Jeb Bush: Reagan and George H.W. Bush Would Have 'Hard Time' In Modern GOP

I couldn't agree more.  Would also like to add George W. Bush to the list because he doesn't fit the mold of today's selfish Republicans.

Now I am beginning to wonder if Bush 41 saw Romney as someone who would work across the aisle and that is why he supported him so hard originally in 2008 because it never made sense.  Romney was an independent during the Reagan/Bush years starting in 1976 and ending in 1994.  During the 12 years of Reagan/Bush, Romney was not even a member of the Republican Party.  No wonder today's Republican Party is so different with Romney people in charge.  Did Romney play up to Bush 41 getting him on his side initially with pandering and telling him what he wanted to hear?  We will never know but Romney will say and do anything to get elected as evidenced with trying to buy this election with his friends from Wall Street and K Street not to mention his Mormon church who happens to be building a large mall.  Wonder if they have their money offshore in the Cayman's like Romney and Bain Capital?

If Romney treating this election like a hostile takeover he orchestrated with companies when he was head of Bain Capital?  It sure looks like it from the perspective of a lot of Republicans.  If you don't agree with Romney, you are supposed to sit down, shut up, and vote for him in November no matter what.

While I was outside this morning tackling my grass, I was trying to figure out why today's Republican Party is so different and so anti when the word compromise arises even if it is for the good of the whole Country.  Then I come in the house for a break and read this statement from Jeb and all a sudden it makes sense.

I am flabbergasted at times the words that come out of the House and now you can add Romney to that list. Even Scott Walker threw Romney under the bus about Wisconsin as Romney didn't have a clue what the Wisconsin deal was all about.  It wasn't about not hiring teachers, firemen, and police officers, it was about public service unions and their overreach:

“The answer’s not more big government. I know in my state, our reforms allowed us to protect firefighters, police officers and teachers. That’s not what I think of when I think of big government.”

Is George W Bush going to be the last nominee of the Republican Party who is a compassionate person which doesn't fly in today's Republican Party which is turning into the party of greed as evidenced by the protection of wealthy taxpayers and their low tax rates for starters. When I saw House Republicans want to cut food stamps in this economy but keep the low tax rates for the wealthy, I just shook my head.  That same group has also cut the budget of the US Forest Service who is facing wildfires once again this year.  Is this group about just let the West burn -- nothing there.  Looks like we are back to being flyover country except when Romney wants money from donors.

Then we have the logjam of the transportation budget to fund roads and bridges in our states.  Know some say it is not necessary but when you live in a state that is 49th and you have unsafe bridges, that doesn't fly.  Is the real reason that the House knows that road and bridge money equals shovel ready jobs that contractors are waiting to start filling?  Would House Republicans be that insensitive to real jobs being created for work on our Nation's highways in order to make Obama look bad and get Romney elected.  I cannot even believe I typed that statement but that is the way it is looking.

Federal highways should be fully funded but the Republicans in the House are stonewalling.  The way some Republicans including House members acted when the poor job numbers came in with the high fiving and being so happy, it dawned on my that just maybe this logjam is on purpose to make Obama's reelection harder while the American people in many instances continue to struggle.  Do I think they would really do that?  If you read my email from all these so-called 'conservative' groups that have sprung up, you wouldn't consider it a far fetched idea.  I am literally appalled at some of what I am reading.

I am so disgusted with this group of Republicans and have been saying that for sometime.  Finally looks like I have my answer -- this is not the party of Reagan but the part of greed and a party that could care less about regular people and their struggles as evidenced from some of their comments.  Now the GOP nominee goes after teachers, police and firemen saying we have enough and for good measure throws in the federal civil service employees as the reason for the economic disaster.  He plans to cut over 150,000 when he takes office no matter the number of new mandates which caused a lot of the hiring.

Republicans went after Perry with a vengeance on immigration and what was done to Bush 43 on immigration I still cannot believe.  We cannot deport all those people as our economy would collapse.  Are we supposed to deport parents of children born here or are they going to take away the citizenship of those children as some Republicans have suggested?

I don't know this Republican Party and frankly think they have lost all 'common sense' but then I know Democrats who are saying the same thing about the  Democrat Party.  We have a group of House members on both sides that are part of the 'my way or no way' class and if they don't get their way, they take the ball and go home.  To them their agenda is more important then the good for all America and the word 'compromise' is a dirty word even if it is the right thing to do. Neither party has all the right answers.  Some have turned into pretzels to match Romney and his agenda just like some Democrats have done with Obama.  WHY? They forget they don't just represent their Party in the House but represent every last person in their district be they Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Reform, or no party affiliation.    

Jeb Bush: Reagan, George H.W. Bush Would Have 'Hard Time' In Modern GOP
By Jonathan Miller Updated: June 11, 2012 | 10:23 a.m.
June 11, 2012 | 10:03 a.m. 

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said on Monday that both his father, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan would have a “hard time” finding a place in today’s GOP, according to BuzzFeed.

"They would have a hard time if you define the Republican party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn't allow for finding some common ground," Bush said, according to the website.  

He added: "Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time – they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support," he said. Reagan "would be criticized for doing the things that he did."

In February, Bush said he found the tone of the GOP nomination process “a little troubling.”

Source:  National Journal

Are the Elites Out to Repeat LBJ and Nixon Years?

Looks like elites want to take us back to the failed days of LBJ policy and Nixon secrecy which makes my head swim and ask the question "WHY?"  Do elites never admit they made a mistake?  They are always right no matter if something fails -- it is all of us who just don't understand them and their way of governing.  (sarcasm)

Do they want gimmicks like Romney did in MA as Governor and Huckabee in AR -- raise fees and then brag about they didn't raise taxes.  That is short term fix not a long term one.  Cutting tax loopholes should be in play not cutting taxes across the board until the economy is in better shape.  Laying off federal employees like Romney wants to do when he takes office will send this Country into more of a tailspin but then as he said before he "likes to fire people" and smiles.

When are going to get candidates with new ideas who understand the vast majority of the American people and what we go through on a daily basis?  This election is about two out of touch candidates although no one can be more out of touch then Romney.

Quotation of the Day…
by Don Boudreaux on June 11, 2012 

… is from page 161 of Robert Higgs’s 2012 book Delusions of Power (original emphasis; link added); here, Bob is writing about policy-making in the U.S. during the reign of LBJ:

Had economic theorists rested content with using the microeconomics of the Neoclassical Synthesis strictly as a conceptual device employed in abstract reasoning, it might have done little damage. However, as I have already suggested, this type of theory cried out for application, which in practice was nearly always misapplication. The idealized conditions required for theoretical general-equilibrium efficiency could not possibly obtain in the real world, yet the economists readily endorsed government measures aimed at coercively pounding the real world into conformity with these impossible theoretical conditions. Closely examined, such efforts represented a form of madness.

Be Sociable, Share!
Source:  Cafe Hayek

Mitt Romney Being Honest: We don’t need more cops, firefighters or teachers

Mitt Romney was finally honest and we saw one of the points he said if we knew we wouldn't vote for him.  Police organizations have always been fairly pro-Republican but after Romney's comments why would they want to be part of Romney's Republican Party?

Romney made the comments in response to Obama’s presser today, at which the president claimed the “private sector is doing fine.” Per CNN:

Romney said of Obama, “he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”

Excuse me but how does cutting back on fire protection, police protection, and teachers help the American people?  Governor Walker who Romney cites exempted policemen and firemen from his cutting in Wisconsin.  It was also about bargaining rights for employees by the unions.  Romney cannot even get that right.

Romney believes class size doesn't matter and who needs special ed when other kids can help the students in Romneyland.  He is so anti-public education, it blows my mind.  No wonder Jeb Bush this week praised Obama's education policy and talked about what a good job the Education Secretary is doing.  In fact, I would agree with the Secretary Duncan and what he has done to lessen the mandates on local communities.  Looks like his problem in Chicago was the school board because he has done a very good job as Secretary of Education -- one of the best as a matter of fact.  Why would anyone support Romney who thinks nothing of paling around with the Wall Street wealthy who got us in this mess but when it comes to jobs in your community, we don't need them?

What we don't need is Mitt Romney for President or anywhere near the White House with his archaic ideas.     He talks about the growth of Government then he needs to look no further then when the Republicans controlled Congress and Pres Bush was President during the first decade of the century.  Between Department of Defense, Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, and Prescription Drug Program for starters, the rolls of public employees in the Federal Government grew.  Guess Romney forgets about 9/11 like he does so many other things that would hurt his narrative.  Then we have Republicans growing the staffs of committees with Democrats following to grow the staffs even more.  Both parties today in DC are big government types.  The growth of Government has been going on for years.  Republicans blaming Democrats for growth of Government is hypocritical but we see that a lot today.

Does Romney plan to start terminating massive amounts of federal employees and drive up the unemployment numbers even more?

As Romney recently put it: “We have 145,000 more government workers under this president. Let’s send them home and put you back to work.” 

So he does want to put 145,000 government workers out of work sending them to the unemployment lines as they are to blame for the economic problems in the short sighted view of Romey and Republicans. You can probably cut some of these people but the reason jobs have grown is the mandates from Congress.  Every time they pass a bill and it is signed into law dictating new mandates on agencies, someone has to do the job.  The problem in DC is both parties were not willing to bite the bullet when the economy was good to trim Government.  Today trimming Government will send it into a tailspin but if you are a federal employee you are bilking the taxpayers in Romney's America (Romney's staff misspelled America and Reagan recently).  As a former federal employee who worked a lot of overtime hours due to lack of staff, I resent his remarks.  When my husband was at the Ballistic Missile Office at Nortorn AFB, CA, I did a lot of his unclassified work at home because their staff was so thin.

If it is for about saving taxpayer dollars, how about Romney paying his fair share along with his fellow Wall Street buddies plus require all the offshore accounts by the wealthy be brought back into this Country?  When the wealthy put their money overseas and would rather pay foreign government's tax, then we have a major problems.

For Romney to talk about NOT needing more cops, firefighters, or teachers shows he has absolutely no idea how most people live.  We need to be giving our children the best education possible which means more teachers.  I could understand administrators but he said teachers.  Wanting to cram students in classrooms that are built for 25 max is just flat out wrong.

Romney wouldn't like Norman as we are building a new elementary school to relieve overcrowding.  Right after we moved to Norman, they added a second high school because of overcrowding.  In our school district when cuts come down first hit are administrators.  We value public schools in Norman and it shows as our two high schools are some of the best in the Country because administrators, teachers, parents, and the community work together.  Our police and fireman I would put up with anyone but as a community grows you need to add more.  Our corporation limit stretches for miles because of the open farm land in west and east Norman .  Adding more police and firemen make sure they are fresh and are not working so much overtime.

In Romney's America we don't need more law enforcement even though gangs still are a problem in the cities and in some areas have gotten worse as they have moved into rural America?  Guess he forgot about the huge fires burning in NM and throughout the west due to drought conditions or he doesn't care.  I opting for he doesn't care since he doesn't want more fire fighters.

Most of us could not afford to send our children to private schools like Mr. Romney so we want the best possible schools our tax dollars can buy.  Our children are owed a great education but then Romney doesn't think everyone should strive for higher education either if they cannot afford to pay for it.  What does Romney want?  More elitists snobs running this Country?

Posted at 03:25 PM ET, 06/08/2012TheWashingtonPost

Mitt Romney: We don’t need more cops, firefighters or teachers 

By Greg Sargent

When Republicans attack public workers, they often take care to exempt cops and firefighters, because they are culturally sympathetic figures, and muddle the message that government workers are parasites who are destroying the economic conditions of ordinary Americans.

But today Mitt Romney got a good deal more specific, claiming we do not need to hire more cops or firefighters specifically, which would, he said, cut against the interests of the American people. He also specifically named teachers. 

(snip) 

It’s hard to argue that the message from Wisconsin was that Americans don’t think we should hire more firefighters and cops. They were exempted from Scott Walker’s crackdown on public employee bargaining rights, which enabled him to “divide and conquer” labor. 

But beyond that, this could resonate in the presidential race: It will allow the White House to reframe the debate over public sector workers and job creation on more favorable terms. 

One of the components of the American Jobs Act that Obama continues to demand that Republicans pass would invest $35 billion in federal funds to keep cops, firefighters, and teachers on the job. Republicans, Romney included, oppose this plan. Central to their argument against this type of investment is to keep the focus on public sector workers as a class, arguing that they are bilking the taxpayer and are to blame for the economic plight of struggling Americans.   

(snip) 

This time, however, Romney deserves points for honesty: He has forthrightly declared that the class of government workers holding back other Americans does include cops, firefighters and teachers. And in so doing, he has singlehandedly reframed the debate from one over despised government bureaucrats to one over whether we should hire more cops, firefighters and teachers to get the economy going. This is a debate the White House will be happy to have. 

Or, to put it another way: #WedgeFail! 

Excerpt:  Read More at The Washington Post

Does Romney plan to slash government pensions that we paid into the retirement fund?  This man has zero empathy for the Middle Class or Poor.  He is all about the rich and how they can get richer.  Not interested in any more of his trying to relate to the middle class because this says it all.  He wants no additional teachers (mostly women) who teach our children, no additional police who patrol our streets and keep us safe, and no more firefighters who protect our community not only from house/building fires but from wildfires, rescue people, and provide our ambulance/EMS.

Mitt Romney, the candidate of the wealthy, will never get my vote.  I would vote for Obama before I voted for Romney because frankly I think in many ways we have been lied to about him by the conservative media starting with Fox.  That said I am not voting for him either as I don't vote for liberals.  Romney's Republican Party is not one I recognize or worked for all these years.

I am taking my vote to the 'real' Republican in the race, former New Mexico Republican Governor Gary Johnson who is honest which is refreshing after all the dishonesty we have been seeing out of both parties.  He received the Libertarian nomination this past May.  I am not a Libertarian as there are issues I don't agree with but in this race I agree with Johnson at least 80% of the time and I agree with Romney almost 0% of the time because he is dishonest where he stands most of the time.  When he gets honest like this time, I agree with him 0%. 

Have House Republicans Tossed Transparency Under the Bus?

Looks like there is little transparency in the Republican Party today -- it left with this election when the Wall Street and wealthy donors took over the Republican Party for their own special interests with Romney and his millions heading the ticket.  Guess they like paying less than 15% taxes, no problem if they want to keep millions offshore, donate to a Super PACs and have your identity hidden, and now this.

No public disclosure who is behind these campaign ads on TV thanks to Republicans in the House is a total lack of transparency.  The dumbest comment I saw at The Hill said the Obama thugs will target big donors to Republicans.  The demonization of Obama and his supporters is continuing with the Romney paid hacks posting all over the net.

Don't agree with Obama's agenda or his liberal views but he has as much right to them as I do to mine which are more conservative.  This idea we have to all think alike is ludicrous.  That is what I am seeing out of Romney supporters today on-line and in my community.  If you haven't signed on to Romney you are attacked and called names like RINO -- Republican in Name Only and a lot worse in some cases.  I have been a Republican and a conservative a lot longer than Mitt Romney who was an independent from 1976 until 1994 when he decided it was easier to take on Kennedy in the general election then the primary. I voted Republican for Richard Nixon in 1968 my first time to vote for President and have voted for a Republican every time since then for President.  This will be my first time to vote for someone other than a Republican.  Although if you stop to think about it, Former NM Republican Governor Gary Johnson who is running as a Libertarian has been a Republican longer then Romney as well but the RNC didn't think he was worthy of being in debates.  Might damage the Romney brand if he, Perry, and Huntsman all Governors with conservative records were on stage at the same time with the flip flopper?

Romney has his little minions in the House doing his bidding now like he has the RNC.  The lack of transparency and taking full advantage of the Citizens United ruling which did not say you could hide donors names has become the way of life for Romney and his pals at Wall/K Streets.  These are the people who tanked our economy that are best buds with Romney now after helping give us Obama in 2008 when they tanked McCain.  Yet Republicans yell foul that Obama is collecting donations from Hollywood and the Gay Community.  Guess in the Romney Republican Party no Democrat is allowed to raise money -- only Romney Republicans.

Why are Republicans trying to hide who is paying for the ads on the TV?  I say we have a right to full disclosure on who is behind every ad that appears on my TV, and I should not have to visit my local station to find that information.  Also have a right to full disclosure for everyone who gives even one penny to a candidate or Super PAC.  We also have a right to know when a candidates loans himself money or when he takes contributions that are not allowed to show that he has a better fundraising month even if he has to return them.

Now we have a Republican House subcommittee who doesn't believe in transparency with lame excuses?  What has happened to the Republican Party as it has morphed into the Romney Republican Party?

This article from The Hill has the details of what is happening in the House and paints a picture of Republican members of the House being in the hip pocket of special interest.  Are they trying to catch up with their Democrat counterparts in one election?

House Republicans move to block FCC’s political ad rule
By Erik Wasson and Brendan Sasso - 06/06/12 12:47 PM ET  

House appropriators voted Wednesday along party lines to block a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that would require television stations to disclose political ad buyers online. 

Republicans included a provision to spike the FCC rule in the 2013 Financial Services spending bill that passed out of subcommittee Wednesday. GOP appropriators voted down an attempt from Democrats to remove it from the bill. 

Democrats accused Republicans on the House Appropriations Financial Services subcommittee of acting to keep the names and spending of outside “fat cats” secret in an attempt to hide their influence on elections.

It's obvious what this is all about and it is embarrassing, frankly,” said Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. “It looks like you are trying to cover up the fact that these fat cats are coming into these elections and they don’t want their names known.” 

The FCC in April voted to require major network affiliates in the top 50 TV markets to post information about their political ads online. The rule would apply to all broadcast stations after the first two years.

The files about political ad purchases are currently available to anyone who travels to the television stations to view physical copies of the documents. The new rule requires the information to be posted online as well. 

Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.) offered an amendment to strip out the language blocking the ad rule. He said the FCC decision is important because it brings more transparency to spending on issue ads, and for ads in state and local races that is not easy to track under Federal Election Commission requirements. 

Serrano’s amendment was defeated in a party-line vote of 4 to 8. 

Republicans offered a variety of reasons for imposing the restrictions on the FCC.
Subcommittee Chairwoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) said that the requirement was burdensome to local television stations. She cited a station manager who told her he would have to hire a new staff member to post the information to the Internet. 

Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said it was an instance of the federal government interfering with the private sector. 

“Television station fiscal matters are private and should be kept private,” he said. 

He also said he does not want his political opponent knowing his reelection strategy. 

Emerson and Democrats, however, said campaign media buyers are already given access to the cost and sponsors of opponent ads. 

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said that the information was already available, that putting it online did not change things, and that Democratic regulations were “destroying” the economy.
The political ad rule has been strongly opposed by the broadcasting industry. 

The National Association of Broadcasters has sued the FCC over the rule, arguing it is “arbitrary and capricious.” The group argues it is unfair to impose requirements on broadcast television that don't apply to competitors in cable and satellite. 

But Free Press, a public advocacy group that supports the FCC's rule, accused House lawmakers of catering to the broadcasting industry at the expense of political transparency. 

"Some members of Congress, working at the behest of the broadcast industry, want to keep the public in the dark," said Corie Wright, senior policy counsel of the Free Press Action Fund, in a statement. 

The Financial Services bill heads now to the full House Appropriations panel and then to the floor. It is based on a lower overall budget allocation than a similar bill in the Senate, and will not become law without extensive negotiation.

While looking for details on this bill on line, I was flipping through channels on my TV looking for something to watch and found Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, was covering this item.  Never watch her, but the discussion was the topic I was researching.  Decided to listen and that is when I discovered there is a group of college students visiting television stations to get the information along with a group dedicated to full disclosure on campaign ads from both sides putting details on-line from the college students.  This is grassroots as its finest.

June 7, 2012 

Justin Elliot, reporter for ProPublica, talks with Rachel Maddow about ProPublica's crowdsourcing project to scan information about local TV station political ad buys to publish on the internet (while a new FCC rule requiring stations do it themselves languishes due to Republican opposition in Congress). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aCuWKtFfGlI  

Full disclosure of every penny spent in political campaigns should be required along with every penny that is taken in by a candidate and the Super PACs, 527's, or any other group doing advertising or supporting a candidate or issue in any way.  Anything less is not transparent and is threatening our elections.

All this money in this campaign is obscene as Romney tries to buy the election.  He is absolutely for sale because to become an advisor to him, just give almost a million dollars.

Another article I found while looking for the info on college students has to do with the billionaire oilman Harold Hamm from Oklahoma who gave almost $1M to Romney's Super PAC after becoming head of his Energy advisors.  BTW Romney has not released any more names for energy advisors -- guess other oil/gas people didn't agree to donate enough money.  Excerpt from the article:

Michael Isikoff recently reported, there's a little more to the connection between the two wealthy conservatives.

Just one month after he was named Mitt Romney's top energy adviser, Oklahoma billionaire Harold Hamm contributed $985,000 to the top pro-Romney Super PAC -- a donation that was the second largest the group collected in April, according to a new campaign disclosure filing today.

The cash infusion from Hamm, the chairman and CEO of Continental Resources -- a firm that touts itself as "America's Oil Champion" -- is a new example of how big Super PAC donors can make their policy views heard by the campaigns they are supporting.

Just a few months ago, the Republican nominee announced that Hamm would serve as the chairman of the Romney campaign's "Energy Policy Advisory Group," putting Hamm in a position to shape a new "pro-jobs, pro-market, pro-American" energy agenda, which Romney would presumably pursue if elected. 

And wouldn't you know it, soon after Romney gave Hamm the influential post, the oilman contributed nearly $1 million to Romney's super-PAC, on top of the money he'd already contributed to the Romney campaign itself.

Know over the years Republicans have done our fair share of gaming the system, but nothing compared to this Romney group who IMHO is most like Richard Nixon and his corrupt people he surrounded himself with who believed in win at any cost.  Ethics and integrity did not matter which we learned in his second term.  I for one don't want to have to learn how unethical and dishonest the Romney camp is after he is elected so he will never get my vote!

Panetta: "Reaching Limits of Patience" on Pakistan

Was critical of the appointment of Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense but that man has a spine of steel and may be one of the best choices for Defense Secretary in a long time.  He is very calculated in what he has to say but he leaves no doubt in anyone's minds that he is not the least bit happy with Pakistan and not afraid to say his patience is running out.  That is totally refreshing out of a Secretary of Defense.  Too often they sound like State Department people but Panetta in his short stint at the Department of Defense is putting his stamp on the agency.  Keep hearing that his word his golden so you know where you stand.

This is one more of example of our Secretary of Defense putting our soldiers and America first by going after the leadership in Pakistan for allowing the terrorists safe havens.  Reminds me of Dick Cheney when he was Sec Def who would also speak out.  SecDef Gates was a nice man by all accounts but he had a problem standing up and was not the best choice for the position IMHO.  My doubts about Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense have been washed away over his short tenure.  

The fact that Pakistan won't allow the NATO troops exiting Afghanistan to use their territory says all you need to know about Pakistan and why foreign aid to that Country needs sharply cut if they are not going to cooperate to end terrorism.  NATO was forced to find routes through three countries to the north which have signed agreements but are more expensive   Zero is a nice round number for foreign aid to Pakistan since we are  paying three countries for routes for NATO use.  Will be very happy to see our ground troops out of Afghanistan because with Pakistan as a safe haven for terrorists, they are sitting ducks.

Those drones needs to keep flying aimed at the terrorists in Pakistan and if the Pakistani Government doesn't like it then do something about rooting out the terrorists in the safe havens.  You have to wonder how much the terrorists are paying the Pakistani leadership for their safe havens in Pakistan.  

Panetta: ‘Reaching Limits of Patience’ 

The U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that the U.S. is “reaching limits of patience as far as Pakistan is concerned.” During a trip to Kabul for talks with military leaders, Panetta said it is “difficult to achieve peace in Afghanistan as long as there is a safe haven for terrorists in Pakistan.” Panetta’s words are some of the strongest yet in the diplomatic tug-of-war with Pakistan, a country whose cooperation is considered vital in stabilizing Afghanistan. Pakistan’s parliament has been drawing up recommendations on how to proceed with Washington, although the U.S. has strongly condemned the country for sentencing a doctor who helped the CIA in the deadly raid that killed Osama bin Laden to 33 years in prison.

Excerpt from the Reuters article on Sec Def Panetta's visit to Pakistan and the region:

Panetta also urged Pakistan to go after the Haqqani militant network, one of the United States' most feared enemies in Afghanistan, and said Washington would exert diplomatic pressure and take any other steps needed to protect its forces. 

"It is an increasing concern that safe havens exist and those like the Haqqanis make use of that to attack our forces," he said. 

"We are reaching the limits of our patience for that reason. It is extremely important for Pakistan to take action to prevent (giving) the Haqqanis safe havens, and for terrorists to use their country as a safety net to conduct attacks on our forces." 

Panetta, who left Kabul shortly afterwards, blamed the group for an attack last week on a U.S. base in the east in which several insurgents, including some wearing suicide vests, attacked it with rocket propelled grenades. 

The attack was foiled, but it underlined the challenge facing Western and Afghan forces in the east where insurgents take advantage of the steep, often forested terrain and the Pakistani border to launch attacks and then slip across the border. 

"What happened the other day in Salerno is an indication that they are going to continue to come at us and let me be clear anybody who attacks US soldiers is our enemy and we are going to take them on. We have got to be able to defend ourselves," he told U.S. troops earlier at Kabul airport. 

The comments came as Washington appears to be looking to other allies in the region for help in the face of Pakistan's foot-dragging. Panetta arrived in Kabul after a visit to India, Pakistan's old enemy, where he urged New Delhi to take a more active role in Afghanistan. 

NATO has signed an agreement with three countries to the north of Afghanistan for land routes as the U.S.-led alliance begins a withdrawal of its forces from the country next year. 

NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said earlier this week the "reverse transit" deal was signed with Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. 

Pakistan closed the shorter and cheaper routes through its territory last year to protest a cross-border NATO air attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Discussions to reopen the Pakistan routes have stalled. 

Other irritants in U.S.-Pakistan ties include drone attacks in the lawless areas of Pakistan near the Afghan border where several militant groups operate but seen by many Pakistanis as a violation of sovereignty. 

Washington says the attacks are crucial to rooting out militancy and four days ago, a U.S. drone strike in northwest Pakistan killed al Qaeda's second-ranking leader, Abu Yahya al-Libi. It was the biggest blow to the militant group since the killing of bin Laden.   

(Writing by Michael Georgy and Sanjeev Miglani; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Ed Lane)

Scott Walker Survives Recall -- Public Service Unions Epic Fail

Don't know what this world is coming to but I am agreeing with Andrew Sullivan again.  He is correct that when someone is elected that should be allowed to serve out their term.  If there is no criminal act then there is absolutely no reason to recall.  The very idea that someone is elected in a general election and because one group or another doesn't like the way the person governs, they are subject recall is ludicrous.  That is short sighted and expensive to the taxpayers in this age of austerity.  This was epic fail on the part of the Public Service Unions which couldn't happen to a better bunch of people.

Never have figured out why there are unions for public employees.  If they are like the unions for federal employees I saw in action, it is run by a bunch of people who don't want to do their job and every little hiccup they take off from their main job to help someone who has a complaint.  Took our office nearly three years to get a rid of a totally incompetent employee who had ever reason in the world not to show up for work -- never had a doctor's excuse but was always sick.  Even the union steward agreed she should be fired but union rules didn't permit him to help so he was an adversary.  That is just wrong and why so many public service employees are there for a free ride.  They make legitimate public service employees look really bad.  Try firing an incompetent teacher -- not going to happen in most cases yet they are doing our students a disservice.  So many teacher's unions put their teachers ahead of the students which is flat out wrong.

Something has to give but having a recall election for a Governor because you don't like his policies is dumb, stupid, and a waste of money.  You can tell from exit polls that some Democrats felt the same way and only 38% of union households even voted.  Most voters really do understand.

This sign from The Dish says it all!

Wisconsin - And The Rest Of Us 

 

Andrew Sullivan
June 6, 2012 

Readers know the Dish hasn't exactly been fixated on the epic partisan struggle in Wisconsin over public sector union rights. The reason? I'm not that interested in raw purely partisan mudfights, and while I don't see the harm in allowing public sector unions to retain some collective bargaining rights, especially in an era when unions can be seen as institutions putting a break on soaring economic inequality, I also believe there's a difference between public sector and private sector unions, and that curtailing the massive collective costs that public union benefits place on the public is a perfectly legitimate way to cut spending. It may be vital if we are to regain some fiscal balance. But when all is said and done, my bottom line is that I believe in democratic elections, and granting legitimacy to your opponents when they win. 

Leaving aside the issues being fought over, Scott Walker won an election, and absent some grotesque abuse of power, he deserved to serve his term out. I don't think turning out to be even more radical than the platform you ran on is a grotesque abuse of power. It is precisely the kind of over-reach that is best left to the voters at the next election, rather than creating a massive, disruptive, premature political storm that can only deepen partisan deadlock and mistrust. What Wisconsin means in microcosm is not so much a portent of the future November election (though it may be that), or a decisive turn toward fiscal retrenchment (thought it certainly seems that way), but a case study in the complete breakdown of our political system, and of public trust. 

The Democrats refused to allow Walker to serve his full term and then seek the judgment of the voters. They acted throughout as if he were somehow illegitimate. They refused the give-and-take of democratic politics, using emergency measures for non-emergency reasons. And in this, they are, it seems to me, a state-based mirror-image of the GOP in Washington. Just as Walker was quite clearly a far right candidate and implemented an agenda that was predictable from the spirit if not the letter of his campaign, so Obama ran precisely on what he has done in office, despite the crushing emergency he was handed on becoming president. His healthcare reform was not suddenly revealed in a bait-and-switch operation. It was exhaustively debated in the primaries and the fall campaign; ditto the stimulus, a no-brainer for any president looking into a deflationary abyss; ditto ending the war in Iraq; and focusing on al Qaeda in counter-terrorism, rather than social engineering of quixotic proportions in counter-insurgency. 

He has done what he said he'd do. And yet he has been treated as illegitimate and utterly unworthy of any cooperation or compromise by the congressional and media GOP. I worry that Ross's prediction of zero-sum scorched earth politics in an era of spiraling austerity is accurate. I worry that the polarization that Obama tried to overcome has now been innoculated by the virus of victory. 

(Photo: A sign supporting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker stands outside a home June 4, 2012 in Clinton, Wisconsin. By Scott Olson/Getty Images.)  Source:  The Dish

Romney Backers Worry about their Candidate aka Fear Factors

Republican establishment types led by Rove and others better start fearing when longtime Republicans like me and a lot of people I know are saying NO to Romney in November and have been for a long time.  That is not going to change.   We are also not going to be silenced!  In fact, I have changed the name of this site to reflect what is going on today as Republicans are FOR SALE just like the Democrats and in fact, may be taking it to a new low level with the Super PACs and other entities who do not fully disclose big donors.  Democrats had George Soros in 2008 and Republicans have many George Soros types including the Koch Brothers and two groups from Crossroads run by Karl Rove trying to buy an election with Romney as the candidate.

The Chair of the RNC and other establishment types were way too quick to jump on the Romney bandwagon swallowing the Romney koolaid making our primary a mockery from debates favoring Romney with liberal moderators to cheating in primaries.  Note to the establishment:

When you candidate gets less than 40% of the primary vote in states with closed voting, you have problem and no amount of force feeding a lot of us that Obama is the personification of evil is going to make us like Romney.  We are gradually coming to the conclusion that there are a lot of lies out there about Obama and once you take your blinders off and quit buying into the lies, you discover that even though you disagree with Obama's ideology, he is not this bad man that he is portrayed by establishment Republicans and the talk show spin hosts -- the ones who made their money off of only Republicans have all the answers and the left has to be silenced.  Same philosophy as a lot of the left have against Republicans.  

The fix was in from Day One.  You ask Why?  My best guess is that the RNC was so broke that they looked to the wealthy Mr. Romney and his friends as the answer to funding this election and the Convention.    In addition, he isn't a conservative no matter how much they try to dress him up as one.  When you make a deal with the devil, you could end up without a strong Republican Party in the end because you have told too many of us we have to swallow the Romney koolaid or else and we are taking the 'or else.'

When I read this article that GOP officials are afraid voters won't like Romney the man -- they are just now figuring that out?  We were saying a long time ago he shouldn't be the nominee for his flip flopping, secrecy, Mormon Church (will his Mormon faith will spook Christians more than is commonly thought – or detected in public polls?) not just a member but part of the hierarchy over the years, along with not being a friendly person unless he is around the rich and famous or fellow Mormons.

When I read on-line that the Mormon Church wants the White House to be the center for Mormon outreach, I draw the line.  Still haven't figured out what the Mormon Church is doing involved with building a mall.  Seems in Utah everything is wrapped together.  Please tell me why they are tax exempt.  I think as more comes out about the Mormon Church and Romney, you will see more and more Republicans pull away while telling pollsters they have no problem with the Mormon Church when they have huge problems.

Also have not figured out why so many Republicans want Bain Capital to be exempt for discussion in this election either until you dig deeper about Bain and Romney.  Romney has about $32M in Cayman accounts and  official documents reviewed by ABC News show that Bain Capital, the private equity partnership Romney once ran and pays him yet today, has set up some 138 secretive offshore funds in the Caymans.  Then there are the Cayman secretive accounts of the Mormon Church.  The investigation by ABC was done by in January of this year but crickets chirped out of the Conservative media who are in the tank for Romney.  No wonder he doesn't want to show tax returns from years passed.

Same people who demanded complete transparency from Obama now don't see a need for Romney to be transparent.  Everyone running for President needs to be fully transparent including educational records, tax returns, business dealings, medical records, and anything pertinent.  If you want to remain secretive then don't run.

Why is Mitt Romney running for President is the question of the day?  

Fear factors: What worries Romney backers

By MIKE ALLEN, JIM VANDEHEI and JAKE SHERMAN | 6/5/12 4:21 AM EDT 

Mitt Romney has done the unthinkable: silenced the legions of conservatives who saw him as too starched, too ideologically wobbly and too Richie Rich to win a few months ago. 

Now comes the hard part: getting those same conservatives not to pop off as he moves to confront a half-dozen very Mitt-specific political dangers — the ones top Republican officials say he must navigate to unite the party and attract skeptical conservatives and independents this summer.
Their calculus: President Barack Obama’s campaign is threatened most by events he can’t control: a European financial catastrophe, an Israeli attack on Iran that could goose gas prices, economic stagnation. 

Mitt Romney’s campaign is threatened most by the man himself. 

And that’s pretty scary to GOP insiders, right at a moment when they’re sensing they could win this thing. They know Obama won’t give it away — he plays within himself, he’s too seasoned a politician to do that. Plus, voters have a sense of what they’d get with Obama II, even if they’re a bit lukewarm about the first term. 

(Also on POLITICO: Romney's top political adviser: Romney)

With Romney, it’s just the opposite. Voters are just getting to know the guy, and there’s a lot there they might not like — so much of it personal, relating to Romney the man and Romney the candidate, according to these GOP officials, even those who praise his strong showing out of the gate in the general election. His Mormon faith. His stiff public appearance. His ideological inconsistency. His trouble confronting and controlling the Donald Trumps of the party. His knack for cringe-worthy stabs at connecting. 

“I worry that the default will be for the devil you know over the devil you don’t,” said William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. 

In interviews with top officials nationwide, Republicans expressed fear Romney will start, well, acting like Romney again — by improvising, maybe sparking another my-friends-own-NFL-teams moment in a clumsy attempt at connecting with voters. Or his Mormon faith will spook Christians more than is commonly thought – or detected in public polls. A surrogate is virtually certain to say something crazy — like Donald Trump, who seems to double-down on questioning Obama’s birthplace every chance he gets, including in an interview with POLITICO here. 

Some of the Republicans have a prescription to cure Romney’s Romney problem: Go big. Frame the election around big things to make the little things that worry people about Romney seem less important. Then he has to hope voters get on board.

Excerpt:  Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77046.html#ixzz1wvwys2n8

Jay Townsend, GOP Spokesman for Rep Hayworth (R-NH), Makes Controversial Facebook Comment and Then Apologizes

According to the Update below, Townsend resigned -- he should have been fired by Hayworth for making such comments!

Update from Politico, 2:04 p.m., 06/04/2012:

• Freshman Rep. Nan Hayworth’s campaign spokesman Jay Townsend has resigned after remarking on Facebook that people should “hurl some acid at those female democratic Senators who won’t abide the mandates they want to impose on the private sector.”

*****
Where are Republicans finding these neanderthals to speak for Republican office holders and candidates.  Noted once again it is aimed at women, this time Democrat women in the Senate.  After reading a portion of his comment, why wasn't he immediately fired?

"Let’s hurl some acid at those female democratic Senators who won’t abide the mandates they want to impose on the private sector."

He calls the comments "stupid" (true but also vicious) and "easily misconstrued" (it is very plain what he said --  no way you can misconstrue his comments).

It took two days for him to apologize?  The Congressman's staff also scrubbed her official Facebook pages of comments they didn't like.  What happened to the First Amendment?

Talk about classless and clueless that he thought he could say this and no one would get upset.  Hurling acid at anyone is not a joke and at a member of Congress is worse because it is against the law to threaten any member.  If a Democrat spokesman had said this the RNC would be all over it that he needed fired.  Why is this man still on her payroll and crickets chirping in the Republican Party?  Both parties seem to have double standards that almost mirror each other today.

From NYACK News, Cliff Weathers, comes this comment:

Bloggers on the conservative megasite RedState have thrown in the towel for Rep. Nan Hayworth and her reelection bid. In a post on the site, diarist GISAP laments that a Facebook rant by Hayworth’s paid spokesman Jay Townsend, where he suggests people “hurl some acid” in the faces of female Democratic Senators, has put the last nail in Hayworth’s coffin.

Jay Townsend, apparently has had a comment he made blown sky high, unleashing a firestorm of Progressive outrage. Whatever the context of his comment, it’s going to be difficult to defend his suggestion that we “hurl acid at those female Democratic Senators.” 

If she was trying to fly under the radar and cruise to re-election, she can forget about that now. As I wrote on her Facebook page, I’d rather NY-19 was held by a D, that way I wouldn’t feel betrayed.

A commentator dubbed commonsenseobserver said of Townsend:

That person’s gonna re-open the gender gap!

Red State.com is one of the few conservative sites that hasn't swallowed the Romney koolaid.  They are still independent and conservative who put America First!

Rep Hayworth when you read up on her recent comments is a moderate to liberal and was pretending to be conservative to get elected it seems.  Now she is pandering to her Democrat district to get reelected.  I am with Red State -- throw in the towel on her reelection.

Is this what the new Romney Republican Party looks like where candidates pretend to be conservative to get elected?  Excuse me but I prefer the Reagan Republican Party where we had principles and class.  Republicans fought with Democrats like cats and dogs in Congress about issues not personal attacks like we are seeing today.

How many office holders in the GOP today were former Democrats who became Republican not for the ideology but so they could get elected?  The nominee of the GOP was an independent from 1976 to 1994 and knew no Republicans in MA in 1994, but he became a Republican to keep from facing Ted Kennedy in the primary -- he certainly doesn't think or act like any longtime Republicans I know.  Many of the staffs of these former Democrats also were Democrat.

When did Republicans at higher levels decide it was okay to attack women period?  This is another symptom of what we are seeing at all levels -- Republicans acting more like Democrats then Republicans.  What happened to class?  Did it go out with the influx of Democrats who wanted to be on the winning side and the Tea Party many of who were Democrats at one time.  See a pattern here?

I have to agree with the newspaper that Townsend needs fired or it reflects even worse on Rep Hayworth who should have been appalled when she heard about this and fired him immediately.  In fact, Townsend should have turned in his resignation immediately after writing such a stupid thing and publishing it but he waited to see if there would be an uproar.

This is another example of why I am questioning my membership in the Romney Republican Party because it certainly does not reflect what I believe because no one knows for sure what Romney believes except in setting up off shore accounts to avoid paying taxes -- he knows that well.  More on that later this week.

Jay Townsend, GOP Spokesman, Apologizes For Controversial Facebook Comment
The Huffington Post | By Melissa Jeltsen Posted: 06/03/2012 6:57 pm Updated: 06/03/2012 10:23 pm
Jay Townsend, campaign spokesman for Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.), has apologized for writing a Facebook comment advocating violence against female Democratic senators, calling his words "stupid" and "easily misconstrued." 

The apology came one week after Townsend's vicious online rant, in which he wrote "Let’s hurl some acid at those female democratic Senators who won’t abide the mandates they want to impose on the private sector."
His comments ignited a firestorm of controversy, which culminated on Sunday with a local newspaper editorial calling for him to be fired. "If Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-Mount Kisco, decides to keep Jay Townsend anywhere near her campaign after his outburst on Facebook this week, she will be sending the unmistakable message that she agrees with his stand -- If you don't like the politics of your opponent, react with violence," the board wrote. "[I]t is hard to believe that Townsend -- with his broad and deep experience in politics -- could make such a callous remark without understanding the consequences."
Townsend's full apology, as posted on his personal Facebook page on Sunday, is below:

On May 26, I posted a stupid, thoughtless, and insensitive comment on a facebook page. It was stupid because my words were easily misconstrued; thoughtless because my choice of words obscured a point I was trying to make, and insensitive because some have interpreted the comment as advocating a violent act.

On May 26, I posted a stupid, thoughtless, and insensitive comment on a facebook page. It was stupid because my words were easily misconstrued; thoughtless because my choice of words obscured a point I was trying to make, and insensitive because some have interpreted the comment as advocating a violent act. 

To friends, associates, and clients I have offered my apology for the embarrassment I have caused, and do hereby offer it to the many who rightly found fault with my incendiary choice of words. 

The mistake was mine, and mine only and the post in no way was intended to represent the views of anyone for whom I have worked or represented.

Townsend issued the apology two days after Hayworth's campaign put out a statement calling the uproar over the comments a 'manufactured controversy.' Still, the campaign specifically distanced itself from his remark, explaining it was "not made on behalf of the Congresswoman or her campaign and was clearly not meant to be taken literally." 

Democrat Richard Becker, who is competing against Hayworth in New York's 18th Congressional district, has called on the freshman representative to fire Townsend immediately. "It's just mind boggling that a Congressional spokesman would use this kind of incendiary and downright offensive language and equally shocking that his boss would not instantly fire him for doing so," Becker wrote in a Facebook statement. "The specific choice of words here is also particularly sickening. Acid attacks on women have a disturbing and disgusting history -- they're used almost exclusively to silence and punish women across the globe who've bravely spoken out on behalf of their human rights." 

Becker also suggested Townsend may have violated 18 USC 115, a federal law prohibiting anyone from threatening "to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official... with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official." 

Hayworth's campaign has found itself in a bit of a PR crisis. Hundreds of negative comments on her Facebook page have been removed, according to screenshots provided by Becker. The selective editing has not gone unnoticed by her readers. 

"If Nan is so blameless why is she running away from comments made by her own constituents and wiping out the posts of concerned citizens? Innocent people don't run away and hide. If you have nothing to be ashamed of Ms. Hayworth why are you scrubbing your FB pages?" wrote one commenter. Another person added: "It says a lot that you only keep comments from the ones who praise you. Says a lot about character." 

Source:  Huffington Post

Mark Harmon returns to Oklahoma City for 12th charity weekend

This is the good side of a Hollywood actor and from my limited experience over the years, there are many like Mark Harmon that give not only their money but their time to charity events.  What a weekend for Oklahoma City.  To the north of the city is the Women's Softball College World Series, downtown tonight is the NBA playoff between the OKC Thunder and the Spurs at Chesapeake Arena, and today there was a charity walk in several areas for Lupus and Crohns diseases, plus the Harmon Charity Weekend.  

Mark Harmon is one of my favorite actors and love his show NCIS.  Then we have Charles Barkley from TNT who has been all over Oklahoma City making friends with the people here.  It is a great weekend to be an Oklahoman!

Thought today instead of politics, I would share this article and what can be done with a charity to help others less fortunate.  The Thunder team does a lot of charity work in the local community and our OU athletes mentor in our local schools plus working other charity events.  The OU Women's Softball team is in the semi-finals tomorrow and today they walked for charity to raise money for Lupus and Crohns.

Great state to live with neighbor helping neighbor in so many ways.  This is the great side of Oklahoma and America and makes me proud to live in Norman, Ohio, in the best country in the world -- The United States of America!  When people work together, the Country benefits.  God Bless the people of this great Country who give back so much.

Mark Harmon returns to Oklahoma City for 12th charity weekend

By Brandy McDonnell | Published: June 2, 2012

Mark Harmon's famous half-smile expanded into a wide grin Friday as he watched a group of Oklahomaschoolchildren hustle to pull whimsical woodland creature costumes over their traditional American Indian garb.

When the Kenwood School Cherokee Singers and teacher Jan Ballou coaxed Harmon's teammates into providing wolf howls, bear growls and opossum giggles for “The Animal Song,” the TV and film actor's grin turned into full-blown laughs.

The “NCIS” star and his Bombers baseball team launched the 12th Annual Mark Harmon Celebrity Weekend on Friday with a tour of the future Oklahoma City Indian Clinic Harmon-y Pediatric Facility. The tour ended with a three-song performance by the Kenwood students, who traveled from their community 40 miles north of Tahlequah to welcome Harmon and his teammates, including former Major League Baseball players Wally Joyner and Rick Sutcliffe.

“It's inordinately special to come back and put your hands on a wall that wasn't there last year. Then you can actually see the effect of the time you've put in and the effort you've made to try to direct funds to the right place,” said Harmon, who received the gift of a Cherokee woven basket and a golden pin with “Hello” written in Cherokee from the Kenwood children. “It's our pleasure to come and take part ... and we couldn't be more pleased with the way this is being done.”

Along with Friday night's charity bowling and auction event, the Celebrity Weekend includes the annual baseball matchup between Harmon's Bombers and the Oklahoma Sports Science and Orthopaedics Outlaws. The game begins at 3 p.m. Saturday at the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond.

“It's not really baseball. We think we're playing baseball, but the focus for all of it is really about the kids,” Harmon said with a laugh. “It's really not who wins with the score, 'cause it's all a win.”

Proceeds from this year's festivities benefit the Oklahoma City Indian Clinic and the Anna's House Foundation.

“Without their philanthropic help, we certainly wouldn't be where we are today,” said Robyn Sunday-Allen, chief executive officer of the Oklahoma City Indian Clinic. “It's pretty overwhelming what they do for us.”
In the past three years, the clinic has received about $250,000 from the charity event, she said. The funds have been earmarked for its pediatrics program; about 25 percent of the 17,000 patients the clinic treats are 18 or younger.

“If we're not here, there's a lot of kids not getting health care,” she said.

In December, the clinic bought an office building down the street from its existing facility, and on Friday, Sunday-Allen showed the Bombers the gutted second floor of the newly acquired space, which will be converted into the Harmon-y Pediatric Facility with exam rooms, doctor offices, optometry area and wellness center.

“This is very different than it was last year; it's certainly different than it was four years ago. That makes you feel pretty good, that every dime that you have a small part in being part of is being put to good use. That's also what makes me proud of this group that comes in to do this, because other than a free T-shirt, they're doing this for all the right reasons,” Harmon said.

“We're all friends and we get a chance to come and visit for three days and laugh more than we should ever laugh and enjoy each other's company more than we should ... and as you get older, you appreciate that more and you realize how rare that is. And then in the midst of all of that ... you're able to have an affect on people and really see the passion behind it and see it working.”


For the second year, Anna's House Foundation also will benefit from the events. The faith-based nonprofit works to recruit, train and support loving, Christian foster families to care for Oklahoma County infants and toddlers in need. The 4-year-old organization is preparing to break ground in Luther on the Ranch at Anna's House, a $3 million collection of seven homes where foster families can live and temporarily take in children entering Department of Human Services care.

“We're developing an alternative to that shelter system for the youngest of the young in foster care. We want to be able to offer a place for them to come and start their stay in foster care in a nice warm house, where the same voice that tucks them in at night will be there in the morning, until a more permanent placement can be found,” said co-founder and director Greg Harkins.

“I'd sold T-shirts to people in the Netherlands because they're excited about Mark Harmon and this event.
... We're a completely privately supported organization, so it is a tremendous, tremendous thing that he does.”

Read more: http://newsok.com/mark-harmon-returns-to-oklahoma-city-for-12th-charity-weekend/article/3680642#ixzz1wgay6r93

NY Times Editorial: Bring Back the Real Maverick

UPDATE:  Thanks to the reader who sent me this link with the letter to the editor at The Oklahoman after reading this article.  Here in Oklahoma the League of Women Voters seems to be pretty unbiased or at least they have at forum's I have attended here.  Found this letter expresses what is bothering many of us -- no transparency for donors giving huge sums of money:

Secret campaign money undermines role of voter
| Published: May 21, 2012  

The League of Women Voters supports U.S. Senate Bill 2219, which would restore transparency to U.S. elections by requiring complete disclosure by those funding election advertising at the $10,000 level or higher. Voters need to know who's spending big money on advertising in candidate elections in order to make informed decisions. Secret campaign money undermines the role of the voter and corrupts the election process. It should have no place in our democracy. 

We're seeing huge sums of money from secret sources going into election advertising. Much of it is the negative advertising that poisons the airways. Special interests are spending millions of dollars in this election, threatening to drown out the voices of individual voters. Because of changes in the law, there are now no disclosure requirements. We don't know which big corporations and rich lobbyists are paying for these ads. 

The League of Women Voters calls on Congress to pass this bill and we call on all candidates to disavow secret advertising. 

Mary Jo Neal, TulsaKaren Melcher, StillwaterNeal and Melcher are co-presidents of League of Women Voters of Oklahoma. 

Read more: http://newsok.com/secret-campaign-money-undermines-role-of-voter/article/3676636#ixzz1wb3xghYX

******

Bring back Senator McCain is correct!  When Campaign Finance Reform was passed, I thought it was a mistake but after what we have been witnessing with Romney buying the primary with the big donors from Wall and K Streets, I no longer feel that way.  Why are the wealthy allowed to donate millions and the rest of us $2500 for the primary and another $2500 for the general?  Super PACs have made the Republican Primary a nightmare and given us a candidate that before the others dropped out couldn't even get 40% of the vote.

This editorial is as timely today as when I first read it but because of other stories, it was shoved aside.  This editorial is correct that voters have a right to know who is giving the big bucks to run these ads.  The fact that an organization like Crossroads run by Karl Rove is sitting on $100M for ads for Romney yet we have no idea who donated is just wrong.  Money has corrupted this election.  I said it with Soros in 2008 but it is worse this time with Republicans.  We knew Soros was giving but now people hide behind phony names and addresses provided for $500 by the Romney Super PAC.  Now we learn that Republicans want no part of supporting McCain in the Senate on Campaign Finance to shine the light of day on donors.  Why?  How corrupt is this campaign for Romney?  Is it because they know he needs the big money to buy false advertising to win?  That's my guess.  No one on the GOP will be willing to cross Romney which begs another WHY?

Wall and K Streets are out to buy this election along with the elite for Romney but they forget there are a lot of voters like me who are fed up with big money trying to buy this election, the elites telling us we will support Romney or we are called names, and Obama is the most evil person ever according to some of the emails from Republican/conservative groups for starters.  Would have to throw the RNC attacks right in there.  The powers at be in the GOP don't seem to care about the truth but their narrative.  To use an old word many of their comments about Obama are balderdash.  The attacks have gotten very personal not just about issues from some of the conservative sites.

As we saw yesterday with President Bush, he gets along fine with President Obama and so do the two wives.  Why all the hatred from the GOP, the lies, mistruths, innuendoes all to make Obama look like this horrible person?  I have heard more than one Republican say if they had to choose between Romney and Obama to have a beer, they would choose Obama.  You don't have to agree with a candidate but to the personal attacks are so unbelievable that it makes me wonder just what makes these people ticks.  Is buying an election the American way -- not in my book.

Romney bought the primary with the help of his Super PAC, Rove, Bush 41, Roger Ailes, the RNC and countless others and now that same group wants to buy the Presidency.  Why do they risk splitting the Republican Party to put Romney in office who is beholden to Wall/K Streets?  Makes no sense this long-time Republican who never registered independent but I can understand today why so many people have had it with the Republican Party today who no longer seems to believe in small government.

Bring Back the Real MaverickPublished: May 19, 2012 

Senator John McCain has retreated from the campaign finance fight, once his signature issue. He may finally be ready to get back in. He told the newspaper The Hill that he had been talking with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, the sponsor of a much-needed bill requiring timely public disclosure of donors writing checks of $10,000 and more for election ads, plus “stand-by-your-ad” identifications from the five biggest donors. 

Mr. McCain said he was seeking firm guarantees that the measure would treat the labor movement’s campaign spenders the same as corporate donors. That seems reasonable. The public has a clear and urgent need to know who are the hidden donors bankrolling the salvos of attack ads. But the Senate measure is reported stalled, with no Republican willing to join as a co-sponsor. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, and Senator Charles Schumer, a principal force behind the bill, must push to have it brought to a vote. 

Mr. McCain could help drive the issue by defying his party’s monolithic dedication to unlimited and undisclosed political donations. He castigated the Supreme Court for arrogance and naïveté in throwing open the corporate money gates in its Citizens United decision, predicting “huge scandals because there’s too much money washing around.” Now he needs to put his reputation and his vote behind that warning. 

Full disclosure of donors was the one positive option the Supreme Court endorsed in its misguided decision. Last week, the legality of donor transparency was stressed in a preliminary decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It cited Citizens United in upholding Representative Chris Van Hollen’s challenge to the Federal Election Commission for arbitrarily weakening disclosure requirements. 

Mr. Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, is also the chief sponsor of a matching sunlight measure in the House. Win or lose, Americans need to know who is for disclosure and who wants to hide the truth about big donors and misleading ads.   

New York Times Editorial