The Boston Globe, which endorsed Barack Obama for President in 2008 with "great enthusiasm", has come out for Jon Huntsman. Whee! That might be enough to sway any Republicans worried that Romney is insufficiently moderate and has secretly become the conservative he is pretending to be.
Well. It's reassuring that Huntsman's political vision is not totally flawed - his strategy of courting the liberal media by bashing the right is at least connecting him with his target audience.
Works for me. I'll go put up the bumper stickers. I mean if there's going to be no intra party challenge to Obama why not election a Republican who's a Democrat?
Posted by: Clarice | January 06, 2012 at 07:06 AM
It's Friday. And it is always a good day when there is a new Jack Cashill piece up at American Thinker. Long live Mr. Cashill and his tireless efforts to point out the emperor's nakedness.
Posted by: peter | January 06, 2012 at 07:21 AM
The MFM is doing their best to support this global warming nutjob who doesn't even rise to the level of RINO. On the Today show Metro Matt was imploring Monkey Face Gregory to tell him that Huntsman was catching on with more than just a handful of Repukes praying at the altar of Saint Rocky; alas, even the silver haired imbecile couldn't paint a happy face on this loser.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 06, 2012 at 07:28 AM
Here's a link to what peter referred to and it's very good: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/how_obama_lost_his_postmodern_groove.html
Why people even try to claim that vain punk wrote his books is a mystery to me. His whole life is a lie starting with questions about his deadbeat polygamist father.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 06, 2012 at 07:39 AM
Could someone please explain how a so called Republican can accept a a position which requires him to carry out directives issued by a Democrat and than claim to oppose that Democrat? Why would anyone think that gave him credibility?
Posted by: pagar | January 06, 2012 at 07:47 AM
JPod on why the appointments are a sign of Obama'a weakness--a point I agree with:
"Obama lost his ability to push his agenda through Congress when he received what he himself called a “shellacking” in the November 2010 elections. That shellacking was primarily the result of massive policy overreach when he had a Democratic Congress in his pocket.
He spent 2009 and 2010 getting what he wanted: a trillion dollar stimulus. Auto-industry nationalization. And, of course, his health-care law. It was a wildly successful first 18 months — and it led directly to the bruising defeat he suffered as soon as the American people could render their judgment on those actions.
The independent voters who’d put him over the top in 2008 were horrified by the results. Exit polls showed a 24 percent swing among them, from 8 percentage points in favor of Obama and the Democrats in 2008 to 16 points against in 2010.
What may have been even more painful for Obama’s vanity was his discovery in 2011 that his rhetorical gifts had lost their oomph. "
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/this_power_grab_sign_of_weakness_B95SE4zOZsyjuJxn63PSEO#ixzz1igLn6zJg
Posted by: Clarice | January 06, 2012 at 07:53 AM
OT, from this LUN, the most interesting thing
about Le Carre, is how he has come around to
the sentiment, expressed by the Philby manque,
how working for the Soviets, was the logical choice, we saw this attitude with the Walt
Myers episode, the Bell Scion, who he used the lack of national health care, in 1978! as his reason for working for the DGI,
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 07:53 AM
Well there are some good points in Huntsman's
favor, supporting the Chinese dissidents, as seen in wikileaks, but they are few and far between, signing up John Weaver, indicates he chose 'poorly'
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 07:57 AM
I just wonder how long we can wait before we take to the streets.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2012 at 08:06 AM
I think Huntsman really is closer to this description;
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/202649-allen-west-romney-is-center-to-center-left
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 08:16 AM
A little googling would have gone a long way,
Michelle, it's like the tale of the blind man
and the elephant, missing the obvious
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/how-michele-bachmann-went-bust/2012/01/05/gIQAjI09cP_blog.html
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 08:23 AM
"It's Friday. And it is always a good day when there is a new Jack Cashill piece up at American Thinker."
...and a new post by Steve McCann. It takes an "outsider" sometimes, someone who has seen it all from the inside, to tell us where we are headed.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/obama_the_mask_is_off.html
Read the whole thing, including his links to two previous articles.
As Jane says: "I just wonder how long we can wait before we take to the streets."
From his first AT article, this is his perspective:
Posted by: Bill in AZ sez it's time for Obama/Holder murder trial in Mexico | January 06, 2012 at 08:37 AM
A little harsh, but fairly on point;
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/m-rinos_handmaids_in_the_destruction_of_america.html
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 08:39 AM
The Milwaukee prosecutors have been busy. SEIU activists about to be charged for vote fraud (actually voting in WI though not residents). These three were dumb enough to get caught, seems a tip of the iceberg thing to me, and Holder thinks we don't need voter ID.
Posted by: henry | January 06, 2012 at 08:42 AM
TM, might make this the subject of a new thread, sigh;
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/politics/president-obama-unveils-aggressive-re-election-strategy-against-gop-rivals.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 08:43 AM
Austin Goolsbee stains the WSJ op-ed pages with the hilariously titled "Washington Isn't Spending Too Much". When he's not pointing out the painfully obvious ("It's normal for deficits to rise during a downturn" while neglecting to point out that this "downturn" has been prolonged by the second coming of FDR) he's stating howlers like "As the economy grows back to health, the government share of the economy will fall (and many analysts forecast just that for the coming year". Leaving aside the parenthetical part where he justifies his underlying points by stating that a smattering of untenured people whose opinions matter agree with him in part, if government's share of the economy happens to fall because of some anemic growth combined with Repubs restraining Bammy's wildest excesses, it completely ignores the coming increases in spending if Bammycare isn't repealed.
How does the University of Chicago justify having this dumbass on its faculty?
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 06, 2012 at 08:46 AM
Peter and Bill in AZ,
Those 2 articles at AT are extremely compelling reads especially a few days after a new stroke toward depotism by dear leader. We are in deep doo-doo and as Jane says 'when do we take to the streets', indeed!
Weakening the military is more than budget cuts - it is the discouragement of necessity and investment which causes your officer corp to pack it it. If you want to make the military irrelevant you make sure the officer corp is of your making and design and loyal to your politics. Then you can use it to your benefit.
11/2012 cannot come soon enough.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 06, 2012 at 08:47 AM
Some promises like the Iowa piece pledge, and
this one, he keeps, JiB.
http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/69601/
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 08:57 AM
Unemployment at 8.5%, military gutted, recess appointments for the Supreme Court, Tea Party dithering, internecine bloodletting, frightened GOP congressmen and senators, voter fraud, class warfare, a straight flush of race cards, MSM doubling down for Obama, Ron Paul is the face of the GOP for a huge chunk of Iowa and still on the scene.
Huntsman is literally Mr. 1%. We should not worry about him.
As for the remainder of our alleged strategy? We don't have the luxury of assuming Obama's defeat is inevitable. It could easily be just the opposite.
Transformation?
Doom
Posted by: MarkO | January 06, 2012 at 09:03 AM
Well, all the links and other reading this morning has left me fairly depressed. Be sure to check out Jay Cost - for even more frustration.
Posted by: centralcal | January 06, 2012 at 09:04 AM
This is the proper sentiment,
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/03/28/
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 09:07 AM
A GOP person working as a diplomat for a Democrat is not necessarily a disqualifier. I don't think Huntsman did anything as ambassador to China that was an afrront against Republicans.
The problem is, once he got out of the Diplomatic service, he commenced insulting the base -- in snarky fashion. The base, and the talk show collective, is returning the favor.
Posted by: Appalled | January 06, 2012 at 09:08 AM
Holy cow, even Jonah thinks Obama is Nixon (like that was hard).
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287323/imperial-sham-jonah-goldberg
Posted by: MarkO | January 06, 2012 at 09:11 AM
Indeed no one with significant experience in government is acceptable to identity conservatives because they daily bathe themselves in the notion that government should be lead by people who despise government and that you can eat more and lose weight, ie cut taxes and raise revenues, start wars to make peace and promote religious faith by perverting it.
Gingrich: You're kidding right? He soiled himself with Fannie Mae, global warming and offshore drilling (not for oil, alas)
Huntsman: Accepted an appointment by the secret communist/Islamofascist Obama to work in China, where he speaks the language. How much more plainly Satanic could he be? He might even agree with the scientists on climate change.
Romney: Health care for poor people? Mormonism? Massachusetts? Works of the devil, no doubt about that.
Bottom line is that no one, anywhere or anytime can fulfill the Tea Party's political fantasies, because they are just that -- fantasies.
Posted by: bunkerbuster | January 06, 2012 at 09:14 AM
Jay Cost is interesting today. Can everyone agree that this has been the most screwed up nominating process ever?
Posted by: Appalled | January 06, 2012 at 09:17 AM
Nixon was pure as the driven snow compared to Bambi.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2012 at 09:19 AM
Oh without a doubt, it's almost as if they structured it in such a way as to prevent
a Reagan from ever rising up.
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 09:19 AM
No, I did not read VDH before I started my rant.
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/being-there-the-obama-sequel/
Posted by: MarkO | January 06, 2012 at 09:22 AM
Jane, this has to be the first time these words were together in this order: "Nixon was pure as the driven snow . . .."
I feel about Obama as you.
Posted by: MarkO | January 06, 2012 at 09:24 AM
Ditto, MarkO and Jane.
Posted by: centralcal | January 06, 2012 at 09:27 AM
Can everyone agree that this has been the most screwed up nominating process ever?
No; it strikes me as identical to the embarrassing dog and pony shows that the donks had the last two elections where they had ethically challenged Odd Dodd along with imbeciles like Kucinich and McKinney. I am disappointed the the Repubs have signed off on this though. I have a hard time believing the Founding Fathers would do anything other than vomit at the perpetual campaigns.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 06, 2012 at 09:28 AM
narciso,
Do you think he forgot? You can bet he hasn't and if given a 2nd term he will try to create such a domestic force by deputizing SEIU and ACORN into some kind of Weather Underground Posse Comitas. With a weak and politically compliant military and a gutless Congress what is to prevent it?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 06, 2012 at 09:30 AM
1% for Huntsman? Well maybe in the Occupooper sense, yeah. But 700 votes out of 120,000 aint anything more than an asterisk. Perhaps he can mine where Ron Paul has been mining, Democrats switchers for mischief and Indys cuz its clear the Republicans are just not that into him.
Posted by: Gmax | January 06, 2012 at 09:31 AM
Oh, crickey, look who is Perry's man in S.C,
the one they voted Steele for, to avoid.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/behind-perry-s-decision-to-keep-running-20120105?mrefid=election2012
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 09:31 AM
create such a domestic force by deputizing SEIU and ACORN into some kind of Weather Underground Posse Comitas.
Heck, I've got lib. neighbors that would love to sign up for the tattle-tale, STASI, busybody brigade. They would consider it an honor to rat out their neighbors for any green crimes....for the good of the earth ya know.
Posted by: Janet | January 06, 2012 at 09:37 AM
OT-- Ignatz, below is the link you provided, thanks. You are misinterpreting the signifigance of that table. Look at men aged 20 in 1939-1941 (this table looks back at what ACTUALLY happened.) Their life expectancy during their adult working life was 47 more years. So the average man actually worked for 45, got soc sec for 2 years, then died. That WAS a sustainable 'paygo' Ponzi Scheme. Of course the FDR new dealers could NOT predict with certainty what the next 46 years would bring, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that the 1937 actuarial tables predicted that the THEN 20yo life expectanct was 45 years or less -- meaning the average 20 yo would NEVER collect retirement benefits. Of course today, the LE for a 20yo is 56+ years and retirement can start at 62, Soc sec for 15 years; that has doomed soc sec. This is the problem with every defined benefit program -- the predictions can become wildly wrong, and the benefit makes promises that can never be kept. Your table basically renforces the points I made yesterday -- 1937 SocSec was meant to be welfare for surving widows, not a retirement plan. FDR was a power hungry socialist, but he wasn't as stupid as today's politicians. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
Posted by: NK | January 06, 2012 at 09:38 AM
At this stage Perry has embarrassed himself far more than Bachmann imo. I really wanted him to do well but he's just come off as an inarticulate boob who was ill-advised to enter this race. The funny thing is the he-man-wimmen-hatorzz @ AoS who still hold a torch for him while trashing Palin every chance they get; as if she ever stepped in it nearly as badly as he has on the campaign trail.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 06, 2012 at 09:38 AM
This would be funny, if it wasn't for the particulars of the person involved.
http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/bret-kimberlin-convicted-terrorist-and.html
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 09:39 AM
Really Captain, I wanted him in the race, because he was at least addressing two of
the major issues, QE 2 and Social Security's insolvency, but he did it in such a 'shoot from the hip' way, that he lost the point,
entirely. What exactly are they paying these
staffers for, apparently it's not useful advice.
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 09:43 AM
narc it makes you think that the McCain campaign staffers have never really gone away.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 06, 2012 at 09:47 AM
I'm sure Wehner and Kristol will be all verklempt about this;
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/santorum-jihadism-is-evil-and-we-need-to-say-what-it-is-sharia-law-is-incompatible-with-american-jur.html
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 09:49 AM
narc-- I stand by my november prediction: Huntsman drops out, announces endorsement of Obama, saying I'm a Repub, I've debated all repub candidates -- Obama is better. It was apt for Huntsman to be 'Bam's China ambassador, he IS the Manchurian Candidate.
Posted by: NK | January 06, 2012 at 09:53 AM
Well he doesn't have the cred that Colin Powell had to that, I know I threw up a little
at that sentence, but Bandar's tennis partner,
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 09:56 AM
Jane, your 8:06 may be a thought to think, but never to say.
Posted by: sbw | January 06, 2012 at 09:56 AM
And btw, in the winter it snows too, film at 11;
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 10:02 AM
A heads up on another "right" being created (got an advert. on our listserv)...
The film "The City Dark"
"And while lighting ordinances can require lamps to point downward instead of upward, a smart idea anyway because it can save energy, cities have been slow to adopt such rules.
Should darkness be a right, like clean air or water?
“I don’t know how to say it strongly enough,” Cheney told Breaking Orbit."
from our supposedly non-political neighborhood listserv - "The film advocates the preservation of dark skies, particular in urban environments. It will be a great event, with public outreach from a number of sponsoring organizations,..."
"green" sneaks in as being non-political in too many places.
Posted by: Janet | January 06, 2012 at 10:04 AM
I'm sure the beating commenced shortly after this, but on this morning's Today show Odummy cheerleader Ann Currie exhibited some degree of skepticism about the jobs figures and how sustainable they are.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 06, 2012 at 10:04 AM
NK:
I don't buy it. Huntsman gains nothing and Obama gains nothing from such a move. Huntsman is not going to move a single REpublican or Independent to Obama. (He's not well-known enough amongst independents.)
It's more likely Ron Paul would pull a stunt like that, since he's not going to run in 2016, and has nothing to lose.
Posted by: Appalled | January 06, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Hello, darkness, my old friend.
You have the right to remain regulated.
Posted by: MarkO | January 06, 2012 at 10:05 AM
The previous LUN, is worthy of one Rick's lively metaphors;
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/05/2575453/the-meaning-of-santorums-emergence.html
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 10:06 AM
a bit on the filmmaker Ian Cheney who writes for HuffPo.
"...and is part of a planning process to develop FoodCorps, a national school garden and Farm to School program."
Propaganda, propaganda everywhere....
Posted by: Janet | January 06, 2012 at 10:08 AM
But did morale necessarily improve after that,
folks like Ian suggest Darwin was wrong.
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 10:09 AM
It turns out North Korea is one step ahead of the rest of us when it comes to preserving the night sky.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 06, 2012 at 10:10 AM
'Brawndo, electrolytes good' this is like Zoolander 'am I the only one here, not on crazy pills'
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 10:15 AM
I understand your point. I wouldn't say that the majority of the media is far left Liberal. I would, however, say that the majority of the media (MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN) lean for Democrat with a few liberal influences surfacing from time to time. The way this was explained to me was it's because most journalists are university trained, and most universities have the left-type atmosphere.
Posted by: excel training | January 06, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Define Far left liberal. Fidel and Mao devotees? If that is your point, maybe I will concede grudingly ( probably excepting out most of the MSNBC nutbags ).
But they are slathering devotees of Zero, or as much as you can be of an abject failure incompetent. And he is left far beyond anything that has inhabited the Oval office since maybe Wilson.
Posted by: Gmax | January 06, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Could someone please explain how a so called Republican can accept a a position which requires him to carry out directives issued by a Democrat and than claim to oppose that Democrat? Why would anyone think that gave him credibility?
Wouldn't similar logic would mean that Hillary couldn't run against Obama? Yet many people seem to want that.
Posted by: PD | January 06, 2012 at 10:21 AM
SEIU activists about to be charged for vote fraud (actually voting in WI though not residents).
Don't tell bb. In his fantasy world, voter fraud doesn't exist and it might upset him to discover otherwise.
Posted by: PD | January 06, 2012 at 10:22 AM
Anyone who cheers for Obama to succeed is a Far Left Liberal in my book. Want to ask for a show of hands in the Press Room?
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 06, 2012 at 10:25 AM
The problem is he didn't seem to step down in opposition to any particular policy, Hillary won't be challenging him, that's just a fact, she is too tied to this administration's policies.
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 10:25 AM
Identity voters.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 06, 2012 at 10:27 AM
SBW,
If no one ever says it, no one will ever do anything.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2012 at 10:28 AM
Minus 17 at Raz today.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 06, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Wow, those fantabulous jobs numbers are really juicing the market.
Dow, S&P, NAQDAQ, all down.
Posted by: PD | January 06, 2012 at 10:34 AM
"Wouldn't similar logic would mean that Hillary couldn't run against Obama?"
That might be a reason Hillary has said she will not run against Obama.
Posted by: pagar | January 06, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Jane, take to the campaign trails, then. Engage people, then. Ours is, and ought to be, committed to civil discourse, not OWS tomfoolery.
Posted by: sbw | January 06, 2012 at 10:42 AM
PD,
Hillary could say that she gave it her best as SoS but that Obama is not properly advancing the Democrat agenda, so she is picking up the baton where he dropped it.
A Republican like Huntsman can't say that, because by agreeing to work for Obama, he gave tacit approval to the Democrat agenda. Republicans rightly will not accept such a person as their representative.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 06, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Hello, darkness, my old friend.
Does anyone remember this old song? I used to love it, long, long ago.
Posted by: Rocco | January 06, 2012 at 10:48 AM
The fine print in those numbers;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/06/jobless-rate-falls-to-85-percent-lowest-in-nearly-three-years/#ixzz1ih3V7l8q
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 10:49 AM
--The Milwaukee prosecutors have been busy. SEIU activists about to be charged for vote fraud (actually voting in WI though not residents).--
Boy are the prosecutors going to embarrassed when they point at the defendants in court.
Bunkerbuster assures us those people do not even exist.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 06, 2012 at 10:54 AM
The way this was explained to me was it's because most journalists are university trained, and most universities have the left-type atmosphere.
Most posters here are university trained. I think you need a new explanation.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 06, 2012 at 10:54 AM
While all of you were solving the world's problems, I had breakfast with jimmyk.
So there.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 06, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Surely they'llbe employing the Chewbacc defense;
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/01/guess-who-rakes-obama-over-coals-for.html
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 10:56 AM
You lead an interesting life, Mel.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 06, 2012 at 10:57 AM
I just wonder how long we can wait before we take to the streets.
Me too....or just stop obeying. When do companies say "No, we will not do another environmental study. Start drilling boys."
Civil discourse is all fine & good, but at some point we can't just sit there talking while the left takes over the country & takes away our freedoms.
Posted by: Janet | January 06, 2012 at 10:57 AM
DOJ Steers Countrywide Settlement Cash To Leftist Groups With Dem Ties
Posted by: Extraneus | January 06, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Jane and Janet:
Why are you feeling this way today, as opposed to the same day last month, or back when the occupies were camped out all over the place?
Posted by: Appalled | January 06, 2012 at 11:01 AM
Jane, take to the campaign trails, then.
Which campaign is going to overturn what I just posted?
Posted by: Extraneus | January 06, 2012 at 11:03 AM
El Globo endorses Huntsman. I take that as seriously as I would take whoever Paris Hilton, LiLo and the Kardashian sisters endorse.
Now that I think of it, I wouldn't insult Paris, LiLo and the Ksisters by suggesting that their thought processes are as degraded as those of ElGlobo's editorial board members.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 06, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Congrats, Mel; he's a great guy, no?
narc, I finally took on the Perry worshiping and Palin hating morons @ AoS; they weren't happy.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 06, 2012 at 11:07 AM
There are 7.5 million people working for the US government. So where does Obama decide to cut back? Right: the army and Marine Corps.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 06, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Why are you feeling this way today, as opposed to the same day last month, or back when the occupies were camped out all over the place?
Can't speak for Jane and Janet, but I feel this way too, and it has to do with the Cordray and NLRB appointments.
If no one is going to put their foot down over those, that sends a clear message to Obama that he actually can, it turns out, do whatever the eff he wants and we are well and truly screwed.
Save us Mitt Romney, you're our only hope. What a laugh.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 06, 2012 at 11:09 AM
WEll we see it's a Holder, Perez and this guy
referred by Adams, effort, so what could go wrong
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,595683,00.html
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 11:11 AM
It's a shame really that perception plays such an important part in electing a president. I'm sure Perry is more than capable of getting this country back on track but boy does he blow it in the debates. He's a nervous wreck and comes across as such. As an example, when he made that analogy to Tebow's doubters he said, he didn’t have the right “throwing mechanisms”. I'm sure he meant throwing mechanics and it's really not that big a deal, but he seems to get tongue tied when under the gun. The longer he stays in this thing, the better it is for Romney, IMO.
Posted by: Rocco | January 06, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Ext:
None of them, because this is a court order. However, the DoJ has the discretion to determine where the funds go, and are to be given reports on how it's spent. (Saying the money is going to ACORN is not accurate -- Acorn does not exist anymore. Saying the money is going to La Raza is merely speculative.)
What can be done is demand the reports on where the money is spent and how it is spent be made public.
Posted by: Appalled | January 06, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Yet another example from that list, who is being promoted upwards;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2697707/posts
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 11:16 AM
MelR/JimmyK -- are you in NYC today?
Appalled-- Huntsman endorses 'Bam because he IS a dem. He ran for Utah Gov as a Repub, because that was the only way to get elected. Huntsman is the functional equivalent of Bloomie-- without several Billion $s.
Posted by: NK | January 06, 2012 at 11:18 AM
That's like Standard Oil doesn't exist, however it was reconstituted by the Achincarry agreement in 1927.
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Acorn exists. Changing the label on Pea Soup to Creamed Corn doesn't change the fact that it's still Pea Soup.
And yes, I've seen them up close.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 06, 2012 at 11:22 AM
--OT-- Ignatz, below is the link you provided, thanks. You are misinterpreting the signifigance of that table. Look at men aged 20 in 1939-1941 (this table looks back at what ACTUALLY happened.) Their life expectancy during their adult working life was 47 more years. So the average man actually worked for 45, got soc sec for 2 years, then died.--
I don't think I am NK.
Maybe this link will help.
The first link I used and that you also used is a projection, it is not what actually happened and I considered deleting it after I found the other two.
The one above is what actually happened.
A guy who was 21 in 1940 had about a 70% chance of making it to 65 and could then expect to live 15 more years.
A guy who was 21 as far back as 1896 (IOW, born only 10 years after the civil war) had a 54% chance of making it to 65 and could expect to live nearly 13 more years.
That's somewhat closer to your hypothetical 'average' guy but still beats him by a wide margin, especially in survival length and in any event doesn't seem to be the guy you had in mind.
The guy you had in mind is nowhere near your average Joe in odds of making it to 65 and is somewhat better in survival.
I would like to see SS abolished in its entirety as not only a very badly designed "pension" but also as an unconstitutional one, but there were a whole lot of guys making it to 65 when it started and they were surviving not a whole lot less than they do now.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 06, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Subtract 42,000 UPS and FedEx couriers....and don't forget the elves
Posted by: BB Key | January 06, 2012 at 11:25 AM
NK-
No, he came to the political sewer that is Chicago.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 06, 2012 at 11:26 AM
NK:
So that means Huntsman has had nothing better to do with his life for the last year or so? I mean, if that were the case, he could have stayed ambassador, and switched parties when the tea party phenomenon backfired. (He evidently thinks it is going to.)
I think Huntsman is looking to come back in 2016, myself. If, in 2012, the GOP fails, there is going to be a group blaming the Tea Party, and they'll look more favorably at Huntsman.
Endorsing Obama in 2012 would be unforgivable even to the moderates who are Republicans. Hey, look at the trouble I'm in on this blog for endorsing Obama in 2008!
I don't think Huntsman is looking to end his political career. And, as noted above, he just does not have enough traction to be abl;e to secure that much for himself as a turncoat. (It's not like he is in the Jim Jeffords position of years gone by.)
Posted by: Appalled | January 06, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Fast Food Chain Serves 'Darth Vader' Burgers
In a galaxy not so far away, burgers are served on black buns.
How much force needs to be with you to eat a black burger? The Belgian fast food chain Quick is celebrating the upcoming "Phantom Menace 3D" movie premiere by launching a line of "Star Wars"-themed burgers. The burgers will debut in Quick restaurants throughout France on January 31, just before the film's February release in the country. Despite being in French, the ads for the burgers have sent the entire Internet into a tailspin of equal parts repulsion and curiosity.
If this had been done in the US, it would be racist.
Posted by: Neo | January 06, 2012 at 11:30 AM
It's like deja vu all over again, in the LUN,
as 'Jack Dunphy' and the Miami PD is likely to discover
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Proof that bank contributions to AGs pay off.
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/01/05/white-house-and-tom-miller-want-pension-funds-to-pay-part-of-the-foreclosure-fraud-settlement-instead-of-banks-ft/
Financial Times has the story also, but I can't get it to post.
Can any tell me why pension funds would do this?
Posted by: pagar | January 06, 2012 at 11:32 AM
I think Huntsman is looking to come back in 2016, myself. If, in 2012, the GOP fails, there is going to be a group blaming the Tea Party, and they'll look more favorably at Huntsman.
Then they can form their own third party with Huntsman as their standard-bearer; good luck with that. If the GOP loses in November, it won't be because of the Tea Party.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 06, 2012 at 11:32 AM
Sorry it was supposed to link to a consent decree on the LAPD some time in the 90s, except for replacing Reno and Bill Lann Lee
(who was there by recess appointment,) the gang is all there.
Posted by: narciso | January 06, 2012 at 11:35 AM
What can be done is demand the reports on where the money is spent and how it is spent be made public.
Really? The gov't extorts money from a private company - this time probably with a wink and a nod - and hands it over to anti-American race-hustling subversives, and all we get is a report? Do you think the report would somehow be devastating if it documented, say, $50M each for LaRaza and the new ACORN, groups that have already been on the public teat for years?
Posted by: Extraneus | January 06, 2012 at 11:35 AM
narciso-
Sorry about not calling back, my phone went swimming Wednesday and I just got the replacement yesterday. Breakfast was spur of the moment last night.
I'll follow up.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 06, 2012 at 11:35 AM