Randi Rhodes: Mitt Bite Back

It's Friday, ya bastids!

The last debate for a month is finally over! In a switch, last night Mitt Romney was on the offensive. And, as is par for the course, Newt Gingrich simply was offensive. Romney had spent most of this week really stepping in it. But for the most part last night, Mitt avoided getting anything nasty on his shoes—and that’s not easy to do when you’re kicking Newt Gingrich. If you’re a Republican looking for a credible candidate, you’re still out of luck. But if you just enjoy watching a couple of losers claw each other up, this has been the greatest primary ever!

One very important question about these candidates came up during this debate—“quien es mas anti-immigrant?” As far as I’m concerned, the correct answer is “Todos los Republicanos.” Actually—for once—the Republicans were fighting over who was the least anti-immigrant. You see, Florida has a significant Latino population—time to brush up on your Spanish, guys. OK, not all of you. I just can’t picture Rick Santorum speaking Spanish. And I’m sure Spanish speakers don’t want to hear Rick talking about “hombre en sexo de perro.”

Wolf Blitzer asked Mitt about an ad of his that says Newt Gingrich called Spanish the “language of the ghetto.” That sounds exactly like an ad Mitt would run—and exactly like something Newt would say. And it was, in both cases. Mitt said “I doubt that’s my ad, but we’ll take a look and find out.” Mitt says he doesn’t watch all of the ads! But he does tack on that statement at the end saying “I’m Mitt Romney, and I approve this ad.” He’s such a banker that Mitt Romney is actually robo-signing his own political ads! A little later, Wolf said they double-checked, and it was a Mitt campaign ad “and at the end you say, ‘I’m Mitt Romney, and I approved this ad.’” In the immortal word of Rick Perry: “Oops.”

For his part, Newt said the ad took his comments “out of context. Yet, Newt apologized for it, so he must have said it! Newt Gingrich doesn’t apologize for things he didn’t do! Heck, Newt doesn’t apologize for 99 percent of the things he does do. Oh, and Newt apologized... in Spanish! Maybe that’s why Newt was willing to apologize—he didn’t know what he was saying!

Today’s Homework | Discuss

President Obama sat with Diane Sawyer yesterday. Topics included the GOP candidates, the 'food stamp president' nonsense, Gov. Jan Brewer, etc...

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html#ixzz1ki132av1

Thom Hartmann: An Impartial Judiciary is now just a Myth...

According to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation - 75% of Americans believe the Supreme Court is driven by ideological views rather than objective legal analysis. Of course - the justices themselves have done one heck of a job advancing this notion. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas have attended and spoken at right-wing gatherings - gone hunting with prominent Republicans like Dick Cheney - accepted gifts from right-wing organizations - and been educated through right-wing legal think tanks like the Federalist Society. And in the process - have been one of the friendliest courts to corporate interests in recent history.

The Supreme Court has dropped the ball when it comes to objectively analyzing the rule of law in America - and it's time Congress fulfill it's Constitutional obligation and hold these corrupt justices accountable.

-Thom

(Do you think Congress will? Tell us here.)

'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share of federal dollars

This graphic has been circulating on the Internet since 2008. We check how accurate it is.

Many GOP-leaning states get more in federal funding than they contribute in federal taxes.

That's the point made by a graphic that’s circulating on the Internet, titled "Red State Socialism." A reader recently pointed us to it and asked us to check it out. The chart suggests that Republicans are hypocritical for bashing the federal government and federal spending, when Republican-leaning states are reaping the lion’s share of federal dollars.

The graphic emphasizes this point by showing two tables side by side. States that send more money to the federal government than they receive in federal spending are on the left, and they are primarily blue (or Democratic) states. The table on the right shows states that receive more in federal spending than they contribute in taxes. This table is predominantly red (or Republican).

The graphic says: "Of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are REPUBLICAN. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 14 states (78%) are DEMOCRATIC."

The source cited is a report by the Tax Foundation, a business-backed group. We checked with the Tax Foundation to see whether the data was legitimate and confirmed that it is. Spokesman Richard Morrison said that the chart uses 2005 data that was published in 2007.

So the graphic is solidly grounded in reality. But we see two reasons for caution when using this chart.

How do you define red and blue states?

The graphic defines Republican states as those "that have voted Republican in a previous presidential election." Because the data is from 2005, that means states that voted for George W. Bush in 2004, which is a larger number than voted Republican in 2008.

But the definition of states as Republican or Democratic isn't immutable. Just four years later, in the 2008 election, six states in the right-hand chart and three states in the left-hand chart switched from Republican to Democratic, making both charts more heavily blue.

We should also note that some of the margins of victory were quite narrow. In fact, a dozen or more states can be characterized in most elections as swing states, which might be more appropriately shaded in purple.

The data is seven years old

As we noted, the data is for 2005. To the author’s credit, this is disclosed prominently, and because it’s the most recent data of its type available, we can hardly fault the creator of the graphic for using it. Still, since the data has almost certainly shifted in the interim, particularly with the 2009 stimulus and the general increase in deficit spending, those patterns could have shifted as well.

"Because of the high deficit spending we’re seeing at the federal level, it’s likely that every state is currently receiving more in federal spending than its population paid in federal income taxes," the Tax Foundation's Morrison said.

We tracked down the creator of the graphic, Jesse Erlbaum. Erlbaum said he was inspired to create the graphic after watching a presidential debate scene from the television show The West Wing, in which fictional Democratic President Jed Bartlet needles his Republican opponent, the governor of Florida, for seeming to diminish the importance of federal funds that his state receives.

Erlbaum said he created the graphic "for fun" in October 2008, just before Barack Obama won the presidency. "Based on that, I selected the most recent previous presidential election cycle, namely 2004." That explains the chart’s use of older electoral data; it simply hasn’t been updated by subsequent posters. Erlbaum conceded the concerns we laid out.

"It's definitely true that choosing a different election cycle and basis for assigning red versus blue will produce different results," he said. As for the age of the data, Erlbaum said, "I would love to see an update of this report."

Erlbaum added, "I've listened to feedback about this chart for a few years now, and folks who don't like the insinuation it makes will always come up with some explanation. Popular ones are that there are more military jobs, more retirees, more farmers, and fewer cities in red states. I don't buy it. Whatever the excuse, the data is clear: These states receive more than they pay in. Everything else is just a rationalization based on someone deciding that one reason for spending money is good, and another is bad. This chart makes no such distinction. I say, ‘Deal with it!’ The facts are the facts."

Our ruling

The graphic’s data uses data from the 2004 election rather than 2008, and the figures on taxes and spending date back to 2005. There are fewer states that would be labeled Republican based on the 2008 election, and there’s a strong likelihood that tax and spending data would have changed as well. Because of this likelihood, we downgrade the accuracy of this generally accurate chart to Mostly True.

Randi Rhodes: Mitt's People

Mitt Romney staged an event outside of a Fannie Mae-foreclosed home so he could embarrass Newt Gingrich over Newt's ties to Freddie Mac. Unfortunately, Mitt spoke, and that means he ended up embarrassing himself. Mitt said “The banks aren’t bad people. They’re just overwhelmed right now.” The poor banks! So little time, and so many dreams to crush! This foreclosure crisis has been hell for the banks— they’re totally exhausted from the robo-signing alone. And “The banks aren’t bad people?” Mitt! Get it through your head! The banks aren’t people at all!

Later, Mitt doubled down on the gaffe, telling distressed homeowners “The banks are scared to death, of course.” Yeah, right now they’re scared to death that you’re going to keep on talking. And he did! Mitt told foreclosure victims that the banks “are feeling the same thing that you’re feeling.” Really? They’re feeling ripped-off by heartless bankers? Mitt, one more time—banks can’t feel anything. If they did, then they would feel shame and remorse, and they would cease being banks. Florida right now is actually the perfect time and place to go after Newt Gingrich over Freddie Mac. But Mitt Romney is absolutely the worst person to try and do it... outside of Freddie Mac himself, right, Mitt?

Now Mitt is saying that he actually pays a tax rate of 40 to 50 percent. Keep picking at the scab, Mitt—that’ll make it heal faster.

Mitt claims that capital gains are taxed at a 35 percent rate when the company earns them, and then at 15 percent when the profits are distributed as dividends, so he’s really paying a total of 50 percent. Wow. No wonder Newt Gingrich wants to give him a giant tax break. Mitt is essentially saying that companies would give shareholders a lot more if they didn’t have to pay taxes. I have news for you, Mitt—a lot of the biggest companies don’t pay any taxes at all. Mitt, if you’re going to try and tell us that Bain was actually paying a corporate tax rate of 35 percent, then you’re going to have to release Bain’s tax returns. And I really don’t think you want to do that.

I guess Arizona Governor Jan Brewer gave President Obama a piece of her mind. Careful, Jan—there aren’t a lot of pieces left intact. Brewer accosted the President as he got off of Air Force One. I’m shocked. Mostly I’m shocked that a nut like Jan Brewer got past security. He should have patted her arm and said “That’s nice, Jan. I’ve got to get back to planet Earth. Have another Red Bull.”

And it looks like the rightwing is uniting around Newt Gingrich... no wait, they’re not uniting around him... they’re trying to surround him! Politico is reporting that the rightwing is acting in concert to try and derail Newt’s campaign before he blows everything. Well, it looks like Republicans have finally found a leader who can bring the party together.

Today’s Homework | Discuss

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html#ixzz1kc5yclB8

Thom Hartmann: Is Indiana the new front line for the war on the working class?

Indiana is screwed as it crept one step closer to becoming the 23rd state in the nation to pass a right-to-work FOR LESS law. The State House passed legislation that was passed by the Senate earlier in the week to bring right-to-work-for-less to the state - putting an end to closed union shops and pitting workers against workers across Indiana, thus killing off the union movement in that state

The bill now awaits Governor Mitch Daniels' signature who took a break from his war on unions this week to deliver the Republican response to the President's State of the Union address. Indiana will become the first state in the nation's manufacturing belt to pass a right-to-work-for-less law - which has been proven to lead to lower wages, less healthcare coverage, and more workplace accidents.

-Thom

(Do you have experience of right to work for less? Tell us here.)

Randi Rhodes: SOTU Smackdown

That was quite a State of the Union speech. What kind of corner have the Republicans painted themselves into? Now they have to sit on their hands every time good news gets mentioned. The President reported that the state of our union was strong and getting better. But from the looks on their faces, the Republicans in Congress have little interest in being part of that Union. The Republicans looked like they were sitting through the funeral speech for a loved one. In a sense they were—it was a funeral speech for the recession that meant so much to Republicans. The more things come together for America, the more the Republicans’ plans fall apart.

The President sketched out a plan for economic growth, borrowing the phrase “built to last” from the auto industry that he saved... the same industry that Mitt Romney wanted to let go under. The phrase “Built to last” means nothing to a vulture capitalist like Mitt Romney. His slogan should be “Killed for profit.” Obama also called for Congress to pass the “Buffet rule” which would make sure that those making over a million dollars pay at least 30 percent in taxes. Too bad it’s already called the “Buffet rule,” because it would be just too perfect to call it the “Romney rule.” To illustrate his point, Obama had Warren Buffet’s actual secretary in the audience! Psyche! Hey Republicans, I think you just got “Buffeted.” The President also said he will have the Attorney General go after those who engage in deceptive and abusive lending practices, or as conservatives call it, “banking.”

Mitt Romney released his tax returns yesterday in the hope that they would be overshadowed by the State of the Union speech. It turns out that they were highlighted by the speech. You couldn’t help but think of Mitt when the President was talking about leveling the playing field—Mitt Romney is like a giant 50-foot rock jutting out right in the middle of the playing field. Obama was referencing Romney again when he said “When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich.” I’m sure Mitt Romney heard that and thought “He’s just jealous!” Thanks for the material, Mitt. If speeches had writer’s credits, they would have to list a “special thanks” to Mitt Romney on this one.

Today’s Homework | Discuss

President Obama explains the 'Buffett Rule'...

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html#ixzz1kW9uhBzL

Thom Hartmann: What do you think of President Obama's State of The Union speech?

President Obama declared the state of the union is "Getting stronger" last night before a joint-session of Congress. But to ensure the nation continues to get better - the President laid out a series of proposals he's challenging a Republican Congress to pass and send to his desk.

One is encouraging "insourcing" of jobs - meaning giving tax breaks to companies that bring jobs back to America - while cutting off tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. That proposal didn't draw any applause from the Republican side of the chamber, which seems to favor outsourcing American jobs as it makes more money for the big corporations that fund their Party.

The President also called for a minimum tax to be paid by multinational corporations - many of which have paid their CEOs more than they've paid in taxes over the last 3 years. Again, no Republican applause. He also called on these same corporations to ask themselves what it is they can do for their country. The Buffett Rule also made an appearance in last night's speech - as the President pressed Congress to change that tax code to ensure that millionaires and billionaires like Mitt Romney don't get by paying a lower tax rate than most middle class Americans. In fact - he called for a 30% minimum tax on millionaires - again, no applause from the Republican side, which prefers the status quo of massive wealth inequality and unfair taxation.

Republicans aside, though, it appears the President's message resonated with the American people last night. A CBS poll of speech watchers found that 91% of Americans approved of the proposals put forward by the President - and 83% approved of the economic plans laid out - a jump from 53% before the speech. Now what will be interesting to watch is how much money is thrown at Republicans by Wall Street billionaires and transnational corporations to block all of these initiatives from the President.

-Thom

(What do you think ? Tell us here.)

Thom Hartmann: The President is set to deliver his State of the Union address tonight - What will he talk about?

Early reports indicate the President will focus on the issues that are absent from most Republicans debates, which are help for the middle class, ways to reduce wealth inequality, and a plan for renewable energy. Despite 22 straight months of private sector job creations, glimmers of hope in an economic recovery, and one fewer war abroad since the President took office three years ago - the state of our union is still weak.

There's massive inequality - rivaling that of third world nations. There are still 5 million homeowners on the verge of foreclosure. There are 49 million Americans living in poverty, including 1-out-of-5 children. There's instability in the Middle East as a result of our addiction to foreign oil. The list goes on.

We need revolutionary change in America as the millions who've taken to the streets since the 99% Movement began have demanded. Unfortunately - until we get money out of politics, end corporate personhood, and say that money is property, not speech - real change will be hard to come by. And sadly - it's unlikely the President will call for a Constitutional Amendment tonight to end the great sell-off of our democracy. But we can still keep the pressure on him - go to MoveToAmend.org.

-Thom

(What do you think President Obama will say? Tell us here.)

Randi Rhodes: Dueling Dumpers

Down and dirty debates, and dueling document dumps! The State of the Union Address can’t come soon enough. Yes there was yet another debate last night. I want one of these losers to win just so we can end these debates once and for all. Last night Romney attacked Gingrich as a slimy influence peddler, and Newt attacked Mitt as a desperate hypocrite. Gentlemen, please! You’re both right! Mitt was trying to regain the offensive. Good luck with that—Newt IS the offensive.

Both Newt and Mitt have performed a massive dump of documents in the past 24 hours. And that’s not the first time either of those guys has been associated with the phrase “massive dump.” Newt Gingrich released his lobbying contract with Freddie Mac. Of course, Newt would tell you he released his “consulting” contract with Freddie Mac, but a glance at the contract confirms otherwise. During the time Newt says he wasn’t lobbying for Freddie Mac, he was reporting to the person in charge of lobbying at Freddie Mac. If Newt was really there just to provide advice, his first piece of advice should have been to point out that they had him reporting to the wrong person. Newt only released a one-year contract of his with Freddie Mac. He worked for them for eight years and made $1.8 million. One lousy year? Newt, are you trying to pull a “Mitt” on us?

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney released his 2010 tax returns and an estimate for 2011. This will just make people hungry for more, but they won’t be hungry until they’re through being sick over what they see on these returns. Mitt made $12.6 million in capital gains, $4.9 million in dividends, and $3.3 million in interest. How do I get that job? Oh that’s right—it’s not a job at all. In 2010, Mitt paid an effective tax rate of about 13.9 percent. That’s not very “effective” at all. Next year, Mitt’s estimates show that he will pay a tax rate of 15.4 percent. And that’s the number he manipulated to look good on this release! Mitt Romney literally can’t pay a fair tax rate if he tries to! Mitt said his tax bill is “entirely legal and fair.” Well, he’s half right.

Ugh! What a pair Newt and Mitt are! These two deserve everything they hit each other with. And the Republican Party deserves to end up getting stuck with one of them.

Today’s Homework | Discuss

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html#ixzz1kPzS6PIT

Randi Rhodes: Newt-Mentum!

What a weekend! The sounds coming out of South Carolina were almost as bad as the sounds coming out of Steven Tyler. Newt Gingrich shocked the political world with his big comeback in South Carolina. OK, the crazy rightwing extremist candidate won the crazy rightwing extremist state. Why should anybody be shocked? Now it looks like Newt Gingrich has come back from the dead! But then that’s how Newt Gingrich always looks. It was fun watching Mitt squirm after South Carolina, but it always disturbing to see Newt in his triumphant mode. That’s the only problem with these Republican primaries—somebody has to win them. People are saying “now, anything can happen!” Let’s get real. Only two things can happen—Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich. So nothing good can happen.

South Carolina is full of lunatics who love to cause trouble. It was always a perfect match for Newt Gingrich. Floridians don’t have as much in common with Newt... other than the alligators, that is. If you look at the polls for Florida, Newt Gingrich’s line shows radical swings up and down... kind of like Newt Gingrich himself. Can Florida possibly vote for a scary rightwing extremist with a history of terrible ethics problems? I can answer that in four words: “Florida Governor Rick Scott.”

Mitt Romney is only releasing his tax returns from last year, along with an estimate for his taxes this year. Those returns are the ones that were prepared with an eye to running for the presidency. They’ve been sanitized... for Mitt’s protection. Mitt, release returns from the years before you were running for president! It’s a lot easier if you just rip the band-aid off in one quick yank. Unless what we’re dealing with here is a lot more than a band-aid. You can’t yank off a full-body cast.

When you weren’t listening to South Carolinians howl for Newt over the weekend, you could listen to Steven Tyler howl. If you didn’t see it, Steven’s rendition of the National Anthem was even more off target than the Baltimore Ravens’ field goal attempt at the end of the game. Back to American Idol, Steven. They say that those who can’t do, teach. And those that really can’t do, judge. ”

Today’s Homework | Discuss

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html#ixzz1kKMVERzN

Thom Hartmann: The Republican Party has a serious problem on its hands - and its name is Newt Gingrich.

Newt shocked the establishment on Saturday night crushing Mitt Romney in a landslide victory in the South Carolina Primary. By referring to President Obama as the "Food Stamp President" as often as he could - and characterizing the poor, and in particular minorities, as lazy - Newt proved that race baiting in the South is still a winning strategy...at least when only Republicans are voting.

That means after three contests so far - and three different winners - this race is wide open - and Gingrich might have a real shot at becoming the nominee - Florida polls are showing him ahead there today. And with that - there's already speculation that leaders within the Republican Party might push for a brokered convention - in which the nominee - who might not even be in the race today - is picked behind closed doors at the Republican National Convention later this year with little regard to what the actual voters across the nation wanted.

Stay tuned - this thing is just getting started.

-Thom

(Do you think he would be a problem for the Democrats? Tell us here.)

Thom Hartmann: Occupy the Courts! Today - in over 100 cities across America...

Occupy the Courts! Today - in over 100 cities across America - demonstrators are rallying in front of federal courthouses - and in front of the Supreme Court here in Washington, DC - to protest the two-year anniversary of the Citizens United decision. The grassroots organization Move To Amend is spearheading the day of action to raise awareness and encourage people to fight back against the radical ruling of the Supreme Court that declared corporations are people and money is speech - and put our democracy up for sale to the highest bidder.

This week - Portland, Maine became the latest city in America to pass a resolution calling on Congress to amend the Constitution to overturn Citizens United and declare that corporations are not people. We saw the effects of Citizens United in the 2010 midterms when over $300 million in secret, corporate cashed was dumped into our elections - that's more than 4 times more money than was spent in the last midterm in 2006 - and is why a wave of millionaire corporate shills saying they represent the Tea Party were elected to the House of Representatives. If we don't do something about this - 2012 will be even worse.

So get out there, get active, and occupy the courts! Go to MoveToAmend.org for more information.

-Thom

(Did you occupy a court? Tell us here.)

Randi Rhodes: GOP Game Show

It's Friday, ya bastids!

If you look at last night’s debate as a game show, Newt Gingrich won the grand prize display package right at the beginning of the show. Newt really unloaded. And when Newt Gingrich unloads, we’re talking a very big load. John King started off by asking Newt about his ex-wife’s claims that he had asked her for an open marriage. King didn’t attack Newt, he teed him up! Newt launched into a tirade about how the media make “it harder to govern this country.” Exactly! I bet there are thrice-married family values hypocrites out there who won’t even run because they’re afraid of what the media would do to them. Newt thundered “I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.” Yes, appalled! Appalled, and eternally grateful! Come on, John King! You don’t think that Newt was waiting for that one like a cat under the bird feeder? The bottom line is that you know that Newt would be totally prepared for an infidelity question, just like you know that Mitt Romney would be completely prepared to deal with any income tax question. Oh... OK, bad example.

Mitt Romney always seems to be caught totally unprepared by these questions about his taxes. Odd, considering how incredibly well-prepared I’m sure he always is to DO his taxes. When Romney was asked about his taxes, he said that people were criticizing him for “being successful.” Not exactly, Mitt—they’re criticizing you for being successful at avoiding taxes. John King beautifully used Mitt’s father George Romney’s release of 12 years of his tax returns as an example. If King stepped in it at the beginning with Newt Gingrich, he later wiped his shoes on Mitt Romney. When asked if he would release multiple years of taxes like his father did, Mitt awkwardly blurted out “Maybe.” Mitt, “maybe” isn’t a definitive answer any more than the vote count from the Iowa caucus is a definitive result.

Romney attacked Newt for always talking about all the things he supposedly did with Ronald Reagan. It’s true. To listen to Newt, he and Ronald Reagan sound more like Starsky & Hutch. You know that Newt Gingrich wasn’t that close to Ronald Reagan. If he was that intimate with Reagan, he would have cheated on him. Heck, Newt would have asked Reagan if he could see other Republican icons. “I want an open mentoring relationship. Jack Kemp doesn’t care what I do, neither should you.”

Today’s Homework | Discuss

President Obama belted out a couple of bars of Al Green last night in NYC - it's even better if you can imagine Romney attempting the same feat...

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html#ixzz1k2Z1CGeX