Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Palin blasts crony capitalism, pay for play, "politics as usual"

Sarah Palin’s complete Iowa speech; a constitutionalist sets out her vision for the US going forward — “fundamental restoration”:

protein wisdom’s response: run run sarah save christmas save save christmas.

******
update: Rove the concern troll: how will Sarah Palin handle scrutiny, with her enormous thin skin? If only she had the gravitas of, say, a Jon Huntsman

117 Replies to “Palin blasts crony capitalism, pay for play, "politics as usual"”

  1. Darleen says:

    Now about 1/2 way through Sarah’s speech … got a giggle out of her “hobbit” line and her mocking of the Obama admin trying to “rebrand” the Federal Government as the “Federal Family”

    “I want to be emancipated!”

    heh

  2. JHoward says:

    Constitutional principles are finally an outlier. Or will be until the left finds itself out of power, at which point the Looney Tunes version of them will again be all the rage.

  3. JoanOfArgghh says:

    Rove is serving up some pretty thin gruel if he thinks that comment has any merit. Like we haven’t already witnessed the public keel-hauling of Palin only to see her come back stronger than ever. Her dig a McCain was a death-blow to her past loyalty to him. Hobbit, indeed.

    She’s found the sympathy nexus for both sides of the aisle without pandering to the poor with promises of mere sustenance, and without throwing big business under the bus. The only thing she’s throwing under the bus is the System.

    Damn snowbilly is gonna be the death of the GOP. We can hope.

  4. sdferr says:

    The name Solyndra belonged in the speech at 16:50, yet it wasn’t there. Indeed, a short list of the bankrupt beneficiary corporations, affixed to a brief account of the wasted capital the Obama administration has burned underneath them, would help.

    As to the statement from SarahPac Rove refers to, it reads:

    August 23, 2011
    Three years ago DC pundits predicted with glee the demise of Sarah Palin’s political career. This past weekend their tune changed, citing false information that she has made a decision and set a date regarding a future campaign. Any professional pundit claiming to have “inside information” regarding Governor Palin’s personal decision is not only wrong but their comments are specifically intended to mislead the American public. These are the same tired establishment political games that fuel the 24 hour news cycle and that all Americans will hopefully reject in 2012, and this is more of the “politics-as-usual” that Sarah Palin has fought against throughout her career.

    PS – Kudos to CNN for setting the record straight and including Governor Palin’s own words.

  5. […] Palin blasts crony capitalism, pay for play, “politics as usual” update: Rove the concern troll: how will Sarah Palin handle scrutiny, with her enormous thin skin? If only she had the gravitas of, say, a John Huntsman… […]

  6. geoffb says:

    Some of what I took from this speech.

    Eliminate all corporate income tax and all corporate welfare, loopholes, bailouts.
    [this would, I take it, mean ethanol and farm subsidies too]

    Drill baby drill. Build the refineries and pipelines. Unleashing the energy sector will be the best “stimulus” for our economy and will bring in revenue not cost the taxpayers money. We can be an energy superpower.

    Repeal Obamacare.

    Reform entitlements ourselves because reform is coming and if we don’t do it it will be forced on us from the outside which will hurt everyone much more.

    Take back all unspent stimulus funds.

    Rein in the regulatory agencies.

    Rein in the Federal Government, enforce the 10th amendment.

  7. Blake says:

    This speech will instantly dismay every GOP beltway wannabe.

    Sarah continues to force the conversation in directions establishment politicians are very uncomfortable with.

  8. bh says:

    Been a bit busy with household repairs last couple days so haven’t given this a watch yet. Sounds like I should though based on reactions I’m seeing and Geoff’s bullet points.

  9. McGehee says:

    If only she had the gravitas of, say, a John Huntsman

    I will say that an enormous Australian spider lurking in my bathroom would definitely get my immediate and undivided attention — but not my vote for president.

  10. Danger says:

    “…run run sarah save christmas save save christmas.”

    Pikachu parody,
    Well played sir!

  11. happyfeet says:

    I remember Sarah Palin she was that pretty lady from Alaska what did that tv show with the bears in it and the sammins

  12. happyfeet says:

    not a pikachu parody run run rudolph sarah save the christmas! was a gift from the good Mr. buttons who is very dear to us all cause of how he makes the internet better

  13. JHoward says:

    Eliminate all corporate income tax and all corporate welfare, loopholes, bailouts.
    [this would, I take it, mean ethanol and farm subsidies too]

    Then a national sales tax is perhaps the only way to halt the assault on the individual by way of taxing his time and property.

    Reform entitlements ourselves because reform is coming and if we don’t do it it will be forced on us from the outside which will hurt everyone much more.

    Reform with a vengeance or more appropriately and for far more durable effects, dismantle entitlements and with them, entire programs and their bureaucracies.

    Rein in the regulatory agencies.

    Pass a constitutional amendment that removes government from the domestic sector. “Reining in” this cancer is far too arbitrary a plan.

    Rein in the Federal Government, enforce the 10th amendment.

    Also with a vengeance. Run and win, Sarah, and then do everything you can to pack the court.

  14. Danger says:

    happyfeet posted on 9/3 @ 6:09 pm
    run run rudolph sarah save the christmas!

    It’s possible I missed the origination however sarcasm was clearly the intent of the replay and (not speaking for him) seemed to be what Jeff was responding to.

  15. Danger says:

    “a national sales tax”

    JHo,

    If given a clean slate it would be an attractive option. Unfortunately, today it would be one more trick in the progressive playbook. Might be best not to push the pandora playbutton.

  16. B. Moe says:

    Eliminate taxes altogether, raise money by auctioning off votes on ebay.

    Instead of corruptocrats confiscating money and buying voters, let the voters buy the votes from the government.

  17. happyfeet says:

    Mr. buttons deserves the credit is all I meaned

  18. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Hey, you’d be a bit thin-skinned too if Andy Sullivan tried to move into your uterus.

  19. happyfeet says:

    speaking of indianola you maybe don’t know this story

    Indianola’s residents relocated farther inland after the storm; the old town’s ruins sit just offshore under 15 feet of water in Matagorda Bay.

    The storm ended the rivalry between Galveston and Indianola as the chief port of Texas. With the abandonment of Indianola and the unwillingness of the former residents to rebuild close to shore, Galveston became the most important Texan port until the 1900 Galveston Hurricane led to the rise of Houston as a major port.

  20. geoffb says:

    Different Indianola. So is this one. Hmmm, didn’t know there was a Calhoun County in Texas. I’m in the Michigan one.

    Lot more Indianolas than I’d have thought.

  21. JHoward says:

    [A national sales tax] would be one more trick in the progressive playbook.

    As the only tax levied, I don’t see how. And as the only tax levied, you’re right: we’ve a snowball’s chance in hell of putting into effect.

  22. sdferr says:

    Alana Goodman, a Palin critic — not a supporter — inadvertently lays out what the SarahPac release above was concerned to prevent, and Karl Rove appears to have been concerned to induce: a testy, let down, disappointed response in her fans who’ve not paid close attention to the letter of Palin’s own words on her potential decision to run or not, but who can be easily misled by their own o’erweening enthusiasm and a few hints dropped by the likes of Mr Rove to expect outcomes that may not prove to be the case, should Palin decide against a run.

    It certainly sounds like it would come as a massive shock to her fans.

    Me? I see a politician who can think through the various potential consequences of her actions, negative as well as positive, and step up to do something about them before they arrive. Then too, I see Karl Rove acting like a thin-skinned man sensitive to criticism potentially harmful to his carefully crafted public-image, so he lights out into a spin cycle to do something about that before he takes on more damage. He musta jammed at least five repetitions of variations of “thin skin” into that Van Susteren interview: the man knows how to hammer a talking point, gotta give him that.

  23. cranky-d says:

    Rove’s best days are behind him pundit-wise, and he knows it. The establishment GOP is on its way out. They can either go quietly or get trampled.

  24. dnlchisholm says:

    This blog post is super juicy. It looks like they are going to start fighting back. It’s about time somebody took on these counter-productive ignoramuses!

    http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/09/04/misguided-freedomworks-protests-romneys-tea-party-appearance/

    If FreedomWorks gets their way, President Obama is going to get re-elected… Can’t we all just allow the candidates speak and let people decide for themselves!

  25. McGehee says:

    If Mitt Romneycare gets his way, President Obama is going to get re-elected.

  26. bh says:

    Oh, not you, McG. Dnlschisholm, huh?

  27. bh says:

    “This blog post is super juicy” and then an off topic plug elsewhere?

    Seems spammy.

  28. B. Moe says:

    I hate these posts. It just depresses the fuck out of me that Karl goddam Rove is considered some sort of genius.

  29. cranky-d says:

    A Romney candidacy is one of the best chances Obama has for re-election. Huntsman would be a close second if he had a prayer of winning the nomination.

  30. bh says:

    Very good, Geoff.

    Your google-fu is fast like the cobra.

  31. Abe Froman says:

    This blog post is super juicy.

    Something about that sentence makes me want to punch his lights out.

  32. sdferr says:

    What else would be super juicy? Fresh squeezed oranges! How about my mowing clothes after an hour or so marching up and down in the sun? Or a hot to trot cougar’s twa– . . . oh nevermind.

  33. sdferr says:

    Oh for fucks sake:

    Not every investment in start-up companies is expected to pay off, Dan Leistikow, director of the Energy Department’s Office of Public Affairs, said today in an article on the agency’s website. “The changing economics have affected a number of solar manufacturers in recent months, including unfortunately, Solyndra,” he said. “We have always recognized that not every one of the innovative companies supported by our loans and loan guarantees would succeed.”

    Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, reiterated that. Recent bankruptcies of U.S. solar companies are a warning and “we should be doing everything possible to ensure the United States does not cede the renewable energy market to China and other countries,” he said in an e-mailed statement.

    Really, tar and feathers is too kind.

  34. bh says:

    Completely off topic: the problem with hanging a screen door is shimming an aluminum frame. With a wooden frame you just shim around the hinges. With an aluminum frame, you need to make a strip or strips of wood that run long lengths otherwise the screws just bend the metal and look shitty and/or leave gaps. Took me an hour to get one roughly perpendicular side today.

    On the topic of a juicy: … nevermind, as well. I’ve already worked blue this month. I’ll get a reputation if I keep it up.

  35. geoffb says:

    Just look closely at where all that “green energy” stimulus money is “invested.” See a pattern. The President’s big campaign donors got nice returns for their “investments” in him to the tune of billions of your tax dollars in the form of “green energy” stimulus funds. The technical term for this is “pay-to-play.”
    […]
    I believe in the free market, and that is why I detest crony capitalism. And Barack Obama has shown us cronyism on steroids. It will lead to our downfall if we don’t stop it now. It’s a root that grows our economic problems. Our unsustainable debt and our high unemployment numbers and a housing market that’s in the tank and a stagnant economy – these are all symptoms. Politicians are so focused on the symptoms and not the disease. We will not solve our economic problems until we confront the cronyism of our President and our permanent political class.
    […]
    . The message then to job-creating corporations is: We’ll unshackle you from the world’s highest federal corporate income tax rate, but you will stand or fall on your own, just like all the rest of us out on main street.

  36. Abe Froman says:

    Really, tar and feathers is too kind.

    If I fully expressed my opinion of this, the Secret Service would be at my door. The Federal Government as VC firm makes me feel very killy.

  37. sdferr says:

    Yep, it’s worse than Obama playing maid-service to flooded NewJoisyians.

    Obama: We’ll get you what you need, don’t worry. What do you need?
    NJ Shrew: More cleaning products.
    Obama: We can do that. [turning to aide} See that we get more cleaning products.

  38. newrouter says:

    Among the conclusions of The Myth of Green Jobs by Gordon Hughes, Professor of Economics at Edinburgh University, are:

    1. “Green jobs” are a chimera. Though diverting taxpayers money into the renewable energy sector may indeed “create” jobs in the renewable energy sector, it will cost many more jobs in the broader economy.

    2. Policies to promote renewable energy will add 0.6 to 0.7 per cent per annum to core inflation from now till 2020. This is equivalent to a rise in the same period of the Consumer Price Index by 6.5 per cent. if the Government sticks to its inflation targets and applies restrictions on speed of growth through higher interest rates, then the “sacrifice cost” – ie what the economy could have made, but was prevented from doing so by monetary policy – is £250 billion.

    3. These same policies will, on top of that £250 billion cost, reduce GDP by 2 per cent to 3 per cent for at least ten years. This will cost Britain the equivalent of 60 per cent of the amount the government spends each year on primary and secondary education.

    4. Renewable energy will cost £120 billion – making it 9 to 10 times more expensive than energy from conventional sources.

    5. Claims about “innovation” and the development of “new industries” are a nonsense. “Almost every country in the world wants to claim the same benefit so the numbers do not add up….For the longer term, there is little doubt that the primary beneficiary will be China. That is already apparent from the way the market is developing.”

    6. Not only is there no evidence to support lobbyists’ and government ministers’ claims that green “investment” will create green jobs, but also such a policy will result in lower real disposable incomes and higher prices. Little thought appears to have gone into considering the real consequences of this government policy. Indeed, all these claims about green jobs “seem intended to divert attention from the consequences of setting arbitary and poorly considered targets for renewable energy.”

    Link

  39. geoffb says:

    And from the other side…

    The CBC is trying to help by organizing job fairs across the country. Waters also wants to help by putting more pressure on the big banks to help with mortgages.

    “If they don’t come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes that they’ve worked so hard for, we’re going to tax them out of business,” Waters said.

    That is the cry Waters with other black leaders have been taking nationwide.

    This should help.

    Here is some of the language below from a ballot proposal in California called the “Foreclosure Modification Act,” scheduled to go on the November 2012 ballot if supporters get the required minimum 800,000 voter signatures. It was approved in late July by the California attorney general for signature collection.

    * Makes home ownership a fundamental right for every Californian.
    * Prohibits lenders from foreclosing on any California citizen’s personal home.
    * Requires lenders to assist California borrowers not making payments on home loans due to financial hardship or illness.
    * Requires lenders to reduce mortgage principal to reflect any drop in local property value of more than 10 percent, and to reschedule payments, reduce interest rates, and/or refinance without new credit review.
    * Requires lenders to refinance home loans at a minimum cost within 45 days of request if loan has been maintained for three years.
    * Provides back property tax assistance to homeowners from local governments (counties, cities, townships, etc.)

    Sounds like what Maxine wants to take nationwide.

  40. newrouter says:

    THE BEATINGS REGIME UNCERTAINTY WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES THE RECOVERY TAKES PLACE: Maxine Waters Threatens To “Tax Banks Out Of Business.” Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 9:10 pm

  41. cranky-d says:

    I think that new ballot proposal in #41 would pretty much destroy the housing industry in California. She is smoking a LOT of crack.

  42. cranky-d says:

    Like Ric has said many times, to a progressive money (wealth) is something that just “is.” Some people are “lucky” and find money, and others are “unlucky” and cannot find money. We are all hunter-gatherers.

  43. geoffb says:

    Solyndra, the California solar panel company boosted by a half a billion dollars in stimulus money, went under last week. Congressional Republicans have been saying for some time that the loans were questionable and aren’t encouraged by OMB’s refusal to show them the books. As it happens, just nine weeks ago Time’s Michael Grunwald dashed off a defense of Solyndra’s bright future.

    House Republicans tried to hold a hearing today on what the New York Times called “the Energy Department’s embattled loan guarantee program.” They wanted to shine a spotlight on the program’s most embattled beneficiary, the solar manufacturer Solyndra. But they only called one White House official to testify, and he blew them off.

    I happened to visit Solyndra’s headquarters today, so maybe I can help the Republicans with their investigation. For starters, the reports of Solyndra’s death have been greatly exaggerated. And while reasonable people can disagree about the loan guarantee program, it’s not the boondoggle its critics suggest.

  44. Seth says:

    Fuck Karl Rove, and the bag of fried pork rinds he rode in on.

  45. geoffb says:

    Nice.

    Peter Lynch, a longtime solar industry analyst, told ABC News the company’s fate should have been obvious from the start.

    “Here’s the bottom line,” Lynch said. “It costs them $6 to make a unit. They’re selling it for $3. In order to be competitive today, they have to sell it for between $1.5 and $2. That is not a viable business plan.”

  46. Seth says:

    Not quite, Cranky. To the progressives money is something that just is, and those who have it necessarily TOOK it from those who lack it. To the progressive money is a right, but actual possession of it is a crime against humanity.

  47. bh says:

    The Federal Government as VC firm makes me feel very killy.

    We’re there already, with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (and the like) playing middle man.

    Subsidy farming and rent seeking venture capital, it’s the wave of the future. Or the wave of the recently discredited past. We’ll see, I guess. I’m betting on discredited past.

    It’s a shame that there will be no comeuppance.

  48. cranky-d says:

    Not quite, Seth. To a progressive, there is a fixed amount of money, and if someone has “too much” it means he got to it before others did. He cheated somehow. It’s a subtle difference from what you said, so subtle it might not matter. One can have “some” money, just not “too much” of it. In the end, either way we are all supposed to share the vegetables and mammoth meat money.

  49. bh says:

    We were there already, that should be.

    General rule of thumb: when you have lots of ex-government officials in fake management positions, they’re not there because they’re legends with a spreadsheet.

  50. Seth says:

    My first reaction, cranky, is “isn’t that what I said”…but I see what you’re getting at. Bitter clinger that I am, I guess I’m a little extreme when I make an example. Plus, it’s about quarter past whiskey.

  51. bh says:

    * Makes home ownership a fundamental right for every Californian.
    * Prohibits lenders from foreclosing on any California citizen’s personal home.
    * Requires lenders to assist California borrowers not making payments on home loans due to financial hardship or illness.
    * Requires lenders to reduce mortgage principal to reflect any drop in local property value of more than 10 percent, and to reschedule payments, reduce interest rates, and/or refinance without new credit review.
    * Requires lenders to refinance home loans at a minimum cost within 45 days of request if loan has been maintained for three years.
    * Provides back property tax assistance to homeowners from local governments (counties, cities, townships, etc.)

    Makes sense to me.

    (Psst… Is it really Mexico you guys want to fence off? Serious question.)

  52. cranky-d says:

    The difference is between stealing the money, which would involve direct action, and hoarding the money by finding it first and not sharing, which is an indirect thing. Like I said, subtle, and it really doesn’t matter because either way we need to take from the have mores and give to the have lesses to correct the problem.

    I’m still working right now, but in a while I expect I’ll be in Margaritaville.

  53. cranky-d says:

    By the way, those homeowner rules would make buying a house one of the best investment opportunities ever. When have you ever seen a case when a loss in value results in a drop in what you owe, but (I would guess) an increase in value would make you richer.

    Her rules would make the housing crisis a hell of a lot worse, if you could ever get anyone to loan money under those circumstances. I would guess only a government entity could do that, because only the government can do stuff that loses money hand over fist and still stay in business (longer than a private entity could, anyway).

  54. newrouter says:

    “Is it really Mexico you guys want to fence off? Serious question.”

    federalism at it’s finest provided no fed gov’t bailout.

  55. bh says:

    And then maybe implement that Lex Luther plan just to be sure.

  56. geoffb says:

    #53,

    It will be Shakespearean in effect though that is not their intent.

  57. McGehee says:

    I think that new ballot proposal in #41 would pretty much destroy the housing industry in California.

    If it goes through, I’m going to have my brother and his wife living at my house. The stepkid(s) and in-laws and step-grandkids that are now living with them will have to stay behind in California because Georgia is nowhere near as generous with the welfare money; I’m sure the state will just buy my brother’s house at foreclosure auction and give it to them.

  58. McGehee says:

    * Prohibits lenders from foreclosing on any California citizen’s personal home.

    That won’t help my brother. Without income to pay the other bills the utility company will take out a lien on the house and then it won’t be a lender foreclosing.

  59. McGehee says:

    Did I mention the utility company where my brother lives, is the city government?

  60. Spiny Norman says:

    Keep in mind, McGehee, progressives aren’t terribly bright. They have the intellectual and emotional capacity of 12-year-olds.

  61. cranky-d says:

    I think some 12-year-olds might be insulted by that remark.

  62. bh says:

    I’d like to introduce this again. Which immigrant group poses a greater threat: Mexicans or Californians?

    That right there is why illegal immigration sits around #10 for me rather than cracking the top #5.

  63. Garym says:

    Priceless, a fat fuck like Rove calling Palin “thin skinned”, Palin running a 1/2 marathon today, placing second in her age group, at a time of 1hr 46min. That time would have been Rove’s first mile, including the trip to the hospital for some oxygen.

  64. newrouter says:

    ” Which immigrant group poses a greater threat: Mexicans or Californians?”

    illegal mexicans are a big problem for californians.

  65. Swen says:

    Hey! I have the intellectual and emotional capacity of a 12-year-old and I’m insulted by that remark!

  66. geoffb says:

    One of the features of re-education camps was the public confession of all that thoughts and actions that went contrary to the will of the State. Behold our New Soviet Science.

  67. bh says:

    Which Californians, nr? Those who are counting on those votes or those who are counting on cheap landscaping and childcare?

    Or, those same Californians who are making sure that all fuel standards meet their insane ideas and force manufacturers to make shit products.

    Which one costs more? Hint: they don’t speak that much Spanish.

  68. Abe Froman says:

    I’d like to introduce this again. Which immigrant group poses a greater threat: Mexicans or Californians?

    My take:

    Mexicans/Central Americans around these parts get up very early, work their asses off in thankless jobs and pretty much keep to themselves. We don’t have barrios, though. They mostly seem to live four to a room in scattered apartments or rental houses.

    Transplanted Californians pretty much suck. Their Mexicans seem to suck as well, but I’m kind of convinced it’s because they’re California Mexicans.

  69. newrouter says:

    “Which Californians, nr?”

    it ain’t the leftards

  70. cranky-d says:

    I’m from California, and I’d like to think I don’t suck.

    Bigots!

  71. Swen says:

    @64. Indeed. The local population is about 40% Hispanic, but they hardly ever demand that we make things more like they were back in Mexico. Meanwhile the expat Californicators constantly whine about how bad things were back there, the smog, the traffic, the crime, the taxes, the meddlesome government, yada, yada, and then demand that we change things to be more like California so’s they get more stuff for nothing at someone elses’ expense and can attract more people just like them to move here.

    The good news: They hardly ever stay a second winter….

  72. bh says:

    Couldn’t figure out how to phrase it, cranky.

    Any Cali person here I’d gladly invite to live near me. But, ya’ll are a minority. A distinct minority.

  73. Swen says:

    @72. Obviously you’re the exception that proves the rule cranky!

  74. Abe Froman says:

    Sorry, Cranky. I’ve watched in horror as California’s faggoty-assed food and eco cult(ure) crept its way Eastward, and now, whenever I see the word sustainable or locally-sourced on a menu, I make my way to the bathroom and deliberately miss the toilet. I blame you personally for this.

  75. cranky-d says:

    It’s true that the whole sustainable thing was my idea. Sorry about that. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

  76. bh says:

    You are a monster.

  77. newrouter says:

    unsustainable is progg central modus operandee

  78. serr8d says:

    California’s corps of Democratic politicians are more insidious than Mexican cartel leaders. Best they be contained if at all possible. The orbital option may be necessary, otherwise.

  79. Swen says:

    Oh, ‘sustainable’ isn’t so bad. Consider the Beer Cycle: We grow and malt the barley and brew it and you drink it. Constant supply to meet constant demand. Nothing could be more sustainable ’cause running out is unthinkable!

    So drink up Shriners!

  80. Abe Froman says:

    True, Swen. I just don’t want to see it on a label or menu as though the process is a virtue any more than I want to hear about the baby Jesus on a bag of Doritos.

  81. Abe Froman says:

    Now, a Dorito chip that some believe looks like the baby Jesus is a different matter and it should be brought to peoples attention. Because, well, that’s a miracle right there.

  82. bh says:

    Baby Jesus Doritos are even better than Cool Ranch Doritos.

  83. sdferr says:

    That the chip wasn’t eaten already, miracle, ok, sure.

  84. cranky-d says:

    Do Baby Jesus Doritos taste like the Baby Jesus? Is transubstantiation involved?

  85. bh says:

    Heh, I’m Catholic, cranky. Transubstantiation is always involved.

    That’s why we’re always ringing that bell.

  86. sdferr says:

    For dystransubstantiation’s sake, better not to show up on the surface of a Klondike Bar.

  87. bh says:

    Okay, I’m growing a Van Dyke then. It’s settled.

    (This feels related.)

  88. geoffb says:

    Just 55.4 percent of working-age Californians, defined as those 16 or older, had a job in July, down from 56.2 percent a year earlier and the lowest level since 1976,

    Lots of migrants, ready to move. Will the last person leaving California please turn out the CFL.

  89. sdferr says:

    It could be related, if generally not catching droplets of soup is your beardy object, for the chin parts of a Van Dyke are quite scant when properly maintained.

  90. Abe Froman says:

    I once saw a man with a long white beard who was eating chili and had a long streak of it moving down said beard. It was oddly mesmerizing, like the plastic bag scene in American Beauty or something.

  91. sdferr says:

    And there he is! Jesus in the chili in the beard.

  92. McGehee says:

    73. Swen posted on 9/4 @ 9:29 pm

    In 1994 I was an expat Californian spending my first winter in Fairbanks, Alaska. Now I wish I’d never left…

    …Alaska.

  93. guinsPen says:

    Holy Potato Chip!
    Whose image do you see on this potato chip?

    o – Jesus

    o – The late Jerry Garcia

    o – Red Sox centerfielder Johnny Damon

    o – The hatless Muhammad

  94. geoffb says:

    The royal “we”.

    “In the last several years, we have pulled our country back from the brink, through a series of tough economic decisions,” Obama writes. “While we have come far, great challenges still face us.”

  95. geoffb says:

    What “we” have accomplished so far.

    Snap Elections. The Obama NLRB complied. Obama’s appointees have begun rulemaking to dramatically shorten the timeframe for union elections. Employers are often unaware that an organizing drive is taking place until after the union calls for a vote. Currently the median election takes place about a month after the union calls for it.[8] That time gives employers a chance to present their side and inform workers of the downsides of unionizing that organizers avoided mentioning.[9] Having heard both sides, employees make an informed choice.

    The NLRB proposes to shorten the election period to as little as 10 calendar days.[10] Such snap elections would deny employers the time needed to make their case and ensure that workers vote having heard primarily arguments for unionizing.

    No Secret Ballot. Federal law does not guarantee workers a secret ballot before their company unionizes. An employer may voluntarily recognize a union if a majority of its workers publicly sign union authorization cards (i.e., card-check). Some unions have enough leverage to pressure employers to accept card-check. However, the law gave employees an important protection: If a company recognized a union without a vote, employees could petition for a secret ballot election to decertify the union.

    The NLRB just removed this safeguard.[11] Now employees cannot file for a vote for six months to a year after card-check recognition. If by that point the union has negotiated a contract, the employees cannot vote until the contract expires. Workers whom organizers pressured into signing a card can no longer privately vote against union representation.

    Cherry-Picking Voters. The NLRB used to define a collective bargaining unit as all similarly situated workers at a company. For example, at a retail store, hourly employees like the cashiers, shelf-stockers, and greeters would traditionally form one unit. The NLRB just changed this rule to permit unions to cherry-pick which workers to include in the bargaining unit.[12] For example, unions could organize just the cashiers and exclude the shelf-stockers. Only the union’s desired workers would get to vote. However, a strike or union-induced bankruptcy harms all the workers at a company. The new NLRB rules effectively disenfranchise employees who do not want their company unionized.

  96. serr8d says:

    Salon LeftLibProgg Matt Stoller isn’t much impressed with the SCOAMF

    Obama has ruined the Democratic Party. The 2010 wipeout was an electoral catastrophe so bad you’d have to go back to 1894 to find comparable losses. From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat. Obama took over the party in 2008 with 36 percent of Americans considering themselves Democrats. Within just two years, that number had dropped to 31 percent, which tied a 22-year low.

  97. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Gee. It almost seems like there’s a connection between geoffB’s 98 and serr8d’s 100.

  98. Sam says:

    When I went to watch her speech the following box came up:

    Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with Trig!
    It’s not a rumor, not a belief, bat a FACT!
    READMORE!

  99. Sam says:

    When I went to watch her speech the following box came up:

    Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with Trig!
    It’s not a rumor, not a belief, but a FACT!
    READMORE!

    What in the Hell is this ?????????

    Regards,

    Sam

  100. happyfeet says:

    there’s a little x on the top right of that box and if you click it the whole box just goes away

  101. geoffb says:

    Ah, Sam and Jeff G.

    That video link goes the video but it was posted up by a person who hates Palin and then links to their own political site.

    The video posted by the Sarah PAC and Conservatives for Palin is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Pg_1i53_Y

  102. pdbuttons says:

    row row row ur sarah boat gently down the stream
    merrily-merrily
    merrily

  103. pdbuttons says:

    knock knock
    who’s there?
    i want candy..
    no- i want candy..
    knock knock..
    get off my porch
    knock knock- i just threw a brick thru ur car window

  104. geoffb says:

    Sarah Palin speaking at Tea Party rally in Manchester, New Hampshire 9-4-11

    Video.

    Pictures.

  105. geoffb says:

    pdbuttons,

    How was Irene in your area?

  106. pdbuttons says:

    not bad- couple of tree limbs down/ no biggie-i think it was west
    and
    sarah can save the christmas by
    one-right after thanksgiving she should be all ‘ballet’ nutcracker snow fairy stuff\
    two- build a bridge wearing ballet stuff
    three- appear at a diner and talk to ‘regular folks’ wearing ballet stuff
    4- bobby orr
    5- stand on her toes and give a speech about abortion or geisha girls and maybe
    dunk a basketball

  107. pdbuttons says:

    would love to see a debate twixt sarah and desmond tutu
    where sarah says- [ in her lil ballet outfit]” i ain’t gonna play sun city’

  108. McGehee says:

    I trust Bobby Orr can eschew the ballet stuff…

  109. McGehee says:

    …so that’s what happened to that damned tutu!!!

  110. pdbuttons says:

    after 2 weeks of seeing the black swan die every night
    sarah smashed the xmas globe and said
    “i don’t like this ending!”
    bring me the head of bernie taupin!

  111. pdbuttons says:

    palin/bjork 2001 space oddessy…
    break out ur shinebox!
    rub them future shoes!
    where the lead- i will follow

  112. LTC John says:

    I am going to reread #114 and 115 after this blast of Nyquil… heh.

Comments are closed.