Mitt Romney outspent Rick Santorum over 10-to-1 in Ohio, and barely beat him by 1 percent. If Mitt Romney didn’t have tons of money, he wouldn’t have a chance. Of course, that’s true about Mitt Romney for life in general. Look at the map of who won Ohio by county. Mitt Romney only has the major cities. They look like a few defensive forts in a territory controlled by hostile forces. Here’s a question for Mitt: if all you can win are the major cities, what happens in the general election... when black people are allowed to vote? In fact the entire Republican primary process just answers the hypothetical question “What if there were nothing but white people?” None of this will have any connection to the reality that will be November.
Mitt Romney killed in Massachusetts, which is appropriate, since what he did as Governor of Massachusetts has killed Mitt Romney for most conservatives. Mitt got 72 percent of the vote in Massachusetts! The big question is—how is he going to explain that to the base?
And then there’s Newt. It’s like the Deep South is saying “We don’t care how bad your two main candidates are. We want somebody worse.” And they’ve found him in Newt. Once again, the Deep South goes off the Deep End. In his Georgia victory speech, Newt said “There’s lots of bunny rabbits that run through. I’m the tortoise.” Yes Newt, you’re just like a tortoise—you live in your own little world that you carry around with you. But once you get outside of the Deep South, you’re a tortoise whose been turned over on his back and is totally helpless.
This GOP primary is the greatest I’ve ever seen—and I can’t stand it anymore. I actually want to throw my hat in the air, and then start tearing my hair out.
Today’s Homework | Discuss
Flashback: If you want to hear some sanity on Fox News regarding gas prices, just go back to 2008...
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Randi Rhodes: Less Than Super
Thom Hartmann: The war on voting rights in Wisconsin is temporarily put on hold?
I have always thought Carter Never got the Credit he deserved! I love President Carter!!
Ronald Reagan’s philosophy of "peace through strength" is why "the Iranians released the hostages on the same day and at the same hour that Reagan was sworn in."
Mitt Romney on Tuesday, March 6th, 2012 in a speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee
Mitt Romney says the Iranians released hostages in 1981 because they feared Ronald Reagan's approach to foreign policy
During a March 6, 2012, video address to a conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Mitt Romney seized the tough foreign policy mantle of President Ronald Reagan.
"I believe the right course is what Ronald Reagan called peace through strength," Romney told the pro-Israel group. "There's a reason why the Iranians released the hostages on the same day and at the same hour that Reagan was sworn in. As president, I'll offer that kind of clarity, strength and resolve."
But was Reagan’s "peace through strength" philosophy really responsible for freeing the 52 Americans who were taken hostage by Islamic militants and held for 444 days?
First, a reminder of what the hostage crisis was all about. In 1979, the Shah of Iran -- who had been installed and supported by successive United States administrations -- was overthrown by Islamic revolutionaries. Militants took over the American embassy and held hostages from Nov. 4, 1979, until Jan. 20, 1981 -- the day President Jimmy Carter passed the reins to Reagan, who had defeated him amid widespread public disapproval of the incumbent’s handling of the crisis.
"Iran contacted the Carter administration in September 1980 with a proposal to end the hostage crisis," said Gary Sick, a Columbia University professor who has written two books about the Iran hostage crisis. "The U.S. made a proposal. Iran responded with an unacceptable offer just a day or two before the election. Afterwards, they nominated the Algerians to act as intermediaries. Those valuable discussions went on until literally the day or two before the inauguration, and they were settled by the Iranians caving in on a number of issues that were extremely costly to them. By my calculations, the Iranians ended up paying about $300,000 per hostage per day of incarceration."
The agreement that led to the release, as described by the New York Times 11 days after it occured, revolved around $11 billion to $12 billion in Iranian assets that Carter had frozen 10 days after the seizure of the U.S. embassy. It had been negotiated over the course of several months before Reagan's inauguration.
The Times, in its account of the inauguration, reported that "no one on the speaker's stand knew of the latest developments in Iran. Word quickly spread among the governors, Congressmen and Reagan friends, family and aides as they left the platform."
Carter informed Reagan at 8:31 a.m. that the release of the hostages was imminent, "but the onetime bitter rivals for the presidency told reporters as they entered the speaker's area separately, to the flourish of trumpets, that the hostages had not yet taken off from Tehran. The President got his first chance to announce the news at 2:15 p.m. at a luncheon with Congressional leaders in Statuary Hall in the Capitol."
So Reagan, not Carter, got to bask in the glow of the hostages’ safe return. However, we contacted seven scholars of the period, and their consensus was that neither Reagan nor his philosophy played any significant role in freeing the hostages.
"Well before Reagan became president, the deal for releasing the hostages had already been worked out by the Carter administration's State Department and the Iranians, ably assisted by Algerian diplomats," said David Farber, a Temple University historian and author of Taken Hostage: The Iranian Hostage Crisis and America's First Encounter with Radical Islam.
"No Reagan administration officials participated in the successful negotiations," Farber added. "The Iranian government waited to officially release the Americans until Carter had left the presidency as a final insult to Carter, whom they despised. They believed Carter had betrayed the Iranian revolution by allowing the self-exiled Shah to receive medical attention in the United States and then had threatened their new government by attempting, unsuccessfully, to use military force in April 1980 to free the hostages."
"By doing this, Iran thought they were showing the world that they could meddle in our affairs, just as we had done to them in 1953," added Dave Houghton, a political scientist at the University of Central Florida and author of U.S. Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis. Houghton suggested that Iran had a relatively unsophisticated grasp of U.S. politics, and said he thinks it’s possible that the Iranians "didn’t even know what Reagan had said on the campaign trail."
"I don't think they were scared into the release," Houghton said. "In all likelihood, they released the hostages because they needed the sanctions we'd placed on them lifted so they could finance their war with Iraq."
The one scholar who entertained the possibility that Iran was taking heed of the future president’s philosophy was Michael Gunter, a political scientist at Tennessee Tech University and the author of several papers about the crisis. Still, Gunter added, the "main reason for the release" was that "the mileage the Iranians had gained by holding the hostages had been used for everything it was worth and there was no further advantage in continuing."
Several other experts agreed that the Iranians’ focus was on Carter, not Reagan.
"If it was related to the occupant of the White House, it certainly had more to do with Carter than Reagan," said Stephen Kinzer, a former New York Times reporter who now teaches at Boston University and authored the book, Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America’s Future. "My guess is that the hostages would have been released even if someone else had been inaugurated -- anyone but Carter. The Iranians had come to hate Carter and didn't want to give him a triumph. Giving it to someone else was fine with them."
Sick, the Columbia University professor, said that "those who wish to believe that the final flurry of activity was out of fear of Reagan have a right to their opinion. Those closer to the events believed that the Iranians, who had clearly decided months earlier that the hostages were a wasting asset, feared that they would have to start the whole laborious process of negotiation over from scratch with a new administration, which obviously had no great appeal."
The Romney campaign did not return an inquiry seeking backup for the candidate’s claim.
Our ruling
We can’t read the Iranians’ minds, but seven scholars of the period told us that Reagan’s foreign policy approach was either a minor factor in the release of the hostages or not a factor at all. The fact that the deal was negotiated entirely by the Carter administration, without involvement by Reagan or his transition team, seems to support the expert consensus. Romney made a claim that flies in the face of history and offered no evidence to support it. We rate the statement Pants On Fire.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Randi Rhodes: Make or Break
The only state where Mitt Romney seems to have an easy path to victory is in Massachusetts—the state he’s been trying desperately to distance himself from. Don’t worry. If Mitt wins by a landslide in Massachusetts, by tomorrow he’ll be saying that it never happened. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has gone up to campaign in Alaska. No problem for Ron—Ron Paul is used to being on the furthest fringes. Newt Gingrich is leading in Georgia, a state that is as deep down in the South as Newt Gingrich is in the national polls. And the only two candidates who qualified for the ballot in Virginia are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Virginia’s only choice is between the fake and the flake.
Rick Santorum actually failed to qualify for the ballot in about a quarter of Ohio’s congressional districts because he didn’t submit the required slate of delegates. Rick isn’t too good at the nuts and bolts of campaigning. You would think that Rick Santorum would at least have the “nuts” part down
And Peter Gabriel has demanded that Rush Limbaugh stop using his music. It was a weird choice for Rush anyway. We know you disseminate the talking points, Rush. Don’t you get the listening points? In terms of being the right fit for a rightwing show, Peter Gabriel is down there with Tracy Chapman, dude! You’re supposed to go with Ted Nugent or Toby Keith. Oh, and Kid Rock is trying to get on the list, too.
Today’s Homework | Discuss
President Obama was asked for his thoughts on Rush Limbaugh during a White House press conference earlier today...
Thom Hartmann: Will America experience a Lost Generation?
Monday, March 5, 2012
Randi Rhodes: Hard To Say I'm Sorry
Rush said “I chose the wrong words...” Yes, Rush, you did. And you continued to choose them for three straight days! If that’s a choice, it’s a choice of lifestyle. He also says “I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke” Well then, launching a personal attack was a curious choice. The term “prostitute” shouldn’t come up in civil discourse, unless you’re debating prostitution... or talking about David Vitter. Then Rush asks “What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?” Classic! He asks that in the middle of a screed designed for him to avoid personal responsibility and accountability for what he’s said! Rush’s “apology” repeats all the lies he’s been spewing, continues to slander the girl, misrepresents the entire debate, and aggrandizes himself. Wow—Rush is almost as good at writing fake apologies as he is in slandering people in the first place. Finally at the end, Rush says “I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.” Great, Rush. Now apologize to everyone for your lies. And for this joke of an apology.
Chris Wallace pointed out on Sunday that the health insurance at Fox News includes birth control coverage. Frankly, I’m surprised that Fox News gives its employees health insurance at all. I guess Fox News couldn’t find employees willing to go on the air and undermine health coverage for the rest of the country—unless they got health coverage. Of course Fox News’ health insurance covers birth control—they want as few of their employees on pregnancy leave as possible. Do you think it’s easy to find that many empty-headed blondes? If the Fox news-models keep getting pregnant, they can’t be on the air as much attacking the interests of women.
For the record, Daily Kos has actually compiled a list of 53 times over three days that Rush Limbaugh smeared Sandra Fluke on his show. Yuck. I’d rather sift through my dog’s poop for three days if he swallowed a diamond ring.
Today’s Homework | Discuss
Sandra Fluke appeared on The View this morning and was less than impressed by Limbaugh's apology...
Thom Hartmann: Is Mitt Romney trying to buy victories on Super Tuesday?
Friday, March 2, 2012
Randi Rhodes: Uterus Patrol
John Boehner has pledged to take the fight over contraception to the House floor. In the Senate, the anti-contraception bill was called “the Blunt amendment.” If a version comes to the floor of the House, please, please, please… let it be called the “Boehner Bill.” Conservatives always crow about “government intrusion” into our lives. These bills would allow your boss to decide what conditions you can have health insurance for—it’s a case of “corporate intrusion” into our private lives. Somebody ask John Boehner how he would feel if his health insurance excluded paying for conditions caused by alcohol consumption and artificial tanning.
Rick Santorum is getting testy about being asked questions about birth control. Rick wants to impose his views on birth control on the rest of the country. For him to be offended when people ask about it is like Ted Bundy getting offended if somebody gets into his car and asks “Why do you have a roll of duct tape in the back seat?”
There’s been quite a reaction to Rush Limbaugh’s comments calling a young college student a slut and a prostitute. I’m tempted to say that Rush said those things just to get a reaction, not because he honestly likes saying those kinds of things. Tempted to... but I can’t.
At a House hearing on birth control, Health and Human Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and GOP Rep Tim Murphy clashed over the facts. Sebelius was for them, and Murphy was against them. Sebelius kept repeating the facts, and Murphy kept arguing with her. It’s not enough for these people just to be wrong—they won’t be satisfied until everybody else is wrong too. Murphy yelled “In a religious belief, that is a violation of a religious belief.” Tim, you’re on the House Energy and Commerce Committee here. I think you have it confused with the House God and Jesus Committee. There is one, right? Murphy went on a spiel about Jesus, and the apostles, and Mary Magdalene! I didn’t know if this was a US Congressional hearing, or an inquisition at the Vatican... in the year 1550! And I don’t think Congressman Murphy knew either.
Today’s Homework | Discuss
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT): If there were 83 women in the US Senate instead of 83 men...
Thom Hartmann: Now they want to put Union Picketers in Prison...
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Randi Rhodes: Breitbart Dead / Blunt Killed
However, while certainly not a fan of Breitbart’s 'work' (and vice-versa), I do wish his loved ones comfort today. 43 years old... so young.
The Senate considered legislation about contraception today. That’s not the kind of headline you would expect to see, unless “today” was some time in the 1950’s. Evidently it’s not—today the Senate defeated the Blunt amendment by 51-48. The bill would have allowed employers to deny any health insurance coverage that they have any “moral” objection to. Hello! To conservatives, any spending by employers on healthcare for their employees is considered immoral.
The Blunt amendment came and went quickly, but not so fast that Mitt Romney didn’t have time to flip-flop on it. When asked if he supported the bill yesterday, Mitt Romney said “I’m not for the bill.” And as we all know, that’s Mitt’s roundabout way of saying he’s for the bill. Sure enough, within an hour, Mitt’s campaign issued a statement saying he was for the bill. That’s the way Mitt Romney “clarifies” his statements—by completely contradicting them. Some candidates look at both sides of an issue. Mitt Romney takes both sides of an issue. And he still manages not to have the right position.
Rush Limbaugh said that a college student who testified before Congress about the high cost of contraception was a slut and a prostitute. If you call girls who use contraception sluts, what do you call girls who don’t use contraception? Oh, that’s right—“unwed mothers.” According to Rush, the girl “essentially says that she must be paid to have sex.” Um Rush, just because every woman whoever slept with you wanted payment, that doesn’t mean that that’s the norm. Now, I’m not saying that any of Rush’s many wives are prostitutes. But any woman that sleeps with Rush would be crazy not to at least demand they be compensated for their pain and suffering.
Today’s Homework | Discuss
One of Breitbart's final 'stunts' was confronting Occupy protesters at CPAC 2012, yelling "behave yourself" and "stop raping people"...
Thom Hartmann: With estimates that gas might hit $5 a gallon this summer - Americans are screwed at the pump
Dear MSM: Andrew Breitbart was not a Blogger
Posted on 03/01/2012 by Juan
Dear Mainstream Media: Andrew Breitbart was not a blogger. He was a political trickster, a serial frame-up artist, a con man, a fraud, a flimflam man. In the Nixon days he would have been called a “plumber.”
A blogger is an independent observer, a citizen journalist. Breitbart tinkered with video to falsify what people said and staged interviews so as to falsify peoples’ views. He generally polluted the information environment with fraud.
Andrew Breitbart was many things, and in Britain would have been in jail for libel on several occasions. But he was not a blogger.
—-
P.S. Mr. Breitbart believed in speaking ill of the dead.
