Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad

[Benny B]

Michael Bisping doesn't mince words when you ask for his take on the thorny issue of fighter pay in the UFC.

"I'm absolutely ecstatically happy with it," the British middleweight told MMA Fighting earlier this week. "Words cannot describe."

Then again, when you look at what the six-year UFC veteran is making every time he steps in the cage, it's not hard to understand his enthusiasm. In his most recent bout against Jason "Mayhem" Miller in December, for example, Bisping pocketed a cool $425,000 for his TKO win, according to the official payouts reported by the Nevada State Athletic Commission. That figure included a win bonus of $150,000, but didn't factor in any money he may have earned through sponsorships or undisclosed bonuses.

In other words, Michael Bisping is doing just fine these days. That's why, when he saw the recent ESPN report and the ensuing online discussions about fighter compensation in the UFC, he found himself getting more than a little worked up about all the criticism he was hearing, he said.

"To be honest, it makes me mad, because people don't understand," said Bisping. "I've worked hard, and I get [the amount stipulated in the contract], but when Dana comes into the locker room and gives me a check afterwards, they don't have to do that. Far from it. I was already very happy with the money I was getting, but then they'll hand you another check on top of that and say, 'Well done...good job,' and there'll be another huge check inside the envelope."

Of course, few fighters would complain about making what Bisping makes to fight in the UFC. His per fight guarantee is among the highest in the organization for non-title holders. It's the guys further down the totem pole -- those making just a few grand to show and a few to win -- who most critics of the UFC's pay structure focus on.

But according to Bisping, even those fighters have no cause for complaint the way he sees it.

"When I was an up-and-coming fighter I used to fight in these sh---y little shows and make no money," he said. "I used to sleep in my car. I couldn't pay my bills. I had to work on the weekends. So if I had to go out now [as an incoming UFC fighter] and I had to win a few fights, make six [thousand dollars to show] and six [thousand dollars to win], that's $12,000, plus maybe two or three thousand more in sponsors, and fight three or four times a way, that's not bad money. I'd be able to pay my bills and train full-time."

It's more or less the same argument put forth in the UFC's video response to the ESPN Outside the Lines story. The basic thesis is the UFC is a venue for up-and-coming fighters to show their talent and gain some fan recognition, so they should see the meager starting pay as an investment and an opportunity, which is exactly how it's worked out for Bisping, he said.

"If you win, and you start getting some notoriety with the fans and put on a good show, your pay's going to quickly go up. You start at six and six because the UFC is running a business. It's not, 'Oh, this guy's good enough to be in the UFC? Let's pay him a quarter of a million dollars.' It's not like that. They'll pay you a decent amount just for showing up, and even that's a big jump up from the regional show that you're used to. If you do well, they'll take care of you. They'll probably give you a bonus backstage and you'll quickly be in a new contract with a significant pay raise. If you put on good shows, you'll find success."

The way Bisping sees it, it's that 'if' that makes all the difference. If you win, and if fans want to see you fight again, more money is on the way. If not, then maybe you didn't belong in the UFC to begin with.

For Bisping, it's a formula that's worked out perfectly so far. Like other Ultimate Fighter winners, he started out on the lower end of the pay scale. Now he's clocking six figures just for stepping in the cage.

"From my initial involvement with the UFC on, the UFC has done nothing but take great care of me and my family," said Bisping. "They've always gone above and beyond the call of duty. They really have. With bonuses, with care, if I ever have injuries they give me access to the best doctors and then pay for everything. Myself and my family, we're living a great lifestyle. ...I'm making more money in one fight than I could have in 20 years of my old job. So you'll never hear a bad word come out of my mouth about the UFC's pay structure."

[GraniteCityDon]

Someone that sees it as it really is and isnt bitching about not making 10 mill per fight. If you were handed a lump sum of half a mill, even 100k for a fight you wouldnt bitch about it, personally id be running through f*cking walls with delight on my way to the bank trying to think how i was going to spend it.

[_bruce_]

Dude's right - has talent and works hard.
Nobody forces you to become an MMA fighter for a living.

[johnnynoname]

Don't worry Paultards, he'll run again in 2016 when he's 80. Then he'll pass the baton to his son, and you all can vote for the Paul family franchise for the rest of your lives.

[johnnynoname]

GM regains title of top-selling carmaker

January 20, 2012 - 7:53AM

General Motors has regained the title of world's top-selling carmaker selling just over nine million cars and trucks across the globe.

The company says it sold 9.03 million vehicles worldwide last year up 7.6 per cent from 2010. That's more than one million better than Toyota which took the title from GM in 2008.

GM also beat Germany's fast-growing Volkswagen which last week reported record global sales of 8.16 million in 2011 up 14 per cent from the year before.

Toyota said it sold 7.9 million vehicles worldwide last year. GM had held the global sales crown for more than seven decades before losing it to Toyota as GM's sales tanked while it headed toward financial ruin.

In 2009 GM filed for bankruptcy protection needing a US government bailout to survive. Now GM is profitable again and its vehicles are selling well across the globe.

On Thursday the company reported net income of $US7.1 billion ($6.83 billion) for the first three quarters of last year and it is expected to add to that number when it reports fourth-quarter and full-year results in February.

Toyota is aiming for a comeback this year and has predicted that it will sell 8.48 million vehicles in 2012. Its sales were hurt last year because the March earthquake in Japan slowed its factories and dealers ran short of cars to sell.

Industry analysts predict a tight race this year between GM, Volkswagen, Toyota and the joint venture between Nissan and Renault. Some analysts have said that VW is the world's biggest carmaker because GM's figures include vehicles made by its Wuling joint venture in China.

Many don't count Wuling because GM doesn't have controlling interest in the company but GM includes it in global sales figures. Excluding Wuling, GM would have been topped by Volkswagen.

Being the world's top-selling carmaker doesn't mean much for the bottom line. But GM retaking the title is an example of how far the company has come since its 2009 bankruptcy.

GM CEO Dan Akerson said last week the company isn't that concerned about posting large sales numbers and is focused more on making money so it can reinvest in products and generate returns for shareholders.

But he says strong sales can bring strong finances.

''You're not going to achieve the financial goals we want to achieve and have declining market share or declining numbers of units sold,'' he said. '' So it's one indicator among many.''

GM said its sales were up in all four of its regions: North America Europe South America and International Operations which includes Asia.

The Chevrolet brand led the way selling a record 4.76 million vehicles across the world. GM sold 640 000 more cars and trucks last year than it did in 2010 when it sold 8.39 million.

[johnnynoname]

This is the man who claimed in the last debate, in defense of his anti-semetic and racist newsletters, that "Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of my heroes." Yet, when it was his turn to vote on the King holiday, HE VOTED AGAINST IT. The bill that Dr. King risked his life and received constant death threats to see pass into law, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ron Paul was not in favor of, and STILL says he would have voted against...IN 2012.
We don't even need to go into the vile, disgusting comments he made about Dr. King in his news rag.   
But I digress...


Paul fights Washington spending, flies first class
Associated PressBy BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and STEPHEN BRAUN | Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been spending large amounts on airfare as a congressman, flying first class on dozens of taxpayer-funded flights to his home state. The practice conflicts with the image that Paul portrays as the only presidential candidate serious about cutting federal spending.

Paul flew first class on at least 31 round-trip flights and 12 one-way flights since May 2009 when he was traveling between Washington and his district in Texas, according to a review by The Associated Press of his congressional office expenses. Four other round-trip tickets and two other one-way tickets purchased during the period were eligible for upgrades to first-class after they were bought, but those upgrades would not be documented in the expense records.

Paul, whose distrust of big government is the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, trusts the more expensive government rate for Continental Airlines when buying his tickets. Paul chose not to buy the cheaper economy tickets at a fraction of the price because they aren't refundable or as flexible for scheduling, his congressional staff said.

"We always get him full refundable tickets since the congressional schedule sometimes changes quickly," said Jeff Deist, Paul's chief of staff. Paul might have to pay out of his own pocket for canceled flights in some cases if he didn't buy refundable tickets, Deist said.

But records show that most of the flights for Paul were purchased well in advance and few schedule changes were necessary. Nearly two-thirds of the 49 tickets were purchased at least two weeks in advance, and 42 percent were bought at least three weeks in advance, the AP's review found.

Paul charged taxpayers nearly $52,000 on the more expensive tickets, or $27,621 more than the average Continental airfare for the flights between Washington and Houston, according to the AP's review of his congressional expenses and average airfares compiled by the Department of Transportation.

The more expensive tickets have other benefits as well, including allowing Paul to upgrade to first class when his staff reserves a flight because his frequent government travel gives him membership in an elite class of Continental customers who earn travel perks. Upgrades to first-class with cheaper fares are possible, at times limited to available seats days before the flight. But those upgrades are not guaranteed and some require ticket changes at the airport, according to the airline's frequent flyer rules.

The AP reviewed congressional travel before the Iowa caucuses for the two members of Congress running at the time — Paul and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Bachmann later ended her presidential campaign.

House records show Bachmann, like most other congressional members, also paid the more expensive government rate for airfare. But her staff would not provide access to more detailed expense records that show when and what type of tickets were purchased.

Paul's congressional staff provided access to all expense records requested.

Congressional members don't have to pay the government rate for travel, but most do, including many like Paul and Bachmann who advocate cuts in federal spending.

"You could almost always beat the government rate," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense, a federal budget watchdog group. "They need to be walking the walk, and one of the ways they can do that is to be fiscally responsible for how they spend their member office money."

Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, didn't respond to a written request to explain how Paul's use of more expensive airfare, which allows him to fly first class, corresponds with his commitment to cut federal spending. Instead, he sent a statement that started, "No one is more committed to cutting spending than Dr. Paul."

But Paul's congressional travel conflicts with claims in campaign appearances that he's the most frugal and serious deficit hawk in the race.

"The talk you hear in Washington is pure talk, because there is nobody suggesting, the other candidates are not talking about real cuts," Paul said in a speech to supporters last week after his second-place finish in New Hampshire.

He has proposed cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget during his first year as president, and has confronted other candidates in public forums as "big government conservatives."

"You're a big spender, that's all there is to it," Paul told former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania during a GOP debate in New Hampshire.

Paul boasts on his website about declining other congressional perks, such as a pension and all-expense-paid travel "junkets" that other lawmakers take. And he says he regularly returns money from his congressional account to the treasury.

But when it comes to his congressional travel, Paul has opted not to search for cheaper airfares that could mean returning more of his office account to the treasury, which uses any money returned by House or Senate members to help reduce the federal deficit.

Paul paid $51,972 for his government-rate flights between Washington and Houston between May 2009 and March 2011, or more than twice the $24,351 average airfare on Continental for travel between Washington and Houston. The average airfare figure represents the price for all tickets purchased for Continental flights between Washington and Houston, including economy and first-class travel, according to the Transportation Department's Domestic Airline Fares Consumer Report, which collects airfare information for the nation's busiest travel routes.

Paul's staff regularly booked him in first class on flights when tickets were purchased, according to expense records. His office paid between $1,217 and $1,311 for each round-trip flight, compared to the average airfare for that trip ranging from $528 to $760, according to the airline fares consumer report.

The period reviewed by the AP was the most recent period for which complete congressional expense records were available.

[johnnynoname]

Why Wall Street Is Grudglingly Supporting Obama
Super-rich bankers and investors are nursing a bitter grudge over Obama’s populist rhetoric. But the president has hurt their feelings more than their pocketbooks, and there are still big reasons to stay on his side, writes Avi Zenilman.
by Avi Zenilman  | January 14, 2012


Wall Street Democrats aren't especially happy with the words coming out of Barack Obama's mouth, but most of them are biting their tongue—and still writing him checks.

On Friday morning, less than a week before the president visits New York to raise money at both the four-star restaurant Daniel—the last time he dropped by was in July—and Harlem's Apollo Theater, his reelection campaign echoed Newt Gingrich's recent populist attacks on Mitt Romney for his record as an investor and executive at Bain Capital. In a public memo, deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter called Romney a "corporate raider" who exploited the middle class before adding that President Obama would "level the playing field" and "restore fairness for consumers."
Obama Chicago

Paul Beaty / AP

The language, coming as public concern about income inequality has reached record highs, strikes an already raw nerve. While the campaign has been raking in cash at a faster pace than his record-setting 2008 campaign—it announced last week that it raised $42 million in the fourth quarter of 2011—the enthusiasm has not spread to the bankers and investors who Democrats have relied on in recent decades to partially counter the historic alliance between the Republican Party and big business. "There's this deep-seated feeling that he really doesn't understand how business operates," said a financial executive who has remained a strong Obama supporter. "This talk about fairness sounds whiny—they need to talk about collective responsibility. 'Fairness' calls for rectifying injustice and businesspeople don't think of their calling as unjust."

The root of the discomfort predates Obama's recent push for higher taxes on the wealthy, and often seems more than just a policy disagreement. After all, many on the left point out, Obama didn't break up the big banks that were propped up by the government because they were too big fail. The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill of 2010, which placed limits on certain kinds of trading and created the Consumer Finance Protection Board, may have kicked up simmering anger, but the complaints—at conferences or in investor letters or in interviews—are often tinged with a sense of personal betrayal. (They also nearly always cite a December 2009 interview in which the president called out "fat cat" bankers.)

    While Obama’s populist rhetoric might underwhelm Wall Street, the threat of a Republican Party gripped by the cultural conservatism of the Tea Party still looms.

The most recent public example came in November, when private equity billionaire Leon Cooperman, who like many finance executives expressed support of the idea of higher taxes and a social safety net, wrote a scathing open letter to the president. “I can justifiably hold you accountable for your and your minions' role in setting the tenor of the rancorous debate now roiling us,” the private-equity billionaire wrote. “To frame the debate as one of rich-and-entitled versus poor-and-dispossessed is to both miss the point and further inflame an already incendiary environment.”

It's a striking departure from the last presidential cycle, when employees of Goldman Sachs donated more to the Obama campaign than any other company. In the spring and summer of 2007, Obama raised $7.7 million from the financial industry, while Romney brought in $5.1 million. Four years and one great recession later, they've basically switched places, with Romney raking in nearly $8 million and Obama—who has watched former supporters like Chicago hedge-fund billionaire Ken Griffin go back to support only Republicans—has seen his haul fall to $4.2 million. (Fourth-quarter-industry data is not yet available.)

Both donors and operatives, speaking to The Daily Beast on condition of anonymity because their universe is full of hushed personal rivalries and petty grudges, said that, for now, much of the money from the financial sector was rolling in out of a sense of obligation. “They're whining because Obama hurt their feelings,” said House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who guided the financial reform bill through Wall Street and is grudgingly respected by Wall Street. “He’s not really interfered with their income.”

While Obama’s populist rhetoric—and his oft-noted inability to schmooze as well as Bill Clinton—might underwhelm Wall Street, the threat of a Republican Party gripped by the cultural conservatism of the Tea Party and the religious right still looms. In New York, where the financial community provided much of the support for Gov. Andrew Cuomo's successful push to legalize gay marriage, and other urban financial centers, the unanimous opposition by Republican candidates to abortion rights, opening up immigration, and gay marriage doesn't go over well. In a defense of Bain’s record published in Friday's Politico, Stephen Rattner, a former investment banker who was perhaps the most powerful Democratic fundraiser in Manhattan until he joined the Obama administration to oversee the rescue of the auto industry, made sure to go out of his way to mock Romney’s “come-lately embrace of hard-right conservatism.”

There’s no indication that the president will have trouble funding his reelection campaign, but to some degree it might be more important than ever for politicians to get the mega-rich excited. In Iowa and South Carolina, billionaires have taken advantage of recent changes in campaign finance laws and kept the primary campaigns of Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman alive by plowing millions of dollars into super PACs, organizations that aren’t bound by normal contribution limits and run as many attack ads as they can afford. Which means that the 70-plus fundraisers Obama attended last year could go a long way if he successfully assuaged the feelings of a few cranky men and women. “I've seen a 180-degree turn from where we were, even a year ago, in terms of support for the President,” said a source close to a wide range of major Democratic donors.

[johnnynoname]

January 14, 2012
What They Don’t Want to Talk About

Ever since Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry started criticizing Mitt Romney’s actions at Bain Capital — and talking about the thousands of people laid off as a result of Bain’s investments — party leaders have essentially told them to shut up. That response is a pretty good indication of how deeply party elders fear the issue of economic inequality in the campaign to come.

“What the hell are you doing, Newt?” Rudolph Giuliani asked Thursday on Fox News. “This is what Saul Alinsky taught Barack Obama, and what you’re saying is part of the reason we’re in so much trouble right now.”

Mr. Giuliani has one thing right: Republicans are indeed in growing trouble as more voters begin to realize how much the party’s policies — dismantling regulations, slashing taxes for the rich, weakening unions — have contributed to inequality and the yawning distance between the middle class and the top end.

The more President Obama talks about narrowing that gap, the more his popularity ratings have risen while those of Congress plummet. Two-thirds of Americans now say there is a strong conflict between the rich and the poor, according to a Pew survey released last week, making it the greatest source of tension in American society.

That makes Mr. Romney and his party vulnerable, as he clearly knows. He said on Wednesday that issues of wealth distribution should be discussed only “in quiet rooms.” And he accused the president of using an “envy-oriented, attack-oriented” approach, “entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.”

Mr. Romney’s image of a country where workers have nothing but admiration for benevolent, job-creating capitalists (and no one is so impolite as to mention jobs destroyed) bears very little relationship to reality. But his suggestion that it is un-American to talk about rising populist resentment is self-serving and hypocritical. Republicans, in particular, have eagerly stoked such resentments against minorities and the poor.

That was the essence of the “Southern strategy” that Republicans, beginning with Richard Nixon, used to urge white voters to defect from a Democratic Party that supported civil rights. It continued for decades with attacks on busing, affirmative action, immigration and welfare, and was sounded most recently by Mr. Gingrich, with his attacks on Mr. Obama as “the food stamp president.”

Fanning resentment of the poor — and deflecting attention from the relentless Republican defense of the rich — is also central to the party’s current political strategy. That’s why so many Republican candidates and lawmakers keep talking so angrily about poor people not paying federal income taxes. That’s how the Tea Party got started in 2009, when Mr. Obama proposed lowering interest rates for homeowners who were behind on their mortgages and conservative activists saw an opportunity to pit the affluent against their struggling neighbors. And that’s why Mr. Romney constantly accuses the president of trying to create “an entitlement society,” which is simply a variant on Ronald Reagan’s welfare-queen anecdotes.

And yet if Democrats dare to point out that the income gains of the top 1 percent have dwarfed everyone else’s in the last few decades, they are accused of whipping up class envy. Alan Krueger, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, noted in a speech on Thursday that the median income in the United States had actually declined since 1999, shrinking the middle class while the income of the top 1 percent soared. Such inequality is corrosive. And pointing it out has nothing to do with envy and everything to do with pressing for policies to help America’s struggling middle class.

Anyone who criticizes Mr. Romney’s business practices now faces the absurd charge of putting free-market capitalism on trial. No one is trying to end capitalism, but President Obama is calling for more effective regulation to protect consumers. While Republicans attack a supposed “entitlement culture,” Mr. Obama is calling for strengthening a desperately needed safety net. And he is calling for raising taxes on the wealthy, particularly for those on Wall Street and in private equity, to protect that safety net and reduce the deficit.

Mr. Romney has based his campaign on his business experience. Americans need to know how that experience was gained, and what values — if any — it represents. Class reality has nothing to do with class warfare.

[johnnynoname]

By Ruben Navarrette Jr., CNN Contributor

This is ironic given that I've spent the last 20 years criticizing politicians who twist the facts, propose simple solutions and pick on those who don't have a voice.

And Romney has spent the last several months doing precisely that, just like he did during his failed 2008 presidential bid.He has used illegal immigration as a weapon against Republican opponents who propose reasonable solutions and in the process portrayed illegal immigrants, most of whom come from Mexico, as takers who come to the United States for free public benefits and ought not be rewarded with "amnesty."

We can expect Romney to continue that theme over the next week as he campaigns in South Carolina, where Republican primary voters will cast ballots on January 21 and where illegal immigration is a bigger issue than in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Lawmakers in the Palmetto State recently passed a tough Arizona-style immigration law that requires local and state police to determine the immigration status of anyone they suspect to be an illegal immigrant (read: Latinos).

It's an approach that is wildly unpopular with Latinos and which has the blessing of most of the Republicans running for president, including Mitt Romney.

And that's one reason why Romney, even if he is the GOP nominee for president, doesn't have much of a chance with Latino voters. Political experts say that a Republican would have to earn at least 30% of the Latino vote to win the White House. Given how he behaved in the primaries, Romney will be lucky to get 20%.

In fact, a recent poll of Latino voters by the Pew Hispanic Center put the figure at 23%. While it found a high level of anger with President Barack Obama among Latinos over his aggressive deportation policies, the poll also found that -- in a Obama-Romney matchup -- the Democrat would easily beat the Republican, 68% to 23%. That's saying something given that, according to the survey, Obama's job approval rating with Latinos is just 49%. The takeaway: You want to make Obama more popular with Latinos? Easy. Pit him against Romney.

Listen to Lionel Sosa, a San Antonio-based advertising executive and Republican strategist who has advised George W. Bush and John McCain. A few months ago, Sosa told The New York Times that Romney had blown his chance with Latinos.

"(Romney) can make as many trips to Florida and New Mexico and Colorado and other swing states that have a large Latino population," said Sosa, "but he can write off the Latino vote."

It was Romney who recently promised to veto the Dream Act if he's elected president and if Congress passes the bill. The legislation, which would allow undocumented students to stay in the country legally if they complete a college degree or join the military, is extremely popular with Latinos.[

It was Romney who first attacked Texas Gov. Rick Perry for signing a law that allows illegal immigrants who live in Texas to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. And it was Romney who later attacked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for declaring that the GOP shouldn't support splitting up families and proposing a pathway for the undocumented to work legally in the United States.

It was Romney who, in the debates, came across as naive by suggesting that the illegal immigration problem could be solved by simply putting more "boots on the ground" and as dishonest by not acknowledging the contributions that illegal immigrants make to the local, state and national economies.

And it was Romney whose campaign put up, in New Hampshire, an offensive television ad that attacked Perry by linking him to Mexico and former Mexican President Vicente Fox, because Fox happened to agree with the Texas governor on letting illegal immigrants pay in-state tuition.

So the candidate who winds up vilifying Mexico is the same one whose father was born in Mexico? Who can make sense of this?

Listen up, Primo Mitt. You've made your bed. You're persona non grata with Latino voters, and it's your own fault. You can't win without them, but they can help make sure you lose.

We don't care where your family's from. What matters is where your heart is.

[johnnynoname]

Unemployment rate falls as economy adds 200K jobs
Employers add 200,000 jobs, unemployment rate falls to 8.5 percent, lowest in nearly 3 years.
Associated PressBy Christopher s. Rugaber, AP Economics Writer
   


WASHINGTON (AP) -- A burst of hiring in December pushed the unemployment rate to its lowest level in nearly three years, giving the economy a boost at the end of 2011.

The Labor Department said Friday that employers added a net 200,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate fell to 8.5 percent, the lowest since February 2009. The rate has dropped for four straight months.

The hiring gains cap a six-month stretch in which the economy generated 100,000 jobs or more in each month. That hasn't happened since April 2006.

The steady drop is a positive sign for President Barack Obama, who is bound to face voters with the highest unemployment rate of any sitting president since World War II. Unemployment was 7.8 percent when Obama took office in January 2009.

Still, the level may matter less to his re-election chances if the rate continues to fall.History suggests that presidents' re-election prospects hinge less on the unemployment rate itself than on the rate's direction during the year or two before Election Day.

For all of 2011, the economy added 1.6 million jobs, better than the 940,000 added in 2010. The unemployment rate averaged 8.9 percent last year, down from 9.6 percent the previous year.

Economists forecast that the job gains will top 2.1 million this year.

The December report painted a picture of a broadly improving job market. Average hourly pay rose, providing consumers with more income to spend. The average work week lengthened, a sign that business is picking up and companies may soon need more workers. And hiring was strong across almost all major industries.

Manufacturing added 23,000 jobs. Transportation and warehousing added 50,000 jobs. Retailers added 28,000 jobs. Even the beleaguered construction industry added 17,000 workers.

A more robust hiring market coincides with other positive data that show the economy ended the year with some momentum.

Weekly applications for unemployment benefits have fallen to levels last seen more than three years ago. Holiday sales were solid. And November and December were the strongest months of 2011 for U.S. auto sales.

Many businesses say they are ready to step up hiring in early 2012 after seeing stronger consumer confidence and greater demand for their products.

[johnnynoname]

Crackpots Do Not Make Good Messengers
By Kevin Drum | Mon Jan. 2, 2012


So then: Ron Paul. Should we lefties be happy he's in the presidential race, giving non-interventionism a voice, even if he has other beliefs we find less agreeable? Should we be happy that his non-mainstream positions are finally getting a public hearing? This is a depressingly common view. For example:



Can we talk? Ron Paul is not a charming oddball with a few peculiar notions. He's not merely "out of the mainstream." Ron Paul is a full bore crank. In fact he's practically the dictionary definition of a crank: a person who has a single obsessive, all-encompassing idea for how the world should work and is utterly blinded to the value of any competing ideas or competing interests.

This obsessive idea has, at various times in his career, led him to: denounce the Civil Rights Act because it infringed the free-market right of a monolithic white establishment to immiserate blacks; dabble in gold buggery and advocate the elimination of the Federal Reserve, apparently because the global economy worked so well back in the era before central banks; suggest that the border fence is being built to keep Americans from leaving the country; claim that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and should be dismantled; mount repeated warnings that hyperinflation is right around the corner; insist that global warming is a gigantic hoax; hint that maybe the CIA helped to coordinate the 9/11 attacks; oppose government-sponsored flu shots; and allege that the UN wants to confiscate our guns.

This isn't the biography of a person with one or two unusual hobbyhorses. It's not something you can pretend doesn't matter. This is Grade A crankery, and all by itself it's reason enough to want nothing to do with Ron Paul. But of course, that's not all. As we've all known for the past four years, you can layer on top of this Paul's now infamous newsletters, in which he condoned a political strategy consciously designed to appeal to the worst strains of American homophobia, racial paranoia, militia hucksterism, and new-world-order fear-mongering. And on top of that, you can layer on the fact that Paul is plainly lying about these newsletters and his role in them.

Now, balanced against that you have the fact that Paul opposes the War on Drugs and supports a non-interventionist foreign policy. But guess what? Even there, he's a crank. Even if you're a hard-core non-interventionist yourself, you probably think World War II was a war worth fighting. But not Ron Paul. He thinks we should have just minded our own damn business. And even if you're a hardcore opponent of our current drug policy — if you think not just that marijuana should be legalized, not just that hard drugs should be decriminalized, but that all illicit drugs should be fully legalized — I'll bet you still think that maybe we should retain some regulations on a few of the worst drugs. They're pretty dangerous, after all, and no matter how much you hate the War on Drugs you might have a few qualms about a global marketing behemoth like RJ Reynolds having free rein to advertise and sell anything it wants, anywhere it wants, in any way it wants. But not Ron Paul. As near as I can tell, he just wants everything legalized, full stop.

Bottom line: Ron Paul is not merely a "flawed messenger" for these views. He's an absolutely toxic, far-right, crackpot messenger for these views. This is, granted, not Mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time levels of toxic, but still: if you truly support civil liberties at home and non-interventionism abroad, you should run, not walk, as fast as you can to keep your distance from Ron Paul. He's not the first or only person opposed to pre-emptive wars, after all, and his occasional denouncements of interventionism are hardly making this a hot topic of conversation among the masses. In fact, to the extent that his foreign policy views aren't simply being ignored, I'd guess that the only thing he's accomplishing is to make non-interventionism even more of a fringe view in American politics than it already is. Crackpots don't make good messengers.

Now, if you literally think that Ron Paul's views on drugs and national security are so important that they outweigh all of this — multiple decades of unmitigated crackpottery, cynical fear-mongering, and attitudes toward social welfare so retrograde they make Rick Perry look progressive — and if you've somehow convinced yourself that non-interventionism has no other significant voices except Ron Paul — well, if that's the case, then maybe you should be happy to count Paul as an ally. But the truth is that you don't need to. Ron Paul is not a major candidate for president. He's never even been a significant presence as a congressman. In a couple of months he'll disappear back into the obscurity he so richly deserves. So why get in bed with him? All you'll do is wake up in March with a mountain of fleas. Find other allies. Make your arguments without bothering to mention him. And remember: Ron Paul has never once done any of his causes any good. There's a good reason for that.

[johnnynoname]

The LIES continue as a South Carolina audience kicks Paul's ass last night. 


Ron Paul Denies Saying He Wouldn’t Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid in Pakistan — But Here’s the Video

Last night’s GOP debate in South Carolina may be one that causes Ron Paul some problems in the “honesty” department.

Mr. Paul‘s truthfulness is being questioned after he told Fox News’ Brett Baier that he never said that he would not have given the order to go into Pakistan and kill Osama bin Laden:

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

There‘s just one small problem with Paul’s denial, he did say it, several times.

Back in May of 2011, and featured here on The Blaze, Ron Paul said three times in a two minute discussion of the topic, that as President of the United States, he would not have ordered bin Laden killed in the manner that President Obama did.

Simon Conway was quite clear in his questions, first asking;

    So President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, which could have only have taken place by entering another sovereign nation?

And Dr. Paul was equally clear in his response:

    I don’t think it was necessary. No.

Less than a minute later, Conway attempted to further clarify by again asking the congressman”

    So President Ron Paul would not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, to take place, as it took place in Pakistan?

Ron Paul’s response was consistent with his two previous answers.

    Not the way it took place, no. I mean he was unarmed, you know… and all these other arguments.

Watch the two minute excerpt as Simon Conway of WHO Radio in Iowa repeatedly asks the Texas Congressman whether he would have given the order to kill Osama bin Laden.

Ron Paul explains that if he were elected President, he would not have ordered Osama bin Laden killed.

That clip from WHO Newsradio 1040 appeared on The Blaze on May 11th.

[johnnynoname]

[johnnynoname]

America's mainstream media is being accused of playing with fire for playing-up the prospect of war, between Iran and the West. It's a sensitive time with the military stand-off in the Strait of Hormuz, and looming sanctions over Iran's nuclear program. But, as Gayane Chichakyan reports, viewers in the States are repeatedly hearing how war is virtually inescapable.

[johnnynoname]

Welcome to the West Wing Week, your guide to everything that's happening at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. This week, the President visited the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, welcomed this year's NBA Champs, the Dallas Mavericks, addressed the EPA, announced a new Chief of Staff, and introduced the White House's Insourcing Initiative. That's January 6th to January 12th or, "Insourcing: Bringing Jobs Back to America."

[johnnynoname]

This 2012 version is a complete FRAUD

Footage from the Romney/Kennedy Debate, October 1994
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[johnnynoname]

Mitt Romney on Wall Street and inequality
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[johnnynoname]

Yesterday was a huge day in Egypt, as that country’s President/dictator for the past 30 years ceded power in the face of massive peaceful protests by his people.  While much work remains to be done to ensure that real democracy takes hold in Egypt, we should celebrate the amazing victory by and for the Egyptian people.  It was truly a day for progressives and other supporters of democracy and peaceful protest to savor.

Mubarak’s departure is also, however, a victory for the Obama Administration’s patient and reasoned approach to promoting democracy in Egypt and other countries.  This approach started with President Obama’s stellar June 2009 speech in Cairo that signaled that the peoples of Egypt and other countries would have to choose democracy, but we would be there to support them if they made moves to achieve it peacefully.  And it has continued over the past 18 days of protests, as President Obama has taken a measured approach of private diplomacy with Mubarak, Egypt’s military, and other Egyptian leaders, combined with slowly increasing public pressure that focused on supporting the will of the Egyptian people.  As yesterday’s developments show, President Obama’s approach is working.

Throughout the protests, many on the left and from the Bush Administration have harshly criticized President Obama for not being more publicly vocal about the need for Mubarak to leave and in support of the protesters.  Apparently these folks wanted President Obama to try to lead the protest movement, demand democracy and regime change immediately, and/or engage in the type of loud public saber rattling that marred our foreign policy under the Bush Administration.  Such an approach (which, notably, did not lead to the peaceful toppling of any leaders in the Middle East under Bush) would have been misguided for a number of reasons.

* First, the publicly vocal approach that the critics wanted President Obama to take would have made the protesters look like tools of the U.S., which would undermine their credibility at home.

* Second, such an approach would have limited President Obama’s ability to work privately to make the protests successful by making sure that Mubarak or the Egyptian military did not overreact and have the situation devolve into chaos.  It is remarkable that a thirty year dictator did not violently crush the protests and stepped down with hardly a shot fired, and the Obama Administration’s private diplomacy is likely a large reason why such violence did not occur.

* Third, the critics’ approach ignores the fact that democracy has to come from the people of Egypt, not outside pressure from the U.S.  That is not to say that we had no role in how things turn out in Egypt, but the thought that we could essentially dictate the results in Egypt reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how politics and foreign policy works, as both leaders and citizens of countries do not react well to outsiders publicly meddling in their affairs.

Peacefully toppling a dictatorial regime is a difficult thing to achieve.  It requires more than just protests from a country’s citizens and demands of “regime change” from other world leaders.  Instead, it requires patient and reasoned diplomacy focused on moving the dictator out of power and supporting the will of the people that a protesting.  This is the approach that the Obama Administration has taken so far and now, as a result, we are in a position to help the people of Egypt establish a path to a peaceful transition to democracy.

As progressives, it is important that we help spread the word of the success of the Obama Administration’s approach to Egypt for at least two reasons.  First, it helps counteract the misconception that the Administration is not being successful.  Second, and more importantly, it helps build support for the more reasoned approach of this Administration and helps push back on the supporters of the loud saber rattling that led our foreign policy so far astray under the Bush Administration.

So, we urge you to write a letter to your local newspaper editor celebrating the events in Egypt, and highlighting the importance of the Obama Administration’s approach to enabling those events to occur.

[johnnynoname]

Senator Barack Obama has fulfilled the promise of his earlier climate plan with a detailed and comprehensive "New Energy for America" plan.

This is easily the best energy plan ever put forward by a nominee of either party. By comparison, the plan of John "Nothing but Nukes" McCain is a joke, with nothing on energy efficiency and a pointless $300 million battery prize and long-standing opposition to renewable energy. In contrast, Obama's plan has real depth and breath:


* Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per each year while protecting the financial future of domestic automakers....

* Invest in Developing Advanced Vehicles and Put 1 Million Plugin Electric Vehicles on the Road by 2015: As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama has led efforts to jumpstart federal investment in advanced vehicles, including combined plug‐in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles, which can get over 150 miles per gallon of gas... [more details below]

* Partner with Domestic Automakers: Obama will also provide $4 billion retooling tax credits and
      loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that the new fuel‐efficient
      cars can be built in the U.S. by American workers rather than overseas.

* Mandate All New Vehicles are Flexible Fuel Vehicles

* Develop the Next Generation of Sustainable Biofuels and Infrastructure

* Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: ... The standard requires fuels suppliers in 2010 to begin to reduce the carbon of their fuel by 5 percent within 5 years and 10 percent within 10 years.


This is the only way to jumpstart an end to our addiction to oil in a climate friendly way. Indeed, an accelerated transition to plug-in hybrids and electric cars -- a core climate solution-- must be the cornerstone of any serious effort to dramatically reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. That is the crucial litmus test for any presidential candidate's energy independence or clean transportation policy.

As for the test of a candidate's grasp of electricity policy, energy efficiency is obviously The only cheap power left and a limitless resource and THE core climate solution. Obama understands energy efficiency in a way few other major politicians do, as his plan makes clear:



* Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source--Energy Efficiency: Barack Obama will set an aggressive energy efficiency goal--to reduce electricity demand 15 percent from DOE's projected levels by 2020. Implementing this program will save consumers a total of $130 billion, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 5 billion tons through 2030, and create jobs. A portion of this goal would be met by setting annual demand reduction targets that utilities would need to meet.

* Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.

* Overhaul Federal Efficiency Standards: The current Department of Energy has missed 34 deadlines for setting updated appliance efficiency standards....

* Reduce Federal Energy Consumption: ... He will make the federal government a leader in the green building market, achieving a 40 percent increase in efficiency in all new federal buildings within five years and ensuring that all new federal buildings are zero‐emissions by 2025. He will invest in cost‐effective retrofits to achieve a 25 percent increase in efficiency of existing federal buildings within 5 years.

* Invest in a Smart Grid: ... Obama will pursue a major investment in our national utility grid using smart metering, distributed storage and other advanced technologies to accommodate 21st century energy requirements: greatly improved electric grid reliability and security, a tremendous increase in renewable generation and greater customer choice and energy affordability.

* Weatherize One Million Homes Annually....

* Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities....

* Flip Incentives to Energy Utilities: An Obama administration will "flip" incentives to utility companies by: requiring states to conduct proceedings to implement incentive changes; and offering them targeted technical assistance. These measures will benefit utilities for improving energy efficiency, rather than just from supporting higher energy consumption. This "regulatory equity" starts with the decoupling of profits from increased energy usage, which will incentivize utilities to partner with consumers and the federal and state governments to reduce monthly energy bills for families and businesses. The federal government under an Obama administration will play an important and positive role in flipping the profit model for the utility sector so that shareholder profit is based on reliability and performance as opposed to total production.


Finally, a presidential nominee that really gets it (see "Energy efficiency, Part 4: How does California do it so consistently and cost-effectively?").

The proposal has lots of other details on short-term solutions and promoting the supply of domestic energy. But let me focus on his low-carbon electricity supply plan:


* Require 10 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2012 [and 25 percent by 2025]. Barack Obama will establish a 10 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 10 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2012. Many states are already well on their way to achieving statewide goals and it's time for the federal government to provide leadership for the entire country to support these new industries. This national requirement will spur significant private sector investment in renewable sources of energy and create thousands of new American jobs, especially in rural areas. And Obama will also extend the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) for 5 years to encourage the production of renewable energy.

* Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology....

* Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: ... It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.... As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.


He also repeats his climate pledge and his jobs pledge:


* Implement an economy‐wide cap‐and‐trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

* Invest In A Clean Energy Economy and Help Create 5 Million New Green Jobs. Obama will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years...


Finally, back to the details of the plug-in hybrid proposal:

As president, Obama will continue this leadership by investing in advanced vehicle technology with a specific focus on R&D in advanced battery technology. The increased federal funding will leverage private sector funds and support our domestic automakers to bring plug‐in hybrids and other advanced vehicles to American consumers. Obama will also provide a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of advanced technology vehicles as well as conversion tax credits. And to help create a market and show government leadership in purchasing highly efficient cars, an Obama administration will commit to:


* Within one year of becoming President, the entire White House fleet will be converted to plug‐ins as security permits; and

* Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug‐in hybrids or all‐electric by 2012.



This is an aggressive, achievable, and most important of all, a necessary energy plan. Kudos to Senator Obama and his energy team. Maybe he is The One.

[johnnynoname]

Wall Street at 5-month high

By Chuck Mikolajczak

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks climbed to a five-month high on Tuesday, led by materials stocks after an upbeat forecast by aluminum company Alcoa and strong gains in bank shares.

Alcoa Inc (NYSE:AA - News) posted revenue that topped expectations late Monday and gave a bullish outlook for the aluminum industry. The stock gave up early gains to end at $9.44, up 1 cent. However, data showing strong Chinese imports of copper helped buoy the rest of the sector.

A gauge of materials companies' shares (:.GSPM) was among the leaders of S&P 500 sectors, with a gain of 1.8 percent.

The U.S. equity market continued its recent divergence from the woes of the euro zone. Recent economic reports and optimism about the U.S. earnings season have pushed stocks higher in the start of the new year, with the benchmark S&P 500 rising in five of six sessions.

"Investors are still focusing on Europe but not putting as much weight on Europe as they were in November," said Jonathan Corpina, head of NYSE floor operations for Meridian Equity Partners in New York.

That focus could change quickly. Key bond auctions later this week from Italy and Spain, two countries at the center of the euro zone crisis, could hurt sentiment if they go poorly.

"Historically, earnings season has helped the market shift higher - so let's hang our hats on this for now, but let's not forget about what is going on in Europe," Corpina said.

Industrial and materials stocks, closely tied to economic performance, were the day's biggest gainers. Caterpillar Inc (NYSE:CAT - News) shares were up 3 percent at $99.96, leading the Dow index higher.

U.S. bank stocks continued a rebound that has lifted the KBW banks index (Philadelphia:^BKX - News) nearly 9 percent so far this year. The KBW rose 1.9 percent on Tuesday.

JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM - News) rose 2.1 percent to $36.05.

Easing some concerns about Europe, Fitch said it does not expect to cut France's AAA credit rating this year, but countries under review such as Italy or Spain could be downgraded by one or two notches.

The Dow Jones industrial average (DJI:^DJI - News) gained 69.78 points, or 0.56 percent, to 12,462.47. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index (SNP:^GSPC - News) rose 11.38 points, or 0.89 percent, to 1,292.08. The Nasdaq Composite Index (Nasdaq:^IXIC - News) climbed 25.94 points, or 0.97 percent, to 2,702.50.

The Dow and S&P 500 hit their highest intraday levels in five months. The S&P 500 close above 1,285.09 is the highest since the end of July and marked a breach of technical resistance, which could spur further gains.

Copper prices rose 3.1 percent, the best performance since late November, after China reported copper imports rose to a record high last month.

The CBOE Volatility Index VIX (Chicago Options:^VIX - News), Wall Street's so-called fear gauge, fell 2.9 percent to 20.46, making another test of the psychologically key 20 level, according to WhatsTrading.com options strategist Frederic Ruffy.

The VIX is down 11.6 percent so far in 2012 and falling to levels last seen in late July as the S&P 500 has seen average daily price moves of fewer than 8 points so far this year, he said.

Volume was solid, with about 7.02 billion shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange, NYSE Amex and Nasdaq, above the daily average of 6.7 billion.

Advancing stocks outnumbered declining ones on the NYSE by 2,305 to 687, while on the Nasdaq, advancers beat decliners 1,833 to 699.

[johnnynoname]

Rick Santorum, Get Ready for Your Close-Up
By David A. Graham

The Pennsylvanian crested late enough that he didn't get the full frontrunner media treatment before Iowa. Now it's coming, and it won't be fun.


Whatever else you can say for Rick Santorum, he's got great timing. Since his bubble inflated so late, there was no time for the press and opposition researchers to give him the full treatment that greets top-tier contenders. Even in the era of diminished media importance, that scrutiny can be destructive -- just ask Herman Cain. It's yet another stone in the pathway for Santorum, who dramatically trails Romney in New Hampshire polls, as well as in national fundraising and name-recognition.

After a day to let the Iowa hangover fade, the onslaught has started. You won't find anyone betting on the squeaky-clean Santorum getting embroiled in a Cain-style sex scandal, but with a 16-year record in Congress, there's plenty of material in the public record and lots of embarrassing quotes to dredge up (plus the infamous "Google problem").

Over at National Journal, John Aloysius Farrell details the former senator's aggressive and often divisive style on the Hill, which sometimes alienated colleagues.ABC has a report up detailing allegations brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington back in 2006, the year he lost his Senate seat by an 18-point margin. CREW suggests that Santorum helped steer an $8 million earmark to a charity staffed by former staffers that included major campaign donors on its board. CREW also raised questions about how he paid for a house:

   Perhaps the most jarring detail from his tenure in office is the unorthodox $500,000 mortgage that Santorum and his wife secured on the home in rural Virginia they had purchased for $643,361. According to a series of reports in the Philadelphia Daily News, the mortgage came from Philadelphia Trust Company, a fledgling private bank catering to "affluent investors and institutions" whose officers had contributed $24,000 to Santorum's political action committees and re-election campaign.

    In advertising, the lender said it only offered its preferred rates to well-heeled borrowers who also used their investment services. But Santorum's public disclosure forms showed he did not have the required minimum $250,000 in liquid assets and was not an investor with Philadelphia Trust. His ability to secure the five-year loan led Sloan to file a complaint under a Senate ethics rule that specifically prohibits members from accepting a loan on terms not available to members of the general public. At the time, a Santorum spokeswoman told the Daily News that the mortgage terms were set at "market rates," but did not provide further comment.

It's not just ethical questions, though. From the left, The New Republic rounds up Santorum's most embarrassing quotes, including the famous occasion on which he likened same-sex marriage to bestiality.From the right, RedState's Erick Erickson points out that not only that Santorum's spoken up for earmarks -- bad news for conservatives -- but that in doing so he's unwisely picking a fight with Sen. Jim DeMint, a very popular figure among Republicans in the state where anti-Romney forces will likely get their last shot at stopping the Iowa caucuses victor. (Erickson's ongoing criticism of Santorum also show how difficult-to-organize and unlikely a coordinated anybody-but-Romney effort among conservatives will be.)

That's all just 24 hours' worth of digging, and it doesn't even touch Santorum's platform. Right now, many voters know him mostly as a conservative who isn't Mitt Romney. How will voters respond to both his current policy proposals and the things he's supported in the past? Even in the heavily pro-life Republican party, do voters want a nominee who believes contraception is immoral? And like Newt Gingrich, Santorum doesn't have the cash to respond to every negative attack. He'd better brace himself.

[johnnynoname]

Paul Poised to Win Iowa; GOP Establishment on Edge
Written by Michael Tennant   
Tuesday, 20 December 2011 09:11

With the Iowa caucuses just two weeks away, Ron Paul has taken the lead in two caucus forecasts — a development that has the GOP establishment on edge.

A December 18 Public Policy Polling survey found that the Texas Congressman was the choice of 23 percent of likely Republican caucus voters. Mitt Romney came in second at 20 percent, with Newt Gingrich in third at 14 percent and Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum tied at 10 percent. “Someone else/Not sure” was next at 7 percent, followed by Jon Huntsman at 4 percent and Gary Johnson at 2 percent.

Gingrich was the biggest loser in the poll, having plunged from 27 percent support three weeks ago to 14 percent now. In addition, he possesses the highest “unfavorable” rating of any candidate in the race (47 percent). Paul, meanwhile, led the pack on the positive side with 54 percent of voters viewing him favorably.

On matters of principle, Paul, not surprisingly, is the champion in voters’ minds. Seventy-three percent said he has strong principles, while only 50 percent thought the same of Romney and 36 percent of Gingrich. (The question was not asked about the other candidates.)

The New York Times is also forecasting a Paul win in the Hawkeye State, but with even more certainty than PPP. As of this writing the Gray Lady believes Paul has a 52 percent chance of winning the Iowa caucuses. His closest competitor, Romney, stands just a 28 percent chance of being the victor; Gingrich is given a mere 8 percent likelihood of success.

Feeling fairly confident that Paul will take Iowa, the Times’ Nate Silver argues:

It may now be as important to watch his New Hampshire polls as those in Iowa. Our New Hampshire forecasts now give Mr. Paul about a 17 percent chance of winning the state, but those odds would improve with a win in Iowa. Although Mr. Romney might prefer that Mr. Paul win Iowa … all bets would be off if Mr. Paul won New Hampshire too.

What happens if Paul does indeed win the caucuses? “The Republican presidential primary … will get downright ugly,” predicts the Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney. His reasoning? “The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media.”

Three things are likely to occur following a Paul victory in Iowa, Carney says.

First, he forecasts, "Much of the media will ignore him (expect headlines like 'Romney Beats out Gingrich for Second Place in Iowa')." There is precedent for this. Paul was virtually ignored when he practically tied Bachmann for first place in the Ames Straw Poll in August, and his many subsequent straw poll victories have gone equally unreported. Even Carney’s joke headline isn’t much of a stretch: When a September poll showed Romney in first place in New Hampshire, distantly followed by Paul, Huntsman, and Perry, in that order, Yahoo! News actually posted a story about it with the banner “Romney leads in New Hampshire, Huntsman third, Perry in fourth.”
 
Second, according to Carney, “Some in the Republican establishment and the conservative media will panic.” This is, in fact, already happening. Rush Limbaugh has taken to lampooning Paul for his noninterventionist foreign policy, a sure sign that the Republican Party fears people might actually listen to Paul.

Sean Hannity, another reliable bellwether of GOP establishment opinion, “felt the need on [December 14] to bring Bill Bennett on his show for a segment of unsaturated Paul-bashing,” Salon’s Steve Kornacki reported. “Bennett articulated an increasingly common concern among GOP elites, saying that Paul’s candidacy “isn’t going anywhere — except if he wins Iowa.”

“And what happens if he does?” asks Kornacki.

If you have a mischievous streak, it’s a fun possibility to consider, because the short answer is that guys like Bennett and Hannity will freak out — and their freak-out could last for a while. An Iowa victory would make Paul the center of the political media world, flood his campaign treasury with even more small-dollar donations, and boost his prospects in subsequent states. He might be able to parlay it into an impressive showing in libertarian-friendly New Hampshire, weather losses in South Carolina and Florida (where the numbers just aren’t very promising), then surge again in February, when his caucus state strategy kicks in. If the rest of the field remains unsettled then — with, say, Romney winning New Hampshire and Newt Gingrich taking South Carolina and Florida — Paul could find himself at or near the top of the delegate race, pushing the Hannity/Bennett panic level through the roof.

The third probable result of a Paul caucus win, Carney suggests, is that “others [in the GOP establishment and conservative media] will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media.”

Indeed, Fox News’ Chris Wallace has already set the stage for just such an eventuality, saying that if Paul wins in Iowa, “it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because … most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee, so therefore Iowa won’t count.”

Wallace’s remark, however, is a mere pinprick compared to the onslaught Carney envisions. He predicts nothing less than full-scale character assassination: “[Paul’s] conservative critics and the mainstream media will imply that he is a racist, a kook, and a conspiracy theorist” — just as they smeared Pat Buchanan as a racist and anti-Semite following his victory in the 1996 New Hampshire primary.

This, too, is already under way. Last week the neoconservative media, including Limbaugh, Hannity, and National Review, had a grand old party repeating the canard that Paul believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories when, in reality, he simply believes that the whole story, particularly those portions that demonstrate government incompetence, has yet to be told.

As to charges of racism, recall that on the day of the 2008 New Hampshire primary, the New Republic published a hit piece claiming that Paul had authored several articles with potentially offensive, but mostly just politically incorrect, content that appeared in a newsletter bearing his name. The article, Justin Raimondo observed at the time, was “intellectually dishonest, inauthentic in its outrage, and unintentionally humorous at times.” Those who know Paul, including CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and the president of the Austin, Texas, chapter of the NAACP, did not believe that he had written the articles in question. Nevertheless, Paul was forced to respond to the attack, admitting that the articles had indeed appeared in his newsletter but repeatedly stating that he had neither authored nor approved them. Expect this story to be dredged up again if Paul begins to look like a real threat to a Romney or Gingrich nomination.

Paul is looking more and more like a serious contender for the GOP nomination, and the outcome of the Iowa caucuses may provide the first hard evidence of that. For constitutionalists, a Paul victory in Iowa will offer a glimmer of hope that America’s slide into socialism and empire can be reversed. “But for the enforcers of Republican orthodoxy,” avers Carney, it “will be an act of impudence that must be punished.”

[johnnynoname]

Mitt Romney's Losing $10,000 Bet at Iowa Debate
By Garance Franke-Ruta

Romney's wager to Perry serves as a reminder of the vast gulf in wealth between citizens and elected officials

Texas Gov. Rick Perry finally turned the tables on Mitt Romney Saturday night in an exchange at the debate in Des Moines that saw the former Massachusetts governor fumble in just the way Perry had previously, after being goaded into a making a fool-hardy remark.

Perry, addressing himself once again to a critique of Romney's health-care policy in Massachusetts, said: "You know, I'm just saying you were for individual mandates my friend."

"You know what, you've raised that before, Rick. And you're still wrong," Romney retorted.

"It was true then. It's true now," Perry replied, laughing.

"10,000 bucks? 10,000 dollar bet?" Romney shot out his hand looking for Perry to take the bait.

Perry laughed again. "I'm not in the bettin' business, but I'll show you the book."

"I've got the book," snipped Romney.

It may have been intended as a figure of speech, but for a candidate who was in his youth photographed with money falling out of his suit, who is known for coming from a plush background and having made an even vaster fortune, and who was not able to name a single instance of material want, ever, when probed on the subject at the debate, it didn't seem so metaphorical. "I didn't grow up poor. And if somebody is looking for someone who's grown up with that background, I'm -- I'm not the person," Romney said at the debate.

But who has $10,000 to bet with -- these days, or any other?

TPM reported the Newt Gingrich's spokesperson R.C. Hammond twisted the knife after the debate, asking in the spin room in Des Moines, "My only question is, did he have the cash in his pocket?"

Democrats who have been prepping for a general election contest against Romney could not contain their glee. After the hashtag #What10Kbuys began trending worldwide within the hour after the debate ended, the Democratic National Committee alerted people to that and started using the tag (the only place it was still trending by next morning, however, was Washington, D.C.). And while the debate was ongoing the Democratic National Committee sent out a release, "Here's What the Average American Family Can Buy with $10,000."

    In tonight's Iowa Debate Mitt Romney casually offered a $10,000 bet, after calling a $1,500 tax break for the middle class a band-aid. Mitt Romney may not know what $10,000 means to middle class families, but here's what the average American family can buy with $10,000:

    $10,000 Is More Than Four Months Pay For Most Americans (Median Income Was $26,197 in 2010) [Census.gov, accessed 12/10/11]

    $10,000 Is More Than The Average Public In-State Four-Year College Tuition ($8,244) [CollegeBoard, accessed 12/10/11]

    $10,000 Is Almost Three Times What The Average Family Spends On Groceries In A Year ($3624) [BLS.gov, accessed 12/10/11]

    $10,000 Would Cover More Than A Year's Worth Of Mortgage Payments For The Typical American Home Purchased Today ($8,376) [National Association of Realtors, 10/6/11]

The campaign of Jon Huntsman -- who was barred from the debate stage for low polling numbers -- quickly snapped up the 10KBet.com url, though which it will doubtless goad Romney at some time in the future.

The real problem for Romney though is that his foul-up came just as he's begun to lose control of the front-runner narrative he'd established. But perhaps that's the point -- it's possible Romney is simply better in debates as the presumed likely front-runner than as the seemingly permanent understudy to a rotating cast of pugnacious GOP personalities who need to fail before people can settle on him. And that now that he has proved unable to solidify his position, and voting is set to begin in just weeks, the shifting sands on which he finds himself have unsettled him.

Still, a $10,000 bet in Iowa, where the per capita income in 2010 was $38,084?

That he would have said such a thing shows that Romney's lack of on the ground campaigning in the state has really hurt him, if only because it's allowed him to forget the audience he was speaking before.

[johnnynoname]

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[johnnynoname]

Why a Newt Gingrich Candidacy Would Doom the Tea Party
By Conor Friedersdorf
The movement can't support him without compromising itself. And opposing him if he's the GOP nominee? They likely don't have it in them.



Gallup finds that 82 percent of Tea Party affiliated voters deem Newt Gingrich an acceptable Republican presidential nominee in 2012. They don't seem to realize that if he wins the nod their movement is doomed, regardless of how the general election goes. The Tea Party cannot support Gingrich without betraying its core principles. But the movement also cannot disclaim him once he is the Republican nominee.

Tea Partiers with a better instinct for self-preservation would see that none of the Mitt Romney alternatives still running would be as corrosive to their cause as the former Speaker of the House. 

Why?

The Tea Party wasn't just a reaction to President Obama or the financial industry bailouts. As Jonah Goldberg puts it, "a major motivating passion of the tea-party movement was a long-delayed backlash against George W. Bush and his big-government conservatism." Support for the War on Terrorism and the invasion of Iraq caused many conservatives to stay loyal to Bush. But that didn't mean they liked No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the attempt at a guest worker program, TARP, or the Harriet Miers nomination. Especially after the defeat of John McCain, many on the right insisted they'd never again support Bush-Rove conservatism.

And Gingrich supported almost all the most controversial Bush-Rove policies!

He favored No Child Left Behind, an unprecedented federal intervention in education. He supported Medicare Part D, a brand new, budget-busting drug entitlement. He supported "comprehensive immigration reform," perhaps the most divisive-among-conservatives policy initiative of the aughts. He urged the passage of TARP. And he even spoke favorably about the infamous Harriet Miers nomination, a George W. Bush misstep that caused many of his most loyal supporters to rebel.

Tea Partiers pledged that if they had their way the GOP would never again have as its champion a federal government enlarging, entitlement expanding, amnesty urging, Bush-style Republican.

To do so just four years on would be a significant failure.

Another Tea Party talking point is its suspicion of Washington, D.C., insiders. For all Sarah Palin's flaws, the Tea Partiers who rallied around her could at least justifiably claim that she had authentic roots far from Washington and a record in Alaska of taking on corrupt political insiders who sought to enrich themselves at public expense. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain -- all these flawed Tea Party favorites have at least some claim to outsider status.

But Gingrich? He is the epitome of the Inside the Beltway insider, and not only because of his long stint in Congress. After retiring, he profited lavishly off connections he made on the taxpayer dime, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars influence-pedaling. Most famously, he got $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, the very entity that many conservatives regard as most culpable for the financial crisis. And then he had the temerity to insist that he was paid as "a historian," an explanation so transparently farcical that it can justifiably be seen as an insult to the intelligence of GOP primary voters.

As if supporting such a man weren't incoherent enough already, a movement that valorizes Joe the Plumber, family values and hockey moms is now rallying behind a long-winded former academic turned career politician with an affinity for private planes, chauffeurs, and buying Tiffany and Co. jewelry for his third wife. It's as if Kanye West wrote a politician into his last album.

Runaway, Tea Partiers! Why don't you just runaway?

Ron Paul supporting Tea Partiers would be the first to bail from a coalition that reshaped itself around Gingrich. In Reason magazine, Jacob Sullum runs through some of Gingrich's appalling positions on civil liberties: that the War on Terrorism somehow makes null certain rights to free speech and due process; that the government should stop the construction of a mosque until the day when Saudi Arabia permits churches and synagogues to be built; the proposal to escalate the War on Drugs by executing drug smugglers; support for warrantless wiretaps; and extreme hostility toward the co-equal judicial branch. It's true that only a small subset of Tea Party voters actually care about civil liberties with any kind of consistency, but Gingrich will alienate them.

And the rest of the movement? Confronted with Gingrich's heresies, which are sure to spill from his novelty-addled mind regularly, they'd have to decide on their next move: leave or live with it.

Some affiliated voters won't support in good conscience a guy who favored all the things they railed against after it happened under Bush. Others will be disgusted by the revolving door cronyism, and still others will be upset that the Republicans nominated a twice-divorced adulterer (with a record of supporting an individual mandate in health care). There is a small chance that a narrow Gingrich win at the end of a long, drawn out primary, wherein his Tea Party support suffers, could result in a third party run that divides the right side of the political spectrum.

Much more likely is that Republicans, including most Tea Partiers, rally around the GOP nominee, even if it is Gingrich. That might do even more damage to the Tea Party, as it would be the ultimate act of compromising principle and ideological purity for the sake of beating the Democrats.

It would seem worthwhile in the immediate aftermath of a Gingrich win. And then President Gingrich would take office, and proceed to behave like... well, a decades-long Washington insider who supported No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the attempt at a guest worker program, TARP, and the Harriet Miers nomination. Every conservative betrayal would be a reminder that the Tea Party helped elect just the sort of man they'd so righteously vowed to eschew.

The label wouldn't stand for anything anymore.

And a Gingrich loss to Obama? In a world where the Tea Party was seen as responsible for his rise, it would be discrediting, as losses always are for the faction that urges a divisive candidate. Along with the blame game, there'd be four more years of Obama, which Tea Partiers regard as the ultimate failure. No wonder that a Gingrich win is Nancy Pelosi's dark, twisted fantasy.

Surely the Tea Party can come up with a better plan?