Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (68952)	2/4/2014 10:07:57 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

‘Bone-headed decisions’ By Post Editorial Board February 3, 2014 \| 8:47pm Peyton Manning plainly wasn’t at the top of his game in Sunday’s Super Bowl. But neither was President Obama. In a pre-game interview with Bill O’Reilly, Obama also had trouble moving the ball past the line of scrimmage — especially when O’Reilly brought up the IRS scandal. In response, Obama didn’t even blame rogue agents. He blamed Fox News for keeping the story going. Well, here’s a much-abbreviated list of people who would say otherwise: •Groups with “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names. A Treasury audit found that while some groups with “progress” or “progressive” in their names were targeted, “100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the time frame of our audit.” Pro-life and pro-Israel groups were also targeted — and asked for donor names, Facebook entries and, in at least one case, any prayers they might have said. •National Organization for Marriage had its confidential tax data leaked by the IRS. The info was then posted to the Internet. Now the IRS says privacy laws prevent it from revealing who leaked the info. •Friends of Abe, a group of Hollywood conservatives applied to the IRS for 501(c)(3) nonprofit status two years ago and is still waiting. Among other things, the IRS asked for access to its private website, which would reveal the names of the group’s members. The group says it will never turn over its names, because many members fear for their livelihoods. •Christine O’Donnell is a Tea Party Republican in Delaware who unsuccessfully ran for the Senate in 2010. Two years later, a Treasury agent left her a phone message warning “your personal federal tax info may have been compromised and may have been misused by an individual.” The day O’Donnell announced her run for the Senate, the IRS slapped a tax lien on a house she no longer owned — which was used against her in the campaign. The issue is still before Congress. Can this list really be dismissed as the result of a few “bone-headed decisions,” as the president calls it? Does it suggest there’s not a “smidgen of corruption” connected to the IRS? And what does it mean to say we’ve had “multiple hearings,” when Lois Lerner has taken the Fifth, Treasury is stonewalling Congress and the FBI is leaking its conclusions absolving the administration before the investigation is over? The glaring scandal of this weekend is not that Fox News pressed the president on the IRS. The scandal is how so many others continue to look the other way. nypost.com

To: sandintoes who wrote (68952)	2/4/2014 6:49:14 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Wendy Davis’s Media Meltdown By John Fund February 4, 2014 8:12 AM It’s been a rocky rollout for the Wendy Davis campaign in Texas. She announced for governor four months ago on the strength of the massive public attention paid to her 13-hour filibuster of a bill limiting abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. But since then her media operation has been so rocky, seasoned Texas journalists are mocking it. David Mann, editor of the liberal Texas Observer, wrote a blunt article calling her campaign a “media fail”: “The Wendy Davis operation is about the worst at media relations that I’ve ever seen. Her team’s mismanagement of the press is damaging her candidacy.” Mann recounts several not-ready-for-prime-time moments, from sending reporters to an incorrect location for a media event to “refusing to confirm basic campaign scheduling details” out of suspicion of the media. Noting Davis’s media problems began as soon as she announced in October, he links to a November column by Sandra Sanchez, opinion editor of the Monitor, the leading newspaper in South Texas. Sanchez openly admits she wants “to believe that Davis could win and be our next governor” but concludes that isn’t likely to happen if the “missteps, gaffes, and goofs” she witnessed during a Davis appearance in Pharr, Texas, continue. Sanchez wrote: “It was embarrassing to watch as a campaign staffer prematurely announced Davis’ arrival and urged everyone to stand up and chant, which they did for several minutes until it was obvious that Davis wasn’t there. ‘I thought she was here,’ a worker mused into the microphone to the quizzical and confused glances from the crowd of 60 or so.” Sanchez herself tried to ask a question about Davis’ recent response to an abortion question but “before (Davis) could articulate, her new press aide Rebecca Acuña jumped in and said ‘that comment was taken out of context.’” Acuña then called Sanchez late that night requesting she change a headline on the Monitor’s website. Every campaign has a shakedown phase, but Mann notes that Davis’s problems have been ongoing. In January, after serious questions were raised by the Dallas Morning News about Davis’s account of her life, there was little substantive comment from the Davis campaign for eleven days. Then reporters were invited to a dinner sponsored by the Travis County Democrat Party where Davis was going to explain herself. But when reporters arrived at the dinner, an event they had received a media advisory for, “they were turned away.” Only the Dallas Morning News reporter was allowed in. Other reporters were directed to a live-stream link of the speech on the Internet. “This is not unlike someone sending you an invitation that says you’re invited to a party, but, hey, you can watch it on Skype,” Mann wrote. Democrats have reason to worry they have a candidate who is untested and mercurial. Frances Martel of Breitbart News has documented Davis’s history of “fluid political allegiances” in her career, which include having contributed to George W. Bush’s presidential campaign, voting in Republican primaries as late as 2006, and last month declaring herself in favor of expanding gun rights despite an “F” rating from the NRA during her years in the Texas state senate. Davis’s response to charges of opportunism has been to view them “as a compliment” because people don’t “necessarily know what my ideology might be because I wasn’t driven by that.” There apparently is so much about Wendy Davis we don’t know. And if she keeps her current media team she will have a difficult time explaining her sides of the story. nationalreview.com!

To: sandintoes who wrote (68952)	2/23/2014 1:02:26 PM
From: greatplains_guy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Ted Nugent, Wendy Davis and CNN: The politics of inflammatory speech By Howard Kurtz Published February 21, 2014 There’s no shortage of manufactured outrage in the political world, but sometimes the outrage is utterly warranted. What Ted Nugent said about President Obama is so far beyond the pale that it needs to be called out. The more interesting question is whether a candidate who allies himself with Nugent should be held responsible for the incendiary language. Nugent, after all, is an aging rock-n-roller who traffics in over-the-top talk. That makes him something of a media magnet, even though his role is basically that of celebrity provocateur. It was at a gun show a few weeks ago that Nugent called Obama not just a “chimpanzee,” but “a Chicago, Communist- raised, Communist-educated, Communist-nurtured, subhuman mongrel.” He can brand the president a commie if he wants, but such phrases as chimp and subhuman mongrel are truly offensive. [UPDATE: Nugent apologized Friday morning on the Ben Ferguson radio show. According to Mediaite, "the rocker branded his words as 'street fighter terminology,' and vowed to 'elevate his vernacular' to the level of prominent Texas Republicans like Abbott and Rick Perry."] CNN’s Wolf Blitzer teed off on Greg Abbott, the Republican running for Texas governor with Nugent’s highly visible support. “Nugent's presence hit a sour note with a lot of people,” Blitzer said. “They say Texans deserve better than a candidate who would align himself with someone like Nugent who offered a hate-filled assessment of the president.” He added that the phrase subhuman mongrel is similar to a German word that is "what the Nazis called Jews ... to justify the genocide of the Jewish community." Nugent took to Twitter to liken CNN to the Nazis’ propaganda chief: “CNN Joseph Goebbells [sic] Saul Alinsky propaganda ministry mongrels.” Nugent later cancelled a planned appearance on Erin Burnett’s CNN show. Blitzer followed up on his program by questioning Nugent’s use of the phrase “blood brother” when he introduced Abbott. But is it fair to hold Abbott accountable for a supporter’s rant? This is an old game in politics, where critics demand that the politician condemn something that an ally said. John McCain repeatedly apologized in 2008 when he was introduced by radio talker Bill Cunningham, who referred to “Barack Hussein Obama.” Abbott, for his part, hasn’t distanced himself from the singer. He says Nugent is campaigning with him to expose his opponent Wendy Davis’s weak stance on gun rights. He told reporters he wasn’t aware of Nugent’s past statements, according to the Dallas Morning News—a bit of a dodge since he obviously must be aware of them now. Davis is also getting in on the action. In a fundraising letter reported by Politico, he says: “Ted Nugent calls Greg Abbott his ‘blood brother.’ I call their alliance repulsive. I find Ted Nugent disgusting, and I find it disgusting that Greg Abbott is sharing a stage with him.” So both candidates are making hay over Ted Nugent. Meanwhile, one voice on the right is speaking out. Republican Sen. Rand Paul tweeted: "Ted Nugent's derogatory description of President Obama is offensive and has no place in politics. He should apologize." And On Guns.com, S.H. Blannelberry defends Nugent: “I’m willing to bet that Nugent used the historically-embedded phrase to do what he does best: raise hell! “Remember, Nugent is a performer first and foremost. That’s what he does best. And in the political arena, with the cameras rolling and the lights on, he’s going to put on a show. He’s going to be outrageous. He’s going to use words and phrases that purposely rattle the cages of liberals and progressives.” Well, I look forward to Nugent's next appearance on CNN. foxnews.com