Goodnight tumblr, and good luck.

newleftmedia:

NEW VIDEO! - OHIO ROMNEY RALLY - Interviews with Supporters

Election observers believe that Ohio is the state most likely to decide who becomes our next President. These interviews were conducted with Ohio voters at a recent Romney rally in Defiance, OH.

Produced and edited by Chase Whiteside (interviewer) & Erick Stoll.

NLM ELSEWHERE:
Facebook: http://facebook.com/newleftmedia
Twitter: http://twitter.com/newleftmedia

DONATE:
Our films are free to watch, but costly to produce.
Every contribution helps to keep us online.
http://donate.newleftmedia.com

(Source: newleftmedia)

shortformblog:

climateadaptation:

Tarmac melts, causing flight cancellations at USA’s capital airport, Reagan National, Washington DC. This demonstrates the need for climate adaptation of America’s (rather embarrassing) infrastructure.
Via NYC Aviation FB.

Yes, those are sunken-in wheels. Holy wow.

shortformblog:

climateadaptation:

Tarmac melts, causing flight cancellations at USA’s capital airport, Reagan National, Washington DC. This demonstrates the need for climate adaptation of America’s (rather embarrassing) infrastructure.

Via NYC Aviation FB.

Yes, those are sunken-in wheels. Holy wow.

"Like any other state, there has to be compliance with this and any other federal law. And that is that English has to be the principal language. There are other states with more than one language such as Hawaii but to be a state of the United States, English has to be the principal language."

Rick Santorum campaigning in Puerto Rico

There is no federal law mandating English as the primary national language, nor is there a federal law outlining the status for English or any other language.

washingtonpoststyle:

Stephen Colbert’s super PAC releases attack ad against Stephen Colbert.

More here.

Sam Jackson. That’s all you need to know.

shortformblog:

apoplecticskeptic:

joshsternberg:

Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, has released its first ad to air in South Carolina - narrated by Jon Lithgow, the ad goes after Mitt “The Ripper” Romney. And of course, there’s a press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Definitely Not Coordinated With Stephen Colbert Super PAC Releases First Ad, Begins To Regret Length Of Name

AMERICA – The Definitely Not Coordinated With Stephen Colbert Super PAC released its first TV ad today, in advance of South Carolina’s upcoming unnamed GOP Primary. The ad, which takes an objective look at Mitt Romney’s private sector experience, is entitled “Attack In B Minor For Strings.”

“Mitt Romney claims to be pro-corporations,” said Jon Stewart, President of The Definitely Not Coordinated With Stephen Colbert Super PAC. “But would you let him date your daughter’s corporation? Americans have been clamoring for a comprehensive study of this crucial issue, so we splurged for the full sixty-second commercial. We think South Carolinians will agree – they deserve a leader who shares their state’s values, and perhaps even their state’s initials.”

The new spot begins airing today in a major ad buy that will blanket South Carolina from Charleston all the way to North Charleston. Those of you with some free AOL hours left can view the ad here.

The Definitely Not Coordinated With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, officially known as Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, is an independent, expenditure-only committee that’s been proudly serving the community since late Thursday.

Click through to Colbert’s Super PAC site for more information, including a note from Jon Stewart.

It seems everything Colbert does is pure unadulterated genius.

Nothing like a video that openly suggests Mitt Romney is a serial killer.

I hope that in 100 years there will be TV specials talking about the legacy of “Mitt the Ripper.”

(Source: joshsternberg, via shortformblog)

"A two-term Obama presidency strikes fear in the hearts of nearly all Republicans — and many independents. Unlike President Bill Clinton, who understood that the United States has a center-right electorate, President Obama sees himself as a transformative president who can raise class consciousness, expand government’s role, and lead the country in a new direction. Whatever else divides Republicans, they know that another term for President Obama would push the country down a European-style social democratic path from which it would be difficult to recover anytime soon."

Primaries and Caucuses Are Part of the Problem - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

A reason to reelect Obama in 2012! Thanks, Linda Chavez!

(via bensgrabbag)

(via bensgrabbag)

Some diehards, after Christie, look to Cantor

Politico:

Chris Christie’s departure has left most of the Republican Party resigned to a choice between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, but there are holdouts, and some of those holdouts are, I’m told, carrying a torch for a new figure: Eric Cantor.

The House Majority Leader, subject of a big New York Magazine profile this week, has given no indication at all that he’d run for president, and this seems extremely unlikely to change. 

Nonetheless: “You’ve got a lot of the same guys who were looking at Christie who still thinks there’s an opening,” said a prominent Republican operative. “A lot of their attention is focused on Eric. He’s telegenic, the president is elevating his profile, and he’s somebody that serious people feel could enter into this race and fill some of the gaps.”

Cantor’s base among pro-Israel and Jewish donors — many of whom were holding out hope for Christie — is particularly enthused.

"I want somebody who I know is pro-business, who I know is pro-Israel, who I know is a leader, as opposed to somebody who just tells me he is," said Barry Sobel, an Atlanta banker and Cantor admirer and donor who supported Rudy Giuliani in 2008.

"Whether as president or vice president, I would be excited either way. The only problem if he runs is I’d have to quit my job and start campaigning," he said.

A Cantor spokesman said he hadn’t heard the chatter.

Are. You. Kidding. Me.

Rick Perry: Constitutional Scholar

  • Q: The Constitution says that 'the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… general Welfare of the United States.' But I noticed that when you quoted this section on page 116 [of "Fed Up!"], you left 'general welfare' out and put an ellipsis in its place. Progressives would say that 'general welfare' includes things like Social Security or Medicare—that it gives the government the flexibility to tackle more than just the basic responsibilities laid out explicitly in our founding document. What does 'general welfare' mean to you?
  • Rick Perry: I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term 'general welfare' in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do.
  • Q: So in your view those things fall outside of general welfare. But what falls inside of it? What did the Founders mean by 'general welfare'?
  • Rick Perry: I don’t know if I’m going to sit here and parse down to what the Founding Fathers thought general welfare meant.
  • Q: But you just said what you thought they didn’t mean by general welfare. So isn’t it fair to ask what they did mean? It’s in the Constitution.
  • Rick Perry: [Silence.]
  • Q: OK. Moving on [...]

Minnesota professor offers $1,000 for Bachmann’s HPV vaccine victim

StarTribune:

A University of Minnesota bioethicist is offering $1,000 for medical proof that a woman’s daughter suffered mental retardation from the vaccine for human papillomavirus virus, a story that was told by Rep. Michele Bachmann after Monday’s debate.

Bachmann has come under fire from the medical community for suggesting the vaccination for the HPV virus, a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer, is linked to mental illness.

Steven Miles, a U of M bioethics professor, said that he’ll give $1,000 if the medical records of the woman from Bachmann’s story are released and can be viewed by a medical professional.

His offer was upped by his former boss from the University of Minnesota, Art Caplan, who is now director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics. Caplan said he would match Miles’ challenge and offered $10,000 for proof of the HPV vaccine victim.

“These types of messages in this climate have the capacity to do enormous public health harm,” Miles said of why he made the offer. “The woman, assuming she exists, put this claim into the public domain and it’s an extremely serious claim and it deserves to be analyzed.”

After attacking Texas Gov. Rick Perry over his vaccination executive order at Monday’s debate — which scored Bachmann points from debate pundits — the Minnesota Republican said a woman had told her that the HPV vaccine had caused her daughter’s mental retardation. Bachmann repeated the story on NBC’s “Today” the next morning.

“There’s a woman that came up crying to me tonight after the debate,” Bachman told Fox News. “She said her daughter was given that vaccine. She said her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result of that vaccine.”

The comment has sparked widespread criticism from the medical community, which has said Bachmann was stoking unfounded fears similar to claims made about vaccines and Autism. The Centers for Disease Control website makes no mention of mental illness in its “adverse events” report on the HPV vaccine.

Bachmann somewhat walked back her comments Tuesday on Sean Hannity’s radio show, where she said she had “no idea” if the HPV vaccine was linked to mental illness. “I’m not a doctor, I’m not a scientist, I’m not a physician,” Bachmann said. “All I was doing is reporting what this woman told me last night at the debate.”

Miles and Caplan said they aren’t expecting much from their offer, but they are prepared to pay should the Bachmann campaign provide the woman or if she comes forward independently.

The crucial Perry-Romney exchange on Social Security at last night's Tea Party Debate

  • ROMNEY: "But the real question is does Governor Perry continue to believe that Social Security should not be a federal program, that it's unconstitutional and it should be returned to the states or is he going to retreat from that view?"
  • CNN'S WOLF BLITZER: "Let's let Governor Perry respond. You have 30 seconds."
  • PERRY: "If what you're trying to say is that back in the '30s and the '40s that the federal government made all the right decision, I disagree with you. And it's time for us to get back to the constitution and a program that's been there 70 or 80 years, obviously we're not going to take that program away. But for people to stand up and support what they did in the '30s or what they're doing in the 2010s is not appropriate for America."
  • ROMNEY: "But the question is, do you still believe that Social Security should be ended as a federal program as you did six months ago when your book came out and returned to the states or do you want to retreat from that?"
  • PERRY: "I think we ought to have a conversation."
  • ROMNEY: "We're having that right now, governor. We're running for president."
  • PERRY: "And I'll finish this conversation. But the issue is, are there ways to move the states into Social Security for state employees or for retirees? We did in the state of Texas back in the 1980s. I think those types of thoughtful conversations with America, rather than trying to scare seniors like you're doing and other people, it's time to have a legitimate conversation in this country about how to fix that program where it's not bankrupt and our children actually know that there's going to be a retirement program there for them."
  • ROMNEY: "Governor, the term ponzi scheme is what scared seniors, number one. And number two, suggesting that Social Security should no longer be a federal program and returned to the states and unconstitutional is likewise frightening."
motherjones:

Rick Perry: The Military Will Respect Me
(…As opposed to that Kenyan socialist.)
(Photo: Houston Chronicle)

motherjones:

huffingtonpost:

aoltv:

It’s called ‘Big Hair Alaska.’ Thanks, TLC.

That makes sense. 

Because of course.

Surprised it didn’t happen sooner.

(Source: huffposttv)

libertarians:

“Yesterday Newt Gingrich laid out a new argument for why he should be the GOP presidential nominee: He’s got the most Twitter followers. But according to a former Gingrich staffer, he bought them.

Gingrich complained yesterday that the press is ignoring his prodigious Twitter audience: “I have six times as many Twitter followers as all the other candidates combined, but it didn’t count because if it counted I’d still be a candidate; since I can’t be a candidate that can’t count.” Which is true! Gingrich currently boasts 1,325,842 followers, whereas competitors Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann have yet to crack 100,000.

But if Newt is winning the Twitter primary, it’s because of voter fraud.”

And as quickly as accusations are made, they can be debunked:

A great accusation, one that fits with the theme of “Newt 2012: The Campaign That Does Everything Wrong, and Expensively So.” But there aren’t any facts backing it up. What are these “variety of agencies” that Newt allegedly pays? The source doesn’t say, neither do the campaign’s finance reports. Moreover, as Ben Smith points out, Gingrich’s follower count was surging long before he launched his campaign. He was added to the “Suggested User List” in late 2009, in part because of complaints about the political slant of the “recommended” pols on the list. As this chart from TwitterCounter shows, Gingrich was well over 1 million followers at the start of 2011, before he staffed up his campaign, and long before he launched it.

The upshot of the Gawker story doesn’t seem to be that Gingrich paid for followers. It seems to be that his former staffers are gossipy jerks with adjustable definitions of the truth. We sort of knew that already.

(via libertarians-deactivated2014020)

"I’d like to be abundantly clear: My ability to function effectively will not affect my ability to serve as commander-in-chief."

Michele Bachmann addresses concerns over her migraines. (via MSNBC)

I do not think you said what you meant to say.