Many Apologies to Iowa From Louisiana but really, keep Jindal, we don’t want him
Posted: October 7, 2012 Filed under: New Orleans | Tags: ambition, Bobby Jindal, crazy person, NUTTER 10 CommentsI would like to apologize to any Iowans out there for the omnipresence of our ambitious and irritating Governor Bobby Jindal. I feel the need to do this
because he’s going to be with you more than us for the next few years. We can’t do anything more for him and you can. So, he’s your problem now. We’re just glad to be rid of him frankly. Sorry it had to happen to you, but really, we appreciate it.
He’s such a problem that the Des Moines Register has told him to leave Iowa alone. Actually, they told him that he got on the wrong bus.
A thistle to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal for having the temerity to come here to lecture Iowans about their judges. Jindal was on the recent bus tour across the state campaigning to unseat Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins. This is the governor of a state whose courts have consistently been ranked No. 49 out of the 50 states in the respected state courts survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Iowa consistently ranks in the top five or 10 states overall in the survey of business lawyers. In Marshalltown, Jindal got a laugh with the remark that “Some of these judges, they actually make the replacement refs in the NFL look like geniuses.” That may be the case in his state: In the 2008 survey, Louisiana’s judges were rated the worst among the 50 states in the area of competence. Maybe Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad should head down to Louisiana and take a bus tour to persuade the good people of that state to reform their system of electing judges.
According to another Lousiana Blogger whose been watching the Jindal Migration and search for the next BIG office, he’s been up to all kinds of things in Iowa. Well, at least he can’t voucherize their educational system into a free for all funding of whacky christofascist cult camps. Bob Mann has been keeping up with Travels with Bobby.
Jindal, as you may recall, recently neglected his gubernatorial duties to spend a day trekking across Iowa, crusading against gay marriage and meddling in a state Supreme Court race.
That prompted a retired hotel clerk from Marion, Iowa, Dave Gregory, to send a letter to the editor of the Baton Rouge Advocate:
Your governor, Bobby Jindal, has traveled from town to town across Iowa crusading against gay marriage. Many suspect he’s already campaigning for the 2016 Iowa Presidential Caucuses.
We Iowans were recently subjected to an endless parade of Republican candidates during the 2012 Presidential Caucuses. We really don’t need Gov. Jindal’s wisdom and advice for the next four years.
Please call back your governor and find something for him to do. Aren’t there any homosexuals to persecute in Louisiana?
Yes, Bobby the guy well known for speaking faster than the speed of light–a well known snake oil salesman attribute–and for participating in the kidnapping and assault of a young women in the guise of “spiritual warefare” is now doing a full frontal assault on Iowa. The aforementioned letter to the editor got a response down here in the Baton Rouge Advocate. Namely, we don’t want him back. He ran unopposed because the Democratic Party in Louisiana basically became nonexistent after Katrina. No one voted in that election and he won by basically being anointed by the few wankers that voted.
In response to Dan Gregory of Marion, Iowa, (Oct. 1) who asked that we take our governor back home so he would stop crusading against gay marriage in Iowa: Bobby Jindal doesn’t have to get personally involved in persecuting homosexuals in Louisiana.
He has the Louisiana Family Forum and Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council to take care of that for him, so he won’t get his hands dirty at home.
Sorry, Iowa, but we don’t want him either.David Neubig
construction
Baton Rouge
Bobby only does things that Bobby thinks will get him the next highest office. Right now, he’s basically doing anything the Teavangelicals want and Louisiana is suffering and hating him for it. Every one hates Jindal’s voucher program and his personal popularity is way way off.
And now a Southern Media and Opinion Research Poll finds Jindal sinking like a stone. It’s no surprise, but 89% of those surveyed don’t like Jindal’s slash and burn of the public Charity Hospitals. More startlingly, Jindal’s prized voucher program is opposed by 54% of Louisianians:
The poll shows Gov. Bobby Jindal with a 51 percent approval rating. That compares with 61 percent last spring and 64 percent a year ago…
Reductions for the LSU-operated charity hospital system are particularly unpopular. Eighty-nine percent said they were concerned by the cuts. Seventy-nine percent said the charity system would not be able to provide the same quality of health care, and 80 percent said Louisiana residents would lose access to health care as a result.
Among the poll’s other findings:
- On the issue of school vouchers, 54 percent were opposed.
- Salaries for state executives and political appointees were a hot button issue with 86 percent saying annual salaries of $175,000 and above are excessive or not justified.
- 47 percent favor eliminating tax exemptions to increase state revenue compared to 35 percent opposed, which tracks with widespread opposition to deeper budget cuts.
- 69 percent said the Legislature should be more independent from the governor
Bad news all around. #Vouchergate isn’t going well for Team Jindal. Nor are his high-priced public employee hires.
And it looks like the tax credit monster is about to bite Jindal back…
Jindal isn’t worried, however. He’s spent the last week campaigning for judges in Iowa, in some fields of dreams.
Jindal knows he can’t run for governor and really doesn’t care from here on out what he does to Louisiana. He’s just building up his ‘conservative’ Republican credentials by railroading the state.
Louisiana is embarking on the nation’s boldest experiment in privatizing public education, with the state preparing to shift tens of millions in tax dollars out of the public schools to pay private industry, businesses owners and church pastors to educate children.
Starting this fall, thousands of poor and middle-class kids will get vouchers covering the full cost of tuition at more than 120 private schools across Louisiana, including small, Bible-based church schools.
The following year, students of any income will be eligible for mini-vouchers that they can use to pay a range of private-sector vendors for classes and apprenticeships not offered in traditional public schools. The money can go to industry trade groups, businesses, online schools and tutors, among others.
Every time a student receives a voucher of either type, his local public school will lose a chunk of state funding.
“We are changing the way we deliver education,” said Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican who muscled the plan through the legislature this spring over fierce objections from Democrats and teachers unions. “We are letting parents decide what’s best for their children, not government.”
The concept of opening public schools to competition from the private sector has been widely promoted in recent years by well-funded education reform groups.
Of the plans so far put forward, Louisiana’s plan is by far the broadest. This month, eligible families, including those with incomes nearing $60,000 a year, are submitting applications for vouchers to state-approved private schools.
That list includes some of the most prestigious schools in the state, which offer a rich menu of advanced placement courses, college-style seminars and lush grounds. The top schools, however, have just a handful of slots open. The Dunham School in Baton Rouge, for instance, has said it will accept just four voucher students, all kindergartners. As elsewhere, they will be picked in a lottery.
Far more openings are available at smaller, less prestigious religious schools, including some that are just a few years old and others that have struggled to attract tuition-paying students.
The school willing to accept the most voucher students — 314 — is New Living Word in Ruston, which has a top-ranked basketball team but no library. Students spend most of the day watching TVs in bare-bones classrooms. Each lesson consists of an instructional DVD that intersperses Biblical verses with subjects such chemistry or composition.
And of course, who could forget this Jindal “education” initiative?
Jindal has an elite résumé. He was a biology major at my school, Brown University, and a Rhodes scholar. He knows the science, or at least he ought to. But in his rise to prominence in Louisiana, he made a bargain with the religious right and compromised science and science education for the children of his state. In fact, Jindal’s actions at one point persuaded leading scientific organizations, including theSociety for Integrative and Comparative Biology, to cross New Orleans off their list of future meeting sites (PDF).
What did Jindal do to produce a hornet’s nest of “mad scientists,” as Times-Picayune writer James Gill described them? He signed into law, in Gill’s words, the “Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), which is named for what it is designed to destroy.” The act allows “supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials” to be brought into classrooms to support the “open and objective discussion” of certain “scientific theories,” including, of course, evolution. As educators who have heard such coded language before quickly realized, the act was intended to promote creationism as science. In April, Kevin Carman, dean of the College of Science at Louisiana State University, testified before the Louisiana Senate’s Education Committee that two top scientists had rejected offers to come to LSU because of the LSEA, and the school may lose more scientists in the future.
And now Jindal is poised to spend millions of dollars of state money to support the teaching of creationism in private schools.
The state of Louisiana has had a problem with evolution for a long, long time. In 1981, it passed a “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act,” which required the teaching of creation science alongside “evolution-science” in public schools. The Supreme Court struck it down in 1987 (in Edwards v. Aguillard), finding that creationism is inherently religious, and that the law’s “preeminent religious purpose” placed it in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Case closed? Not really.
When Jindal stepped into Republican politics in Louisiana, he had a choice to make. He could defend mainstream science, which sees evolution as the powerful, strongly supported, and widely tested theory that it is today. Or he could have joined the doubters and deniers that populate the electorate in his party. Campaigning for the governorship in 2007, Jindal touted his Christian faith, shied away from specific statements about evolution, and emphasized his commitment to local control of education. Louisianans didn’t have to wait long to find out what this meant for science.
Jindal signed the LSEA into law in 2008, endorsing the thinly veiled attempt to allow creationism into the science classrooms of his state. The backers of the law made it clear that material on intelligent design would be high on the list of supplemental materials that local boards and teachers could present to their students.
Please Iowa! Do us a favor! Just keep him there for the rest of his term so he can’t damage us any more! I was kind of hoping Mitt would take him off our hands but it seem not even Mitt is THAT stupid. So, we are so sorry Iowa. Just look at our alligator tears!!!
Job Number Truthers
Posted: October 5, 2012 Filed under: Economy, jobs, unemployment | Tags: job numbers truthers, Romney screws up labor participation rates, unemployment numbers 67 CommentsI guess today is Tinfoil Friday. Allen West and Jack Welch think the BLS is manipulating unemployment number in response to some Chicago Mafia move to make Obama and the economy look better. Huhn? I would think if that was possible they would’ve been doing it all along instead of just suddenly producing a better but still anemic result at the last moment.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released an unexpectedly strong monthly jobs report on Friday, finding a dramatic drop in unemployment to 7.8 percent and revised the number of jobs added in July and August up from initial estimates. While for most Americans, the growing economy is good news, conservatives immediately expressed their skepticism in the jobs report’s credibility.
1) Minutes after the report was released, Jack Welch, who famously cooked General Electric’s accounting books when he was CEO, accused President Obama of manipulating the numbers to distract from his debate performance.
This is pretty weird. The jobs report was straightforward this month.
The controversy, if it’s worth using that word, is over the unemployment rate, which dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. That’s three-tenths of one percent. That’s what all the fuss is about.
Let’s get one thing out of the way: The data was not, as Jack Welch suggested in a now-infamous tweet, manipulated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set up to ensure the White House has no ability to influence it. As labor economist Betsey Stevenson wrote, “anyone who thinks that political folks can manipulate the unemployment data are completely ignorant of how the BLS works and how the data are compiled.” Plus, if the White House somehow was manipulating the data, don’t you think they would have made the payroll number look a bit better than 114,000? No one would have batted an eye at 160,000.
The fact is that there’s not much that needs to be explained here. We’ve seen drops like this — and even drops bigger than this — before. Between July and August the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent — two-tenths of one percent. November-December of 2011 also saw a .2 percent drop. November-December of 2010 saw a .4 percent drop. This isn’t some incredible aberration. The fact that the unemployment rate broke under the psychologically important 8 percent line is making this number feel bigger to people than it really is.
What’s even odder is that Romney said the report wasn’t “realistic” and actually misstated the reasons for the change in numbers.
Mitt Romney challenged the significance of the drop in the unemployment rate today, arguing that the “real reality” is that the figure declined because “more and more people have just stopped looking for work.”
“There was a report that just came out this morning on job creation this last month,” said Romney at a rally in the battleground state of Virginia. “There were fewer new jobs created this month than last month. And the unemployment rate as you noted this year has come down very, very slowly, but it’s come down nonetheless.”
“The reason it’s come down this year is primarily due to the fact that more and more people have just stopped looking for work,” Romney said. “And if you just dropped out of the work force, if you just give up and say look I can’t go back to work I’m just going to stay home, if you just drop out all together why you’re not longer part of the employment statistics.”
“So it looks like unemployment is getting better, but the truth is, if the same share of people were participating in the workforce today as on the day the president got elected, our unemployment rate would be around 11 percent,” said Romney. “That’s the real reality of what’s happening out there.”
This morning’s jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the nation’s unemployment rate dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent, the first time it’s been below 8 percent in four years. September saw the addition of 114,000 jobs, according to the report, a decrease from the 142,000 that were added in August, and statistic that Romney emphasized on the trail today.
Yes, random variation is quite suspicious and unrealistic. Here’s the labor force numbers straight from the report. Romney told an audience the exact opposite had happened. There is no way he actually read the report. Well, that or he was lying again.
The civilian labor force rose by 418,000 to 155.1 million in September, while the labor force participation rate was little changed at 63.6 percent. (See table A-1
The best article I’ve seen today explaining the job situation and the Welch Tin Foil hat theory is here at The Atlantic.
A number of conservatives have suggested the 873,000 household figure is wildly implausible, if not an outright conspiracy to help Obama on the part of the BLS. This is nonsense. As Greg Ip of The Economist points out, the employer and household numbers often diverge over the short-term, but they mostly match up over the long-term. And they still do if we look at the past three months. The employer survey showed job gains of 181,000 in July, 141,000 in August and 114,00 in September, for an average gain of 146,000. The household survey showed job losses of 195,000 in July, 119,000 in August, and job gains of 873,000 in September, for an average gain of 186,000. If you can’t see the conspiracy there, well, you just might be mathematically literate.
Wow. Is this the silly season or what?
Crib Sheet or Hankie?
Posted: October 5, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign | Tags: Denver Debate, Romney Crib Notes, Romney Hankie 13 CommentsThe internet is abuzz with this video showing Romney placing a white object on the podium during the debate.
I saw Romney go back to the podium at the end of debate, pick something up, and then hand it off to his son that placed it in his jacket pocket. I thought that was really weird at the time and mentioned it to BB in a phone call. I didn’t catch the the original out of Romney pocket incident pictured in the You tube above. We’re hearing several stories about what the thing could’ve been. The Romney camp says it’s a handkerchief. However, why hand off a handkerchief to your son after the debate or were those his “new” debate notes on the podium? U.S. News has this article that says it’s a hankie but then the reference to the supposed use of the hankie later isn’t shown in the Fox video at the time suggested but they do have a picture in the link below.
Reddit was up in arms last night after video from the first presidential debate in Denver posted to the site’s politics section appeared to show Mitt Romney pulling cheat notes at the debate. About 2 minutes and 15 seconds in to the video, the GOP nominee is seen putting his hand into his right pocket and placing what appears to be white paper on the podium.
But the Romney campaign told Whispers Friday that Romney was only pulling out a handkerchief.
A close analysis of video of the debate supports that. At 1:26:35 in the video, Romney picks up the same white object—clearly a handkerchief this time—to wipe his face.
So, I still am left with the question of what got handed off to the son? But, here’s another look at the face wipe and the pocket maneuver.
Meanwhile, I’m looking for the video that I saw on CSPAN with the end of debate hand off. I found it and it shows him walking to the podium picking up paper and trying to put it his jacket and then when that fails, giving it to his son. I dunno if that’s the same piece of paper or not. What do you think?
A CBS affiliate picked up on my observations too.
The rules of the presidential debates are clear about not bringing outside notes and presidents and aspirants have followed the rule for decades.
Video of the first eleven seconds of the debate available on YouTube shows Mitt Romney reaching into his pocket at the moment he is out of view of those in front of him, he used the lectern as a shield, and removing what appears to be folded papers from his pocket.
We see this because the camera that was broadcasting was behind Romney. Those in the audience and the moderator may have been shielded from his sleight of hand, but not the viewers.
Romney then proceeds to unfold the item in front of him.
For those curious if it could have been some else, later video sheds some light on what Romney retrieves from his lectern.
After the Romney and Obama families chat post-debate the President walks off stage, leaving his notes behind for an aide, no doubt.
But not so for Romney. The Presidential challenger
goes back to his lectern to retrieve his items. It is clear that the only thing that Romney takes is paper. Not a handkerchief. Not a white flag. Nothing but paper.
So, I’m waiting for Joseph Cannon to look at this! It’s right up his alley! Is this tin foil hat material or legit?
“Winning” in the Sheen/Romney mode: Does truth matter?
Posted: October 4, 2012 Filed under: 2012 elections, 2012 presidential campaign | Tags: presidential debates 42 CommentsOkay, so my first impression of the “new” Romney was actually thinking he came off like the old Charlie Sheen. How can people be impressed with some
one that continually lied, presented himself and his agenda as something diametrically opposed to what he’s been saying for the last year, and continually, frantically interrupted both the moderator and the president? Is this really WINNING!? Are we after a debate where we learn about issues and facts or a reality show meltdown?
Obama has never been a spirited debater. Any one that was paying attention to the 2008 primaries knows that. The big difference that I can see in this debate performance and the 2008 performance is that Obama actually has a grasp on policy this time out and he can talk about it. Evidently, that’s not enough for the punditry these days. They want tingly legs. They want something akin to a reality show. IMHO, only Romney gave them that.
The morning after appears to be filled with fact checking in the print press. Romney is losing on substance and facts. I posted a series of fact checking posts early this morning. There’s more today. Here’s the shrill one.
And the fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.
Above all, there’s this:
MR. ROMNEY: Let — well, actually — actually it’s — it’s — it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.
No, they aren’t. Romney’s advisers have conceded as much in the past; last night they did it again.
I guess you could say that Romney’s claim wasn’t exactly a lie, since some people with preexisting conditions would retain coverage. But as I said, it’s the moral equivalent of a lie; if you think he promised something real, you’re the butt of a sick joke.
And we’re talking about a lot of people left out in the cold — 89 million, to be precise.
Furthermore, all of this should be taken in the context of Romney’s plan not just to repeal Obamacare but to drastically cut Medicaid.
So enough with the theater criticism; Romney needs to be held accountable for dishonesty on a huge scale.
Here’s another one from Jonathan Chait. Most of the print press is picking up on the lies big time. However, the TV punditry personalities are still enthralled with the Romney Sheen-style “WINNING!”. Romney’s successful debate strategy was manically and aggressively lying. WINNING!!!
Romney was forceful and articulate and dodged his association with almost all the most unpopular aspects of his platform. But his success at doing so was built upon two demonstrable untruths.
The most important was taxes. Romney asserted, “I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans.” Let me explain how this is untrue even by his own campaign’s accounting.
Obama badly flubbed this topic by allowing Romney to change the baseline of the discussion. Romney is promising to extend all the Bush tax cuts and refuses to accept even slightly higher revenue as part of a deficit deal. On top of that, he is proposing a huge, regressive income tax rate cut that would reduce revenue by an additional $5 trillion, but promises to make up for it by closing tax deductions. Obama directed his fire almost entirely at the additional tax cut, leaving mostly untouched, until the end, Romney’s pledge to never bargain away any of the Bush tax cuts.
Obama’s case was sound. The Tax Policy Center has shown that the stated parameters of Romney’s plan don’t add up — even under favorable assumptions, there are not enough tax deductions for the rich to close to pay for the rate cuts. Romney has disputed this and cited a series of studies that, in various ways, change the parameters of the Tax Policy Center study. Some of these studies find that it could be theoretically possible that Romney could cut rates and, by closing loopholes, do so without losing revenue or raising taxes on the middle class — if you lower the bar on who is middle class from $250,000 to $100,000, or count the repeal of Obamacare to help pay for the tax cuts, or use really wildly optimistic growth assumptions.
None of these studies back up Romney’s claim that he won’t reduce taxes on the rich. They confirm that he will reduce taxes on the rich. They merely suggest that he could make up the revenue some other way than taxing the middle class or increasing the deficit — that the economic growth will help the tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves, or that some of the lost revenue can be made up for by cutting off subsidies for the uninsured. Romney flat-out misstated his position.
My first reaction to the opening Romney statement was “WHOA, Nellie”. He basically made statements on policy that were 180 degree turns from everything he’s previously said. No wonder the President look flummoxed. You basically prepare for a man whose entire platform is based on tax cuts for the rich and calling 47% of the population moochers and the guy says he’s not going to lower taxes for the rich? Then, he says he thinks regulation is okay? AND, he’s back to saying that his plans actually keep the popular parts of “ObamaCare” when they don’t? Lying is WINNING!
I called my dad–who could serve as an archetype of the Republican Small Businessman–immediately after the debate and nothing about the debate impressed him. He said it wasn’t a debate at all. He was nonplussed. My immediate reaction was to be appalled by the degree of Romney rudeness and aggressiveness I don’t consider ordering a moderator around and calling him out for not keeping to the exact second of the time rule to be anything but extremely rude and bullying. I don’t like that kind of disrespectful behavior. I don’t consider aggressive lying and hyperactive speed talking to be “WINNING!” It certainly hasn’t taken Charlie Sheen any where but to cable reruns. But of course, both Jim and Big Bird seem to be “likeable enough” for Romney. Just not worthy of a few tax dollars.
Here’s “The Four Most Misleading Moment’s in Romney’s Debate Performance” from Jonathan Cohn at TNR. These are my thoughts exactly.
The debate may not change the dynamics of the election. But if I knew nothing about the candidates and this was my first exposure to the campaign, I’d think this Romney fellow has a detailed tax plan, wants to defend the middle class and poor, and will take care of people who can’t find health insurance.
Problem is, this isn’t my first exposure to the campaign. I happen to know a lot about the candidates. And I know that those three things aren’t true. Romney has made promises about taxes that are mathematically incompatible with one another. He’s outlined a spending plan that would devastate the middle class and (particularly) the poor. And his health care plan would leave people with pre-existing conditions pretty much in the same perilous situation they were before the Affordable Care Act became law.
My standard for candor in politics is whether candidates have offered the voters an accurate portrait of what they’ve done and what they are proposing. Tonight, Romney did precisely the opposite. And that really ought to be the story everybody is writing, although I doubt it will be.
My question to every one is how does any one prepare for a debate with some one who lies and recreates himself and his positions continually? It’s like a trying to catch a greased pig who is also shot up with methamphetamine and testosterone to amp up the squeals. Which Romney do you prepare for? The Romney who continually says he’s going to lower the tax rates for the rich or the one who says he’s not going to lower taxes for the rich? The Romney who wants to repeal everything in Obamacare or the Romney who insists that preconditions are covered by his health care policy which is basically pre-Obama care which means it’s NOT covered. The Romney who hates regulation or the Romney who finds things he likes in Dodd-Frank? Romney’s statements make Charlie Sheen look decidedly un-Bi-Polar by comparison.
The only hint of Romney that actually came out in the debate was the one who insisted that he supported Medicare Vouchers but only by reassuring his older voters that the sucky plan wouldn’t impact them. Not so coincidentally, Obama’s counterargument was the best one on this topic. Obama held a rally in Denver this morning. He made the arguments at this rally that he should’ve made last night. Unfortunately, that’s a little late for the TV pundits who should take notes from their print colleagues and start fact checking Romney’s “WINNING!” performance.
It didn’t impress me and it didn’t impress my father. It turned both of us off. Are we alone on this? I saw the bully and the liar in the Romney performance. Didn’t you? But then, I think both of us were looking for substance and not a reality show meltdown where Obama out-Charlie Sheen’d Romney. I wasn’t looking for “Fire-breathing Fists” or “Tiger Blood”. Were you? It seems that Tweetie wants tingly legs and Tiger blood. That’s not what a debate should be about. So, shut up about already and get on with dismantling the lies and inconsistencies.











Recent Comments