener. While Rep. Wiener's original sins were private (and frankly I couldn't give a darn about him sending pictures to Mother Theresa or the unwed mother of his undisclosed out of wedlock kids, I don't care). But he walked up in front of his constituents and nakedly lied. While not the death-knell of Sen. Edwards alleged conduct of paying people off to keep them quiet, it was horrible behavior. Rep Wiener, you should resign, not just because you've humiliated your office, but also because you've made a career of self-serving grandstanding, shunning the hard work. Clearly you are an egoist, perhaps it's time to go ground yourself for a while.

One of my personal complaints about conservative America is that they are nearly universally unwilling to acknowldege flaw or failing. In President Bush, at first they had a tin-ear about Iraq and the failures there, then it was about the mailaise plaguing the nation's economy, then they said that the downturn in 2007 and into 2008 was merely "a cycle", then, after 9/15/2008, it was blame regulation. and so on. It seems far too often they take a tack that they attack attack attack, but never accept accountability or responsibility or hold their own politicians accountable for bad concduct.

One of the chief differences I see between the parties (and there are scant few), is that normally Democrats will shun and condemn abhorant conduct. I certainly condemn the conduct of John Edwards and Anthony Wiener. To put lie to a false claim that Democrats don't condemn their own party member's bad conduct, let me repeat that. John Edwards, if he used campaign funds illegally, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. His alleged conduct, if true, emperils our electoral integrity. Either way, both he and Wiener deserve the repudiation of their party.

It would warm my heart to hear Republicans condemn Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh or David Vitter, but my condemnation of Edwards isn't predicated or dependent on it, and in fact I'm, fine if it stands starkly alone.

Pecksniffian, the Dictionary.com Word of the Day and Congressman Weiner's Scandal

Because this is something I couldn't make up.

Word of the Day for Monday, June 6, 2011

pecksniffian \pek-SNIF-ee-uhn\, adjective:

Hypocritically and smugly affecting benevolence or high moral principles.
Quotes:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-june-3-2011/recap---week-of-5-31-11?xrs=share_copy


With such departing words, did this strong minded female paralyze the Pecksniffian energies; and so she swept out of the room, and out of the house, attended her daughters, who, as with one accord, elevated their three noses in the air, and joined in a contemptuous titter.

-- Charles Dickens, Martin Chuzzlewit, Volume 1

The men who do things in the world, the men worthy of admiration and imitation, are men constitutionally incapable of any such pecksniffian stupidity.

-- H. L. Mencken, Damn! A Book of Calumny

Origin:

Pecksniffian is named after Seth Pecksniff, a character in "Martin Chuzzlewit, a novel" (1843), by Charles Dickens.


When one learns a new word, it is important to use it, promptly,  in a sentence:

Andrew Breitbart and the entire Right that has been trying to create a story out of this joke are utterly PECKSNIFFIAN bastards.
 
(sorry, I had trouble getting the actual video to load for some reason from the Comedy Central web site.)

WI GAB Recall Petition Consideration, Extension Granted

from the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board

Recall StatusUpdate: Extension Granted, Elections Proceed.Date: June 3, 2011

MADISON, WI – Dane County Circuit Court Judge John W. Markson today granted the Government Accountability Board’s request for an extension of time to consider recall petitions against three state senators. The effect of this is that the Board will comply with the judge’s original order and move forward with recall elections on July 12 for six state senators whose petitions have already been considered.

Originally, Judge Markson had ordered the Board to complete its review and certification of recall petitions by today. However, the Board and its staff did not have enough time to consider the petitions against three senators: Senator Jim Holperin, District 12; Senator Robert Wirch, District 22; and Senator Dave Hansen, District 30.

“We appreciate Judge Markson’s recognition of the reasonableness of the approach the Board and its staff have taken to the enormous workload of reviewing more than 200,000 signatures and to evaluate hundreds of pages of petition challenges and rebuttals in a relatively short window of time,” said Kevin J. Kennedy, director and general counsel of the G.A.B.

“While holding all the recall elections on the same date may be desirable from an election administration standpoint, the Board always anticipated that not all of the recall elections would be held on the same date because of the way Wisconsin’s recall law is written,” Kennedy said. “Both parties are making political calculations about the timing of elections, and that is not something our non-partisan Board should do. The judge noted the impracticality of trying to set a single date for all the recall elections, given the likelihood of primaries and further court challenges by individual state senators.”

Judge Markson let stand his original order of April 29 for the G.A.B. to issue certificates of sufficiency by today for the recall petitions against six Republican State Senators: Senator Dan Kapanke, District 32; Senator Randy Hopper, District 18; Senator Luther Olsen, District 14; Senator Sheila Harsdorf, District 10; Senator Robert Cowles, District 2; and Senator Alberta Darling, District 8. The Board considered those petitions at its meetings May 23 and 31.

Senators Kapanke, Hopper and Olsen have filed appeals of the Board's decision to certify the recalls in separate filings in Dane County Circuit Court, which have not yet been considered by the court. While it is possible that the date for those elections may be delayed by that litigation, candidates and election officials should proceed to schedule and prepare for the July 12 election until further notice.

The Board will meet on Wednesday, June 8, 2011, to consider the remaining three petitions. Any of the three petitions ruled to be sufficient will result in elections being scheduled for July 19, 2011.

Information about the recall process, including petitions, challenges and certificates of sufficiency, is available on the Board’s website: http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/recall.

Republican Spending, Disaster Aid and the Debt Ceiling

from Factcheck.org (see post below):

"Even if we look at the total outstanding debt, which includes money the government owes to itself, Obama hasn't accumulated more debt than all other presidents. Total outstanding debt was $10.6 trillion when the president was sworn in; it has increased by $3.7 trillion to $14.3 trillion."

How many times was it the Republicans raised the debt ceiling again under President Bush? Five times the ceiling was raised, with nineteen times many of the current leadership, including Eric Cantor and John Boehner and Mitch McConnell voted to do so.  That resulted in five times over the 8 years of the Bush Administration that the debt ceiling was raised, after the Bush administration started with a SURPLUS from Clinton's administration.  Republicans, particularly Bush, campaigned on paying off the debt in 10 years.
Instead:  June 2002 - a $450 Billion increase; May 2003 - a $900 Billion increase; November 2004 - $800 Billion increase; March 2006 - $781 Billion increase; September 2007 - $850 Billion increase.
NINETEEN TIMES they voted to raise the debt ceiling!!

"But while the four Republicans in Congressional leadership positions are attempting to hold the increase hostage now, they combined to vote for a debt limit increase 19 times during the presidency of George W. Bush. In doing so, they increased the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion."

Hypocrite Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

These would be the same Republicans, particularly Eric Cantor (and John Boehner), who, in the words of Wikipedia:

"In October 2008, Cantor advocated and voted for the TARP program which aided distressed banks.[29]"

Not surprsingly, Cantor was a campaign contribution recipient of donations from Citigroup, which benefitted from the TARP bailout.

Of course, Cantor who now will only approve aid for the Joplin, Missouri Tornado Disaster relief under the Obama Administration was a big supporter for Hurricane Katrina Relief for the gulf.........and was alleged to have received extensive campaign contributions from companies where FEMA services were privatized, including Dewberry in his home state of Virginia.

Perhaps the good people in Joplin, Missouri suffering from the Tornado Disaster, for whom Cantor and other Republicans won't vote aid, ( unless it is taken from the pockets of other people who are suffering, but never the wealthy or corporations who are their donors and who receive generous tax cuts and subsidies) should have realized that if they didn't bribe the Republicans with campaign donations they shouldn't expect to benefit from government funds?

The 2010 elections were really more of an auction than anything else, with the GOP looting government not to make it smaller, but to benefit their campaign donors at the expense of the citizens of the United States who are disaster victims.

Follow the money; it won't be going into the pockets of average Americans harmed by natural disasters.  But it does tend to go to corporations and a very few very wealthy people.  Follow the money; it goes to politicians and their campaigns.  Shame on the GOP.

Factcheck.org Busts Palin for Lying about Obama, and the National Debt, and Oil Imports

Palin Whoppers on Debt, Oil Imports


June 1, 2011

Sarah Palin made two wildly inaccurate claims on the debt accumulated under President Obama and oil imports. She wrongly said that the debt had grown more under Obama than "all those other presidents combined." She also was way off when she claimed that the U.S. is going to spend "$8 billion a day" on oil imports this year and next year to make up for declining oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. The actual amount is less than $20 million a day.

Wrong on the Debt
The former Alaska governor granted an interview to Fox News' Greta Van Susteren from her tour bus. She said about the debt:
Palin, May 31: Look at the debt that has been accumulated in the last two years. It's more debt under this president than all those other presidents combined.

The public debt on Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama took office was $6.3 trillion. So "all those other presidents combined" were responsible for $6.3 trillion in debt. Under Obama, it has grown by $3.4 trillion to $9.7 trillion, as of May 27, the most recent figures available. The debt is certainly a major issue these days — Democrats and Republicans are still wrangling over spending and the debt ceiling. But Palin is off by several trillion dollars.

Even if we look at the total outstanding debt, which includes money the government owes to itself, Obama hasn't accumulated more debt than all other presidents. Total outstanding debt was $10.6 trillion when the president was sworn in; it has increased by $3.7 trillion to $14.3 trillion.

Palin isn't the first Republican to make more of debt accumulation under Obama than the facts warrant. Two years ago, Sen. Jon Kyl made a claim similar to Palin's, saying that Obama's "budget adds more debt to our country’s future than all of the debt from 1789 when George Washington was president right up through Franklin Roosevelt and – and Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush." Wrong. The budget projected at that time showed the debt nearly doubling in 10 years. Even if the budget played out as envisioned then, the debt growth wouldn't have been particularly historic. The debt nearly doubled under Bush and nearly tripled under Reagan.
Wrong on Oil Imports

Palin also was wrong when she said that the U.S. is going to spend "$8 billion a day" on oil imports this year and next year to make up for declining oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. She's not even close. It is more like $13 million a day in 2011 and $19 million a day in 2012 — assuming oil remains at the $100-per-barrel level.

Mitch Berg Fails Another Fact Check: Endemic Intellectual Dishonesty on the Right

I'm writing this because I'm annoyed, out of patience completely with the rampant intellectual dishonesty on the right.  It is a pattern, an unacceptable pattern, one which beggars any hope of honesty or progress.

Let me hasten to add that this, clearly, is not true of all conservatives; but it IS true of an appallingly large segment of the right wing politicos, and the right-wing media, including the right wing-nut blogosphere.

So to a degree, my friend Mitch is being made the whipping boy, the example, for what is a far larger offense beyond his own responsibility; but it is not completely unfair either, because Mitch also does this regularly.

This morning, Mitch wrote:

Limousine LiberalsBy Mitch Berg

Number of federally-owned limousines  Limous soars on Obama’s watch;

Limousines, the very symbol of wealth and excess, are usually the domain of corporate executives and the rich. But the number of limos owned by Uncle Sam increased by 73 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration, according to an analysis of records by iWatch New. .

In related news; Strib still biased.

So, I followed Mitch's link to the iWatch News, the source of the claims that the Obama administration is indulging in wealth and excess. The purchasing limousines claim is completely debunked, not supported, by Mitch's OWN SOURCE. 

The very site that he links to in order to make his claim says the exact opposite of what he wrote:

State Department dominates the limo count, says purchases reflect need to protect diplomats and foreign visitors in a dangerous world (caption to photo OVER headline)

Most of the increase was recorded in Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

According to General Services Administration data , the number of limousines in the federal fleet increased from 238 in fiscal 2008, the last year of the George W. Bush administration, to 412 in 2010. Much of the 73 percent increase—111 of the 174 additional limos—took place in fiscal 2009, more than eight months of which corresponded with Obama’s first year in office. However, some of those purchases could reflect requests made by the Bush administration during an appropriations process that would have begun in the spring of 2008.

The GSA said its limousine numbers are not reliable, even though the federal fleet numbers are officially recorded every year. In a statement, GSA spokeswoman Sara Merriam said, “The categories in the Fleet Report are overly broad, and the term 'limousine' is not defined,” adding that “vehicles represented as limousines can range from protective duty vehicles to sedans.” Asked whether the GSA actually knows how many limos it has in its fleet, Merriam responded that GSA “cannot say that its report accurately reflects the number of limousines.”

So, apparently, the limos that Mitch refers to aren't really limos; they're not luxury vehicles, they are sedans and vehicles for protective duty. 

And there aren't really as many of them as claimed; it is apparently a clerical category. 

And they weren't all purchased under the Obama administration, an unknown number appear to be from the Bush administration.

Republicans and Elections: Alleged Fraud & Irregularities in WI, and Political Hypocrisy

It is an unshakable belief, a tenet of faith in conservative ideology that democrats (and other 'evil' liberals) have been stealing elections.  It was the pretext for attacking ACORN.  It is the pretext for the Republican promotion of voter ID.

So I cannot help but be by turns outraged and entertained as the evidence of fraud in connection with upcoming recall elections unravels in neighboring Wisconsin.

We have the allegation of voter fraud against one of the GOP staffers of the author of the WI Voter ID legislation, which you can read about here.

And we have all the irregularities that turned up in the State Supreme Court election, including the absentee ballot problems by nuns which you can read about here and the irregularities outlined here.

And now we have such strong allegations of fraud and misconduct in the state senator recall elections by the Republicans that they may not allow those three Democrats to be recalled.  You can read why here.

So, while the conservatives fervently believe without proof to support it that Democrats and liberals are committing all kinds of fraud to alter the outcome of elections........it seems the opposite.  The people to be afraid of committing fraud in connection with elections, from this pattern, appears to be the Republicans and other conservatives.

How hypocritical is that?

Racism, Pseudo-Science, and Conservative Politics

Update: I would refer readers who sought out this post to also check out a newer one on penigma that addresses issues of race and culture:
 http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/10/columbus-day-cultural-diversity-and.html

The discipline of Evolutionary Psychology has been widely criticized as being used as pseudo-scientific justification for extreme right wing political views. 

An example of this in action was the publication in May 2011 on the Psychology Today magazine's web site by evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, who wrote an article, "Why Are Black Women Physically Less Attractive Than Other Women", which you can read here, despite it being subsequently removed by Psychology Today. (He also asserts that blacks are less intelligent than other races and ethnicity.) Dr. Mikhail Lyubansky wrote a scathing criticism, also in Psychology Today, in response which begins:

Between the Lines
Perspectives on race, culture, and community.
by Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D.

Beauty May Be In Eye of Beholder But Eyes See What Culture SocializesIf you poll the masses, make sure you know who they are. Published on May 16, 2011 by Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D. in Between the Lines

I just conducted a study that found Black women are more attractive than women from other racial/ethnic groups. I polled myself, 3 different times over 5 hrs. The results are statistically significant and show strong test-rest reliability. I have pretty charts that summarize the data.

University of Minnesota math and biology professor PZ Myers also dissected the claims of Kanazawa, debunking them utterly, on his Minnesota blog Pharyngula (bonus points if you know the definition of Pharyngula) where he wrote:        

"I'm a little surprised that it's gone. After all, Psychology Today had no problem with his loving look at American politics in which he wanted Ann Coulter for president, because she would have nuked the Middle East on 12 September 2001. That's just the kind of guy he is...

Wait a moment there…where in this study is the objective evaluation of attractiveness? Because Kanazawa can stack up a bunch of scores and make graphs does not mean that they have suddenly acquired the property of objectivity.

Can Kanazawa make his interpretations even worse? Yes, he can. He has a real talent for this. He generously concedes that, although black women are fat and blacks are less intelligent, their shortcomings in those areas, which are associated with the perception of beauty, are inadequate to explain why black women are so ugly, especially since black men are judged attractive, and lord knows, they have inferior IQs. But then, no loss: he also thinks Africans are too dumb to live.

And then we have the objections to this racism from London School of Economics Professor Paul Gilroy, and University of Minnesota Morris professor Paul Myers, who claimed the purported research was pseudo scientific and harmful to marginalized groups.

Kanazawa's article was the last straw in a long string of offensive largely right-wingnut pseudoscience.  On May 18, 2011, a mere three days after he first posted the article, he was fired.

Today 18 May 2011, the University of London Union Senate (the umbrella union for 22 colleges within the University of London), the Union’s legislative body representing over 120,000 students, voted unanimously in favour of calling for a campaign for the dismissal of evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, Reader in Management at the LSE, and to condemn his poor research.

JoAnne Kloppenburg Decides Not to Challenge Election Results

On Tuesday May 31, 2011 Democratic candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg announced she would not challenge the GAB certification of results for the election to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court.  She graciously congratulated her opponent, who lost his enormous lead over Kloppenburg, and who won under election circumstances which were widely reported to have serious irregularities.

I have to admit that given the nature and extent of those irregularities, I'm disappointed that Kloppenburg did not challenge the election results.  Those irregularities made it very clear that Wisconsin, which does not require the hand count that we do here in MN, did not very strictly follow their own election laws.

Minnesota could do well to emulate Wisconsin's recall provisions, but they could improve their election procedures and definitely would do well to copy our recount laws.

GOP, This Is What Losing Looks Like; Pay Attention!

Going in such a short time from threatening, to whining that the opposition is doing to you what you did so prolifically to them.

Then:

and

and

and NOW:

Seriously, is there anything funnier than the party that claimed the Health Care Reform Legislation was going to pull the plug on Grandma now claiming the left is Demagoging THEM? What a bunch of hypocrites and whiners!  The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Republicans lied, lied blatantly up one side and down the other, shamelessly.  Theydistorted, and grossly misrepresented the Health Care Reform bill, while the Democrats have very accurately presented criticism of the Ryan plan as it seriously guts Medicare.

There is no threat of demagoguery, to demogog something is to "to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc. " per dictionary.com.  No, after having lied their asses off about the Obama Health Care Reform legislation, the Right is now claiming foul, calling demagoguery unfairly, for the Left telling the truth about their Ryan plan.

And the truth is sinking the Republicans, and will continue to cost them dearly, no matter how they tap dance, how they spin, how they lie.

GOP Makes Government Larger, More Intrusive, and Costlier, While Being MORE Unresponsive to Citizens

I personally have found that whenever I look at conservative proposals that they label "common sense solutions" what that is code for is a proposal that benefits some segment of their donors, not their base; that those solutions either grossly ignore facts or are so superficial in their analysis as to be utterly unaware of the facts of the problem, or what they define as the problem.  In short, while their common sense solutions might make good sound bytes, they stink, they lack merit, they are frequently intellectually dishonest and lack any factual basis or justification.  Invariably, instead of being cost-effective or cost-reducing, they cost more money - usually in the form of an unfunded mandate that shifts the burden to someone else, unfairly and without their consent.

One recent example has been the Voter ID legislation vetoed by Governor Dayton.

There is zero evidence of voter fraud being a significant problem in Minnesota; it has never changed the outcome of an election despite this being a vigorously held urban myth on the right.  They can produce no evidence; they simply BELIEVE that it exists, on faith.  Their legislation would cost an estimated $23 million dollars, which would have to be paid for at the local level, while all of the county election officials agree that this will impede the efficiency of elections without producing any demonstrable benefit.  The county and local entities that have to pay for this don't have a say in having to fund this.  The Right provides ZERO financial support for this stupidity.

Governor Dayton wisely vetoed the legislation for a solid assortment of reasons.  Instead, in an attempt to show that he was going to be tough on this non-existent voter fraud, as a concession to this paranoia on the right, Dayton issued this executive order.  This will clearly cost far less than the GOP legislation, be far more effective in providing counties and other local government the tools they need to check for felon voters, and it doesn't disenfranchise anyone in the process, as the GOP legislation would do.

But a better question to ask. is it time to stop barring our felons from voting? We need to be asking what benefits do we receive from this aspect of penalizing crime and what benefits or harm might there be from discontinuing to do so?  The United States has the largest population of people incarcerated in the world, more even than China or Russia.  Approximately 70% of them are non-white.  The population behind bars has QUADRUPLED since the Reagan era.  This graph, courtesy of Wikipedia's article Incarceration in the United States, provides a handy quick reference to how we compare to comparable countries.  We are not just jailing a little more of our population, we are jailling a LOT more of our population:

The stats source is the World Prison Population List. 8th edition. Prisoners per 100,000 population

When disenfranchising felons was customary in our earlier history, there were far far fewer people affected on a percentage / per capita basis, and far far fewer crimes were felonies.  As this has changed, overwhelmingly those who are affected have disproportionately been black or other minorities, turning disenfranchisement of felons effectively Jim Crow laws.  While this suits Republican ideology and preferences, it is contrary to the notion of one man one vote on which representative government in this country was founded.