LOL Bob Woodward: All The President’s Men’s Veiled Threats!

via clarence-odbody

Time for another movie!?

All The President’s Men’s Veiled Threats!

The ACTUAL emails, via Politico

From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013


I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.

But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.

My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.


From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013

Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob


Clown graphic by Gawker.

Related: A kind of madness: Bob Woodward has lost it, let’s all stop indulging him.

More government will hold you back! (unless you’re a Republican)

via sandandglass

But my point is: f*ck you.

Unpunished war criminal / sh*tty former VP criticizes Obama’s “worldview”

TPM: Asked by Charlie Rose on “CBS This Morning” if the Obama administration could make a case that the U.S. was nursing a weak reputation abroad when [Dick] Cheney and former President George W. Bush left office, the former powerful vice president was dismissive.  “I think the President came to power with a worldview that’s fundamentally different than mine,” Cheney said. “The sense that he wanted to reduce U.S. influence in the world. He wanted to take us down a peg.”

via sandandglass

Jon Stewart: Where Does This ‘Shi*ty’ VP ‘Get The Balls’ To Attack Obama? Stewart was amazed that Cheney had the nerve to criticize President Obama over national security when he himself provided false information to the public on national security issues. Stewart called Cheney a “shitty” vice president and couldn’t believe that people are taking the word of a man who Stewart said “sucked” at his job. [...]

Jon Stewart then tore into Cheney over why anyone should care about his opinion anyway. He said that Cheney “sucked” at his job, calling him a “shitty” vice president and arguing why Cheney has no authority from which to attack Obama.

“Even if Obama wanted to take our standing in the world down a peg, he couldn’t, ’cause the Bush-Cheney administration left him with no peg room… the previous administration had left us in a bit of a cash crunch, and by ‘previous administration,’ I mean these motherfuckers.”

Stewart then ran clips of Cheney making comments about American involvement Iraq that turned out to be untrue… (watch video)

“I don’t think we have a visual for that.” – via drunkonstevphen

Jon Stewart: we have our first Fox boner alert of 2013


images: drunkonstevphen

Another day, another bunch of Fox hypocrisy:

Current TV, a fledgling cable network, was bought by the Arab news network Al Jazeera last week. Various Fox News personalities have blasted Al Gore for selling his channel to an allegedly “anti-American” network that was owned by Qatar.

To see what all the fuss was about, Stewart played a clip of a Saudi cleric saying that Jews made matzos with human blood, among other absurdities.

“You know, if that were true you’d think matzos would be more flavorful, but its not,” he joked. “That’s just awful. To air that on Al Jazeera — oh, I’m sorry, that didn’t air on Al Jazeera, that aired on a network called Rotana. That’s my fault, that’s another television station in the Arab world. That one is owned not by Qatar, but by a Saudi prince named Al-Waleed bin Talal and also 20 percent of that is owned by a guy named Rupert Murdoch.”

Stewart noted Rotana had also aired a movie that portrayed American soldiers as “the bad guys,” who massacred Iraqi civilians and sold their organs to Jews.

“I don’t even know what to say. Rupert Murdoch profiting from the airing of that type of anti-American propaganda? Words fail me. Can anyone else jump in?”

The late-night comedian then played a series of clips where Fox News personalities criticized Al Jazeera, but the word “Al Jazeera” was appropriately replaced by “Rotana.”

— Raw Story

[Watch clip on Comedy Central]

Jon Stewart: “It’s really a ‘right to work’ … around the union for the corporation.”

“It’s really a ‘right to work’… around the union for the corporation. It’s one of those things that are actually named for the opposite of the thing they do, like strip bars call themselves ‘gentlemen’s clubs.’ Or the TV network, dedicated to making us stupider, is called ‘The Learning Channel.’ Or a TV show that airs four days a week calls itself The Daily Show.

— JON STEWART, The Daily Show (via inothernews)

This is where most of us part ways with the Republican Party


gifs: sandandglass | [video - keep watching through part 2]

The ‘all for me, none for thee’ philosophy of the GOP — selfish and hypocritical.

“It’s official: Republicans hate the UN more than they like helping people in wheelchairs.”


gifs: sandandglass

More from Anne Laurie / Balloon Juice:

Lawrence Downes, in the NYTImes, on “A Parting Slap Against Bob Dole & Disabled Americans“:

Former Senator Bob Dole, 89 years old and in a wheelchair, went onto to the floor of the Senate today to urge his former colleagues to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Mr. Dole, a disabled veteran, has been one of the leading voices urging ratification of the treaty, which seeks to bring the world closer to the high standard set by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the landmark civil-rights law enacted under President George H.W. Bush.

One by one, according to Roll Call, the senators approached Mr. Dole to pat his shoulder or clasp his hand, making gestures of respect for the man who was for many years the Republican majority leader.

Then he was wheeled away, and all but a handful of the Republicans bailed out on him. The treaty failed. It needed a two-thirds vote to pass, or 67 votes, and fell six short…

In other words, these cowards didn’t have the guts to disagree with a crippled octogenarian to his face. [...] Senator Kerry:

.. Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement after the vote: “This is one of the saddest days I’ve seen in almost 28 years in the Senate, and it needs to be a wake-up call about a broken institution that’s letting down the American people.”

He added: “Today the dysfunction hurt veterans and the disabled, and that’s unacceptable. This treaty was supported by every veterans group in America and Bob Dole made an inspiring and courageous personal journey back to the Senate to fight for it. It had bipartisan support, and it had the facts on its side, and yet for one ugly vote, none of that seemed to matter. We won’t give up on this and the Disabilities Treaty will pass because it’s the right thing to do, but today I understand better than ever before why Americans have such disdain for Congress and just how much must happen to fix the Senate so we can act on the real interests of our country.”

Also too:

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said the measure would return to the Senate floor in the 113th Congress.

“It is a sad day when we cannot pass a treaty that simply brings the world up to the American standard for protecting people with disabilities because the Republican Party is in thrall to extremists and ideologues,” he said in a statement. 

Jon Stewart on Fox’s “War on Christmas”

“Since you asked the question, “Am I nuts to think there’s a war on Christmas?” it’s only polite for me to offer you a resounding, “Yes, you’re f*cking nuts.” Because, for whatever annoying local ticky-tac Christmas-abolishing story you and your merry band of persecution-seeking researchers can scour the wires to turn up, the rest of us can’t swing a dead elf without knocking over an inflatable snow globe or a giant blinking candy cane. For god’s sakes! Fox News itself is located in Midtown Manhattan, the epicenter of all that is godless, secular, gay, Jewy, and hellbound. And yet, even here, all around your studio, it looks like Santa’s balls exploded. In the olden days, before the “war on Christmas” the celebration of the birth of Jesus lasted a day, like birthdays do. … There’s a war on Christmas? Has anyone told Thanksgiving? ‘Cause this year, Black Friday, AKA Christmas’ opening bell, got pushed back a day to “Black Thursday.” Or as we used to call it: Thanksgiving. Christmas is so big now it’s eating other holidays.” — Jon Stewart, 12/3/2012

via reallyfoxnews

How the plutocrats are handling Mitt Romney’s loss


Source: sandandglass

Ezra Klein reports: Chrystia Freeland is editor of Thomson Reuters Digital and author of “The Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else.” We spoke Tuesday about how the plutocrats she reported on for the book were handling Mitt Romney’s loss: 

Ezra Klein: You’ve written about the revolt of the very rich against President Obama, and all the money they spent and time they dedicated to defeating him. So what’s the mood in those circles now that they’ve lost?

Chrystia Freeland: There’s a great joke on Wall Street which is that the bet on Romney is Wall Street’s worst bet since the bet on subprime. But I found the hostility towards Obama astonishing. I found the commitment to getting him out astonishing. I found the absolute confidence that it would work astonishing. On that Tuesday, the big Romney backers I was talking to were sure he was going to win. They were all flying into Logan Airport for the victory party. There’s this stunned feeling of how could we be so wrong, and a feeling of alienation.

The Romney comments to his donors, for which he was roundly pounced on by Republican politicians, I think they accurately reflected the view of a lot of these money guys. It’s the continuation of this 47 percent idea. They believe that Obama has been shoring up the entitlement society, and if you give enough entitlements to enough people, they’ll vote for you.

EK: Here’s my question about those comments. Romney was promising the very rich either a huge tax cut or, if you believe he would’ve paid for every dime and dollar of his cut, protection from any tax increases. He was promising financiers that he would roll back Dodd-Frank and Sarbanex-Oxley. He was promising current seniors that he wouldn’t touch their benefit. How are these not “gifts”?

CF: Let me be clear that I’m not defending any of them. But I think the way it works — and I think Romney’s comments were very telling in this regard — there are two differences in the mind of this class. First, they’re absolutely convinced that they’re not asking for special privileges for themselves. They’re convinced that it just so happens that their self-interest coincides perfectly with the collective interest. That’s where you get this idea of the “job creators”. The view is that to seek a low tax environment or less regulation, that’s not special pleading for yourself, it’s not transactional politics. It’s that this set of rules is the most conducive to economic growth for everybody. It will grow the pie. Now, it also happens to be an incredibly convenient way of thinking. If you’ve developed an ideology that what’s good for you personally also happens to be good for everyone else, that’s quite wonderful because there’s no moral tension.

Continue reading…

What a convenient and self-serving justification for taking everything for yourself! Sort of like this:

Bob Cesca: “Even though Hostess is asking for permission to cut employee pensions by over $1 million per month, they’re also still asking for permission to dish out bonuses [to senior management] totaling $1.75 million.”

And this:

Bloomberg: “Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVS), the casino company led by billionaire Sheldon Adelson, voted a special dividend that will pay [Sheldon Adelson] about $1.2 billion before an expected increase in federal taxes.”

That’s BILLION with a B. Or this special spin:

Think Progress: “Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) argued Wednesday: ‘People need to understand that the reason we worry about raising taxes on anyone – even raising taxes on the rich – it’s not that we’re looking out for the rich, it’s not that we’re concerned that the rich won’t be able to fend for themselves, because they will. It’s because we worry about the consequences that will inevitably result from that action and that will hit the poorest among us the hardest.’

How butt hurt is Mitt Romney?

First Chris Christie praises Pres. Obama all over the airwaves because of the help and assistance he received from the President after the hurricane. THEN Christie gets to meet Bruce Springsteen — Christie’s a big fan of Springsteen — because of Obama, so Christie gushes over that. Now, apparently, Romney wanted Christie to come over to Pennsylvania and campaign with him. Gov. Christie, who kind of has his hands full, declined.

Can you believe Romney would even ASK Christie to go to another state right now — for friggin’ politics — and then cry to the media? As one of Christie’s aides told the Huffington Post:

“New Jersey still has 700,000 people without power, the state is on an odd-and-even day gasoline rationing system, there is still massive flooding in parts of the state, and many residents remain displaced.”

Here’s what one of Romney’s aides said about it:

“You can’t tell me he couldn’t have gone over there for a night rally.”

REALLY. As Josh Marshall says,

“[D]oesn’t this strike people as the comment of someone who’s really lost it? I really mean that.”  And “It’s frankly such a crazy request that it shows just how deeply Romney’s been stung by Christie’s praise of President Obama.”

I think Mitt Romney’s feelings about this situation are best summed up in sign language by Samantha Bee:

via: comedycentral

Also, too, an aide to Christie says Romney’s campaign never asked. More lies from Willard.

Please VOTE and make Mitt Romney go away forever.

Not sure if you’ll vote today?

via: drunkonstevphen

Jon Stewart: Mitt Romney–top notch Bain Capital venture capitalist


Source: sandandglass

What great business “experience” Mitt would bring to the White House!

Jon Stewart on Sarah Palin “shucking and jiving”

Source: sandandglass


“With so much at stake in this election, both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan should ‘go rogue’ …America desperately needs to have a ‘come to Jesus’ moment in discussing our big dysfunctional, disconnected, and debt-ridden federal government.”Sarah Palin, last month, ignoring the reality of eight years of George W. Bush and how we became so dysfunctional, disconnected and debt-ridden, and instead promoting a man who would give us more of the same.

Jon Stewart on the final debate: Romney’s cynical appeal to undecideds



Source: sandandglass

Jon Stewart and President Obama: which debate was which?


Source: sandandglass

sandandglass: Let’s just take a moment to appreciate Obama’s face.