What is REALLY bad is the fact that the media is numb to these lying talking points made over and over and they assume everyone knows it. They don't challenge enough. Who does our Media now represent?

Romney knows they are lies and these lies will persist even through the election. He can get away with the lies if he is not challenged by people in the mainstream media. The media does not and will not challenge these lies which is the crux of the problem. The media is more concerned about getting guests on talk shows or getting interviews rather than properly doing their job. I want to see a gaggle of reporters challenge Romney in a news conference and campaign stops. Anywhere a politician is campaigning, people, even those not in the media, should be there confronting the politicians. Romney will not be able to hide behind Fox News during the whole campaign; he will have to talk to the rest of the national and local media and debate Obama. But until then the news media needs to hound Romney about the lies. Impromptu is not his forte. Politicians love being in front of the cameras for the free publicity. It will take only one reporter to confront Romney and then others will follow.

TUE JAN 10, 2012 AT 09:35 AM PST

At a Romney Event Yesterday, I Was Removed and Arrested. I Still Don't Know Why.+*

byTheWheatAndChaff

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/10/1053383/-At-a-Romney-Event-Yesterday,-I-Was-Removed-and-Arrested-I-Still-Dont-Know-Why?via=siderec

interesting thread.

Romney's staff cannot remove every reporter who may ask questions that Romney does not want to answer if a lot of reporters are asking the same questions. Eventually Romney will have to face the music and the song will be Nowhere to Run by Martha Reeves and the Vandellas.

BTW-I want to see Obama confronted about the failure of the Justice Dept. to investigate and indict people on Wall Street and the Banks. No one should be given deference by reason of their office. All politicians need to be confronted.

Pilotshark

That's a trully scary story.

It is indeed scary, and it's been getting steadily worse over the last few years. Remember the couple that was arrested in July 2004 for not covering their anti-Bush t-shirts at a Bush event? The feds ended up paying them $80,000 almost three years later, but that doesn't help that the initial arrest occurred.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070816/bush-protesters-lawsuit/

Then there was the reporter who was 'arrested' by a private security detail at a Joe Miller event in Alaska during the 2010 campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/18/reporter-detained-by-joe-_n_766565.html

Or if that link doesn't work, try this one:

http://tinyurl.com/3a4qqc8

The press is the only industry protected specifically in the US Constitution (under the First Amendment), and there's a reason for that. When any politician is able to supress and intimidate representatives of the press, it's time for all citizens to become very alarmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

BTW-I want to see Obama confronted about the failure of the Justice Dept. to investigate and indict people on Wall Street and the Banks. No one should be given deference by reason of their office. All politicians need to be confronted.

Of course he wouldn't investigate them. Not after giving Bush, Cheney and cronies a free pass. For all the great things that Obama has done, his willingness to condone (and he has, admit it) the criminality of the previous administration and anyone who may have remotely been a donor to his campaign (Goldman Sachs...BP? Anyone remember how he let them laugh in his face when he told them to quit using Correxit?) means that he has at least one well deserved black eye that should never be forgiven and is not entirely to be trusted. There are others who could have done far better.

Freedom of the press means nothing if the media does not do its job. If candidates push reporters around then it is up to the rest of the media to insure that the politicians do not get away with trying to avoid questions. Even Fox cannot cover for politicians when everyone else is asking hard questions.

You're exactly right, Mike. When Don Bolles, the investigative reporter in Arizona, was killed by a car bomb in 1976, members of the national media got together and formed a team of investigative reporters (called the Arizona Project) that spent several months in the area.

The idea was that if all the press got together and concentrated on finding the killer(s), it would send a message that reporters were not to be targeted without getting payback from the entire national media as a group.

We need more of that spirit today, and I bet we'd have a better informed public. Sadly, it almost seems as if the media no longer feels that kind of sense of responsibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bolles

I guess we better grow cheesy mustaches and learn how to goose-step if Romney gets elected.

Romney will repeat all of Bush's mistakes. Republicans will win their version of "chicken" from Rebel Without a Cause, and America will be a smoldering wreck at the bottom of the ravine.

Under Santorum, it would be even worse. We'd have all the above plus be banzaied into becoming a Christian Sharia nation. Like Iran if it was Christian evangelical.

Ron Paul almost seems rational if you don't look to hard, but he is actually a photo-negative kind of bat-****. Women's reproductive rights would get thrown under the bus. National security becomes a question so open that it worries ME! Lastly, the Federal govt would get so maimed that the distant prospect of American Balkinization - states seceding from the USA - becomes a likely reality.

Herman Cain was a Koch Bros subsidized marrionete. That could have been disterous in its own right.

Scary monsters.

It probably wouldn't matter much which Republican gets elected, if any of them get elected. It's important to remember that we're not simply electing an individual, we're electing an administration. Each president brings in with him scads of advisers, staffers, Cabinet secretaries, etc, and those people almost all come from previous administrations of the same party. If any Republican is elected this year, that means the re-election essentially of the Bush administration.

Of course, if Obama wins, that means re-re-heated Clinton leftovers. Maybe presidential politics is like eating from a dorm fridge: you settle for whatever is the least furry.

There is nothing from the Republican side that is not weapon grade botulism.

Weapons grade botulism? Reminds me of that line from Get Smart about 86's cyanide capsule: "How will I get them to swallow it?"

I know - I heard that too and was disappointed. Also reminded me of the beer comment.

I agree that some commators make "blanket statements" about things that maybe they should not. The fact that Mitt won in NH should not have been a surprise to anyone -- since it was well foreseen for quite a while now. I find it interesting that everyone is getting all excited about this kindof thing. Mitt not beign truthful should also not be any big surprise. What does continue to surprise me is that people still believe that the GOP mission has been anythign but to undercut President Obama since the day he was elected in 2008 -- and then proclaim that the way to fix the mess they put this nation in over the last decade is to allow them to do more of the same policyies that caused the mess in the frist place -- BTW: Has no one else noticed that all most every GOP candiate are all very rich men, and none of them has held a "real job" in decades? Does no one else notice that their propsals do nothing more than enrich themselves and those like them? How can any of them be President of this nation and have no clue what it is really like to work for a living? I want someone to ask these guys what their definition of "middle -class" is? -- I strongly suspect that most of them have no idea ("between $2 or $5 million?")

That's ridiculous. Everybody knows that middle income is any thing between $6&10/hr

I've finally figured it out - the sheeple on the right stay drunk, that's why they neither understand what the politicians that they keep voting into office say or do!!

Thank you all so much for clearing that up for me......

Frank, minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. $10 an hour is scarcely about the poverty level, assuming you get full time hours.

Where have you been for the past 15 years?

Poverty income for a family of 2 with one that is employed full time is the same as minimum wage.

This provides enough money to rent one bedroom in a house in California and to buy a cheap car.

One interesting fact is that two full-time working spouses now earn enough on minimum wage to buy a house and two cars since real estate prices collapsed. Mortgages on inexpensive homes can be as low as 25% of income if both spouses are employed.

Don, I didn't think it would be necessary to tack snark to my comment but apparently you missed it. But you are right I've been retired a while. Apparently this minimum wage thing has gotten out of hand while I was away. I thought the minimum was still 6.25 Please don't tell my servants.

Peace man. My apologies. I started working when minimum wage was $3.17 an hour. Minimum wage creep does happen when you aren't looking. More money buys less. Here's some snark for you though.

Look at me. I worked my way up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty.

Groucho Marx

Over 90% of the statements on Politifact’s Pants-on-Fire” and “False” statements are from the right wing misinformation machine. That’s because the GOP use misinformation as a political strategy. They got nothing, so they lie. It’s true count em!

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/false/

So when is it MSM's responsibility to call out these lies, or DNC for that matter, when they're made on National TV. They mostly go unanswered.

No... you're looking at it in a simplistic manner.

I've been a hiring manager for 20 years... No one should "love" firing people. That statement shows a GREAT lack of character and understanding of HR and management.

Good managers would rather turn a good employee into a great one... a bad bad employee into an asset. I've fired many employees and not once have I thrown a party afterwards. Its a part of the job, not something to celebrate.

That said, I'm not a huge fan of certain organization structures that limit managements capacity to put pressure on people who under perform. Lose of employment is often one of the most effective tools you have against people that lack the will or desire to do better, but even in that case, the desire is to have them perform... not to have them fail so you can fire them.

You're missing the bigger point, Dan. The Republicans, via their consultant Frank Luntz, have make it clear that how you say something is often more important than what you say. This was a case of Mitt Romney committing truth.

When most people talk about using a different service provider (whether it be an insurance company or a mechanic), they use terms like "dropping" or "switching to"--not "firing." Romney's language in this case is instructive.

He really does enjoy wielding power over people and messing up their lives. He really does enjoy firing the people who work for him, and it's not just a matter of looking for better value in dealing with independent contractors. If that weren't true, he would have chosen his words differently.

Now, if you want to make the case that Mitt is undisciplined and generally careless in his choice of words, feel free to make that assertion. That certainly wouldn't speak well of him, either.

That's a great mindset to have when you're practicing a parasitical form of capitalism, which is what leveraged buyout specialists do. It isn't one I want to see in the person inhabiting the White House.

Rachel and others did talk about his comments regarding Europe and she mentioned that Mitt got a deferment when others were going to Vietnam and spent the time as a missionary for the Mormon Church in FRANCE! And, as a result, he speaks fluent French - some irony, huh?

I totally agree with you. I get so frustrated listening to Joe, he loves to hear himself talk and drownes out his panel constantly. Mica can barely speak and when she does she silences herself fainting disapproval of Joe's comments. It is a very annoying show. On the other hand Rachel, Lawrence, and Ed give out facts. They too get emotional however they use FACTS!

I agree completely!! I have been a fan of Morning Joe until the last few months and now I am just weary of the loud voices drowning out any reason at all. Thank heavens for Rachel!!

Most of what is called political discourse brings two stupid people together to scream at each other (There are a few exceptions). That's entertainment. For information go to PBS.

That's why we need that over amped military. We'll need to put Europe in its place.

Yeah, demonize Europe. That's a winning strategy, Mitt. Foreign relations, my friend, foreign relations, can make or break a country.

Romney is having a "senior moment" when he claims we need a larger military.

These are our most significant enemies.

1. Soviet Union and China caused by Joseph McCarthy
2. Iran caused by Eisenhower
3. The whole muslim world caused by Bush #1
4. Most of the Middle East caused by Bush #2

None are in Europe. The former Soviet Union only has nuclear weapons aimed at us because we failed to negotiate a disarmament treaty under Bush #1 when the country collapsed.

The US has enough conventional military assets to overthrow any countries in the world.

Individual enemy combatants spontaneously explode by remote control from time to time without much collateral damage.

We have over 30 carriers. It takes about 4 to overthrow a country. Do the math.

The military can never be big enough for the right. Just as gays can never be shoved too far back into the closet, or women's naughty bits can never be too much under lock and key, or whatever. It's basic right-wing psychology. They like order. They fear chaos. They see order as being constantly under threat. In the hierarchy of needs, safety and security come first, and the right can never feel safe and secure enough. So, the military must always be bigger, and society must always be more repressive.

Ron Paul is an honest, reliable and 'sane' individual - 'least damage' please explain. No president can act alone or unilaterally. You repeat the scare mongering verbiage of those opposed to Ron Paul. Ron Paul would make a great president. In fact, to my mind, he is the ONLY republican that has a chance of beating Obama. This race will be down to Romney vs Paul ....

We're supposed to pick which one of those guys is least scary?

As liberals and progressives, we don't pick which Conservatives are the least scary. We have to underscore WHY they are scary.

@Marginalized - you say "No president can act alone or unilaterally." Apply that to Ron Paul, and you should be able to see that most of what he proposes cannot be done.

exactly - which is why the scare factor really holds no water. What you would be left with is a president doing what is right for the people.

It was an inevitable consequence of the spike in unemployment and how long it has lasted. Income level is very perishable. The level of income you have is tied to the job you work. You don't have to be unemployed long before the shelf life on your income level starts expiring and degrading. What was once the Middle Class melts into the lower classes.

This has been going on since Reagan took office. But we never saw the process moved into fast forward like we have until the housing crisis and Wall Street Meltdown. Before then the Middle Class was melting like a glacier before global warming. Since the housing crisis, its been melting like ice cream on hot black top.

Hey. That rhymes.

MTD: Mitt the Dick.

WTM: What the Mitt?

ROFLAM: Rolling on floor laughing at Mitt.