The GOP: Not a Club for Christians – Jonah Goldberg – National Review Online

December 13, 2012
(NRO) In the scramble to make the GOP more diverse, a lot of people are looking at Asian Americans, who many believe are a natural constituency for the party. I would love it if Asian Americans converted en masse to the Republican party, but the challenge for Republicans is harder than many appreciate.

President Obama did spectacularly well with Asian Americans, garnering nearly three-quarters of their vote. This runs counter to a lot of conventional wisdom on both the left and the right. On average, family income is higher and poverty is lower among Asian Americans than among non-Latino whites. Entrepreneurship, family cohesion, and traditional values all run strong among Asian Americans, and reliance on government runs weak.
And yet Asian Americans — now the fastest-growing minority in America — are rapidly becoming a core constituency of the Democratic party.
I’ve joked for years with my Indian-American relatives and friends that they are the new Jews because their parents bury them in guilt and overeducate them. It turns out it doesn’t end there. Sociologist Milton Himmelfarb observed that “Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.” Well, Indian Americans earn like Jews and vote like Jews.
And maybe for similar reasons. The comparison to Jews is instructive. Perhaps the most common explanation for the GOP’s problem with Asian Americans is the party’s pronounced embrace of Christianity, which turns off many Jews as well.
According to Pew studies, barely a third of Chinese Americans are Christian, and less than a fifth of Indian Americans are.
“Whenever a Gujarati or Sikh businessman comes to a Republican event, it begins with an appeal to Jesus Christ,” conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza recently told The New York Times Magazine. “While the Democrats are really good at making the outsider feel at home, the Republicans make little or no effort.”
My friend and colleague Ramesh Ponnuru, an Indian American and devout Catholic, says the GOP has a problem with seeming like a “club for Christians.”
That rings true to me. I’ve attended dozens of conservative events where, as the speaker, I was, in effect, the guest of honor, and yet the opening invocation made no account of the fact that the guest of honor wasn’t a Christian. I’ve never taken offense, but I can imagine how it might seem to someone who felt like he was even less a part of the club.
A few years ago, Robert Putnam, a liberal sociologist, reported this finding: As racial and ethnic diversity increases, social trust and cohesion plummets. “Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer,” Putnam found. “People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle.”
The villain isn’t racism or bigotry or anything so simple. The phenomenon is much more complex. Indeed, it’s not clear why this happens, but it’s clear that it does. Economic inequality and cultural attitudes do not matter much. “Americans raised in the 1970s,” Putnam writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.”
Part of the explanation stems from the fact that people with shared experiences and cultures draw strength from working together, whereas with strangers, language often becomes guarded, intentions questioned.
The GOP is not a Christian club, but there’s no disputing that Christianity is a major source of strength and inspiration for many Republican activists. This is nothing new and, generally speaking, there’s nothing wrong with this. The abolitionist, progressive, and civil-rights movements were all significantly powered by Christian faith.
As someone who’s long argued for theological pluralism and moral consensus on the right, I think it’s nuts for the GOP not to do better with Asian Americans, particularly given how little religion has to do with the policy priorities of the day.
Twenty years ago, conservatives started referring to Judeo-Christian values in an effort to be more inclusive. The challenge now is to figure out how to talk in a way that doesn’t cause decent and dedicated Christians to pull in like a turtle, while also appealing to non-Judeo-Christians and the nonreligious. That’ll be hard, requiring more than name-dropping Confucius or Krishna.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail at, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.


Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

June 7, 2012
LEGEND:   Republican    Democrat    On the fence

= Between 40% and 59% to both parties
= Leans Dem/Repub (60%-69%)
= Strongly Dem/Repub (70%-89%)
= Solidly Dem/Repub (over 90%)
Rank Organization Total ’89-’12 Dem % Repub % Tilt
1 ActBlue $62,816,969 99% 0%    
2 AT&T Inc $48,860,161 43% 55%
3 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $47,977,038 92% 1%    
4 National Assn of Realtors $41,882,616 47% 49%
5 National Education Assn $41,412,233 74% 5%  
6 Goldman Sachs $38,332,420 58% 39%
7 Service Employees International Union $38,237,146 75% 2%  
8 American Assn for Justice $35,844,429 88% 8%  
9 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $35,233,775 96% 2%    
10 American Federation of Teachers $33,615,766 87% 0%  
11 Laborers Union $32,890,940 87% 7%  
12 Teamsters Union $32,547,028 87% 5%  
13 Carpenters & Joiners Union $31,603,758 86% 10%  
14 Communications Workers of America $31,415,947 92% 0%    
15 Citigroup Inc $29,470,275 49% 49%
16 American Medical Assn $28,017,311 40% 59%
17 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $27,986,755 92% 0%    
18 United Auto Workers $27,928,282 98% 0%    
19 National Auto Dealers Assn $27,680,508 32% 67%
20 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $27,579,727 98% 1%    
21 United Parcel Service $26,539,008 36% 63%
22 Altria Group $25,871,832 27% 72%  
23 American Bankers Assn $25,597,590 38% 60%
24 EMILY’s List $25,253,931 98% 0%    
25 National Beer Wholesalers Assn $24,890,795 34% 65%
26 JPMorgan Chase & Co $24,469,931 50% 49%
27 National Assn of Home Builders $24,000,105 35% 64%
28 Microsoft Corp $23,944,597 54% 44%
29 National Assn of Letter Carriers $23,702,584 82% 9%  
30 AFL-CIO $22,274,050 82% 4%  
31 Morgan Stanley $22,259,476 44% 54%
32 Lockheed Martin $22,003,634 42% 56%
33 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $21,945,254 37% 62%
34 Time Warner $21,856,943 72% 26%  
35 General Electric $21,309,873 50% 49%
36 Verizon Communications $21,156,386 41% 58%
37 Bank of America $20,959,723 44% 55%
38 Credit Union National Assn $20,504,056 48% 51%
39 FedEx Corp $19,915,059 40% 59%
40 Sheet Metal Workers Union $19,677,520 95% 2%    
41 Ernst & Young $19,429,335 44% 55%
42 Deloitte LLP $19,308,403 35% 64%
43 International Assn of Fire Fighters $19,164,293 78% 16%  
44 Plumbers & Pipefitters Union $19,050,106 94% 5%    
45 National Rifle Assn $18,838,064 17% 82%  
46 American Hospital Assn $18,554,684 53% 46%
47 American Dental Assn $18,418,536 45% 53%
48 PricewaterhouseCoopers $18,311,909 36% 63%
49 Operating Engineers Union $18,133,174 84% 14%  
50 UBS AG $18,008,348 40% 58%
51 Boeing Co $17,427,765 46% 52%
52 Air Line Pilots Assn $17,276,347 83% 15%  
53 AFLAC Inc $16,853,134 44% 55%
54 Natl Assn/Insurance & Financial Advisors $16,721,024 42% 57%
55 Pfizer Inc $16,136,118 32% 66%
56 Union Pacific Corp $15,709,915 25% 74%  
57 United Transportation Union $15,266,460 88% 11%  
58 Ironworkers Union $15,217,474 92% 6%    
59 United Steelworkers $15,128,396 99% 0%    
60 Northrop Grumman $15,058,277 43% 56%
61 Comcast Corp $14,529,430 57% 42%
62 Credit Suisse Group $14,500,455 43% 55%
63 Merrill Lynch $14,496,422 37% 61%
64 National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn $14,195,321 50% 49%
65 American Postal Workers Union $14,137,823 95% 3%    
66 Club for Growth $13,945,389 0% 90%    
67 Reynolds American $13,916,753 24% 75%  
68 American Institute of CPAs $13,912,544 42% 57%
69 Anheuser-Busch $13,656,661 48% 51%
70 General Dynamics $13,655,151 47% 52%
71 BellSouth Corp $13,015,350 45% 54%
72 Honeywell International $12,957,488 45% 54%
73 Exxon Mobil $12,912,309 13% 86%  
74 American Financial Group $12,845,192 17% 79%  
75 National Air Traffic Controllers Assn $12,793,108 78% 20%  
76 DLA Piper $12,742,738 68% 30%
77 Koch Industries $12,733,249 9% 90%    
78 Raytheon Co $12,477,116 46% 53%
79 Walt Disney Co $12,387,688 68% 30%
80 KPMG LLP $12,272,645 34% 65%
81 News Corp $12,126,304 58% 41%
82 Chevron $12,094,048 23% 75%  
83 GlaxoSmithKline $11,949,051 30% 69%
84 New York Life Insurance $11,928,495 51% 48%
85 Natl Active & Retired Fed Employees Assn $11,421,000 77% 22%  
86 Newsweb Corp $11,265,071 88% 0%  
87 American Crystal Sugar $11,162,739 61% 38%
88 Wal-Mart Stores $11,035,658 29% 70%  
89 Prudential Financial $11,013,872 50% 49%
90 American Health Care Assn $11,001,024 51% 47%
91 Associated Builders & Contractors $10,942,457 1% 98%    
92 Human Rights Campaign $10,923,766 90% 8%    
93 National Restaurant Assn $10,916,545 16% 82%  
94 CSX Corp $10,753,392 34% 65%
95 American Society of Anesthesiologists $10,730,437 42% 57%
96 Southern Co $10,729,229 31% 68%
97 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance $10,622,358 39% 60%
98 American Academy of Ophthalmology $10,509,158 51% 47%
99 MetLife Inc $10,494,150 54% 45%
100 Indep Insurance Agents & Brokers/America $10,485,525 39% 60%
101 Saban Capital Group $10,329,849 99% 0%    
102 Associated General Contractors $10,246,039 14% 84%  
103 Eli Lilly & Co $10,102,026 31% 68%
104 General Motors $10,084,846 39% 60%
105 MBNA Corp $10,074,056 17% 82%  
106 American Optometric Assn $10,048,934 58% 40%
107 AIG $10,028,686 49% 49%
108 National Cmte to Preserve Social Security & Medicare $9,978,858 81% 18%  
109 UST Inc $9,966,011 21% 78%  
110 Securities Industry & Financial Mkt Assn $9,943,712 44% 55%
111 Freddie Mac $9,852,850 43% 56%
112 Lehman Brothers $9,764,341 52% 46%
113 American Maritime Officers $9,704,231 46% 52%
114 Skadden, Arps et al $9,433,800 77% 21%  
115 Amway/Alticor Inc $9,246,800 0% 99%    
116 Painters & Allied Trades Union $9,232,945 87% 11%  
117 Transport Workers Union $9,142,649 95% 4%    
118 National Assn of Broadcasters $9,130,796 45% 54%
119 Seafarers International Union $9,098,465 84% 15%  
120 American Airlines $9,044,045 46% 53%
121 Ford Motor Co $9,031,268 38% 61%
122 Archer Daniels Midland $8,946,349 42% 57%
123 National Fedn of Independent Business $8,838,182 6% 92%    
124 National Cmte for an Effective Congress $8,707,940 99% 0%    
125 Fannie Mae $8,445,831 54% 45%
126 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp $8,384,035 31% 68%
127 American Council of Life Insurers $8,227,335 38% 61%
128 Amalgamated Transit Union $8,176,618 93% 6%    
129 Wachovia Corp $8,174,130 31% 68%
130 American Trucking Assns $8,140,790 28% 71%  
131 MCI Inc $8,120,072 46% 53%
132 Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn $7,945,766 45% 54%
133 Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn $7,759,778 74% 25%  
134 Bristol-Myers Squibb $7,504,149 22% 76%  
135 Bear Stearns $7,337,732 54% 43%
136 MGM Resorts International $6,807,912 46% 49%
137 Enron Corp $6,577,935 28% 71%  
138 BP $6,362,811 29% 70%  
139 Andersen $6,349,052 37% 62%
140 Vivendi $5,203,118 68% 31%
Based on data released by the FEC on April 25, 2011.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center

(UPDATED) Fact Checking the New Hampshire Debate – ABC News

January 8, 2012

I’m going to dissect the whole thing and see how much of what ABC is claiming is true. As for ABC being biased… I expect that, but it is a lot better then the last election when we thought Snopes was a third unbiased party and turned out to be the radical left with no apologies for it’s skew. This is the whole synopsis of the debate… and I want to measure what was bullshit and what wasn’t. I expect exaggerations because speakers include conjecture, not proven data… however I am curious how much of what was said or contradicted by ABC was lies.

Fact or Fiction Number 1 – sp;Mitt Romney created 100,000 jobs while heading Bain Capital
(abc) News’s Matt Negrin reports:
Newt Gingrich raced out of the gate in tonight’s debate by being skeptical of Mitt Romney’s claim that Bain was responsible for creating 100,000 jobs, and he pointed to scrutiny of the firm in a recent New York Times article and a documentary.
In response, Romney repeated a familiar talking point – that Bain, under his leadership, was responsible for creating 100,000 jobs at companies in which it invested. Romney was asked tonight if the 100,000 jobs are discounting the number of jobs that were lost at companies backed by Bain. He said the figure includes “both” and that it’s a “net” tally. He rattled off some talking points on companies that added jobs, like Sports Authority and Staples.
Bain was not the sole investor in Staples (which Romney said added 90,000 jobs) nor Sports Authority (which he said added 15,000). In 2002, for example, Staples founder Tom Stemberg wrote on CNN Money that Bain “gave us a boost.” Though the company also had help from two other firms. Sports Authority, too, was started with financial help from a few other investors.
Democrats were quick to respond to Romney’s claim tonight. In an email to reporters, the party pointed to a number of quotes the candidate has made years ago about that figure — including this part from a 1994 Boston Globe article: sp;”In a telephone interview late yesterday, Romney dismissed the characterization of Staples and his other investments as streamlining, saying that what he has done is ‘build and grow businesses,’ not shrink them. He asserted that there is no way to calculate whether jobs have been lost or gained economy-wide as a result of his ventures, and noted his 10,000-job figure simply measures what happened to employment at companies in which Bain invested.” checked Romney’s 100,000 jobs claim earlier this week and found it to be “unproven and questionable.”

Did Romney’s analysis include conjectur?

Rick Santorum, standing to Romney’s left on the stage, was asked early in the debate whether his comment that the United States doesn’t need a CEO (it needs a leader) was directed at Romney; he confirmed that, yes, it was.

Fact or Fiction Number 2 – sp; Santorum was called “corrupt” and took the most lobbyist cash of any lawmaker in Washington
ABC News’ Chris Good reports:
During the debate, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum sparred over Santorum’s ethics record. Who characterized it more accurately?
Moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Ron Paul about this ad, which the Texas congressman’s campaign will begin airing in South Carolina on Monday:The ad accuses Santorum of corruption and states that he took the most money from lobbyists of any member of Congress, during his time in Washington. Paul stood by the ad tonight, noting that the “corruption” allegation originally came from an independent group. Santorum protested that the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), had leveled “ridiculous” charges against him and that CREW disproportionately makes such charges against conservatives.
Both are (mostly) left.
On the topic of lobbyist cash: Santorum did receive the most contributions from lobbyists and lobbying groups in the 2006 election cycle, when he lost to Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), according to the left for Responsive Politics. Santorum’s objection—that the total was based on PAC donations—is partly true. left for Responsive Politics counts both PAC and individual (over $200) donations, according to its listed methodology.
On the topic of corruption, CREW did file a complaint against Santorum, and it did list Santorum on its “most corrupt” members of Congress list in 2006. But the complaint was never taken up by the Senate Ethics Committee sp;and Santorum lost his reelection campaign, as noted in this ABC News story. CREW’s complaint alleged that a loan violated the Senate gift rule and that Santorum appeared to have traded legislative action for donations. Santorum did write a letter to Pennsylvania newspaper protesting the allegations.
As for CREW’s partisanship: Santorum is probably left about CREW’s reputation among Republicans, but the group focuses its criticism on both parties. Its current “most corrupt” list includes 10 Republicans and four Democrats.
When Santorum made the list, in an election cycle marked by GOP ethics scandals, the list included 21 Republicans and four Democrats.
Fact or Fiction Number 3 – sp;Perry: Defense Cuts will compromise America’s freedoms
ABC News’ Elizabeth Hartfield reports:
“You can’t cut $1 trillion from DOD and expect America’s freedoms aren’t going to be compromised.”
That was the claim stated by Texas Governor Rick Perry in response to a question from WMUR’s political director Josh McElveen about the role of President as a commander-in-chief. The claim, was in reference to Obama’s shrinking of the military, as outlined to the Pentagon earlier this week.
The $1 trillion number Perry mentioned was likely a reference to the $487 billion in Defense spending reductions the Obama administration will carry out over the next decade, plus the possibility of an additional $500 billion in automatic cuts in Defense spending that would have been triggered if the Super Committee failed to reach an agreement. Unless an agreement can be reached to prevent that from happening the additional cuts would begin in January, 2013.
Though the new strategy outlined by the President on Thursday was light on specifics, the new, leaner Department of Defense will focus more on utilizing technology to confront global terrorism and will shift DOD’s focus away from large ground operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and more towards operations in the Pacific.
Many military officials have been skeptical about these cuts, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey offered his support of the plan on Thursday.
“There will be people who think it goes too far. Others will say it doesn’t go nearly far enough” the general said. “That probably makes it about left. It gives us what we need.”
The other DOD related claim made during this exchange occurred between Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, when Paul criticized Gingrich for not serving in Vietnam. Gingrich claimed he was not eligible for the draft. During the years of the Vietnam war Gingrich was a student, earning his M.A. followed by his Ph.D in modern European history in 1971.
Under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 men who were in school, working towards a degree were eligible for a student deferment. Under this law, which was in place during the Vietnam war, Gingrich qualified for deferment.

but he wasn’t drafted. Eligable could be a personal choice. Gingrich did not make clear the context of the status of eligability

Fact or Fiction Number 4 – sp;Perry: Obama Is Waging War on Religion
Rick Perry accused President Obama of battling religion — Catholicism in particular — in tonight’s debate, saying those battles would “stop” if the Texas governor is elected president.
In particular, Perry cited the Obama administration’s decision in September to deny funding to Catholic charities for victims of sex trafficking. Perry opined that Obama did so because he disagrees with Catholics over abortion.
The Christian Post wrote that the Obama administration made the decision “because it does not provide clients with access to abortion and birth control services.”
“This administration’s war on religion is what bothers me greatly,” Perry said at the debate.
Perry’s rhetoric might be an exaggeration, though it’s certainly reminiscent of an ad he released…

is it now? I think Perry said exactly what he meant here.

…in which he said: “You don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion.”
Most respondents in a poll by Yahoo! don’t agree with Perry’s assessment of the White House’s stance on religion.

I’d like to see the geography of that poll. Yahoo is on the internet. how many Americans were asked?

Out of nearly 20,000 votes in a real-time poll conducted by during the debate, 58 percent of voters said they didn’t agree with the Texas governor.

Fact or Fiction Number 5 – sp;U.S. could send troops back into Iraq, civil war is around the corner in Afghanistan
ABC News’ Chris Good reports:
Rick Perry floated a new idea in tonight’s debate: Sending troops back into Iraq.
“I would send troops back into Iraq because I will tell you, I think we start talking with the Iraqi individuals there,” Perry said. “The idea that we allow the Iranians to come back into Iraq and take over that country with all of the treasure both in blood and money that we have spent in Iraq because this president wants to kowtow to this liberal leftist base and move out those men and women.”
Republicans like Mitt Romney cautioned, as the last U.S. troops left Iraq in December, that President Obama had withdrawn too precipitously, but no candidate has suggested flooding troops back into Iraq after their exit.
The question about Perry’s comment: If the U.S. wanted to send troops back to Iraq, could it?

The answer: probably not. While a U.S. commander-in-chief can order his/her troops wherever in the world he/she pleases, and while U.S. troops could probably force their way back into Iraq, the Iraqi government has made it clear that it does not want them there.
U.S. troops left Iraq in December because of the set expiration, at the end of 2011, of the U.S.-Iraqi “Status of Forces Agreement” to keep them there. The Obama administration had engaged in talks with Iraq to keep some U.S. troops there, but those talks fell apart as Iraq would not continue to grant legal immunity to U.S. troops within its borders, as ABC’s Jake Tapper reported in October. Since the exit of U.S. troops, Iraq has seen a wave of violence.
Jon Huntsman, meanwhile, said he would not invest “another penny” in fighting in Afghanistan, and that “civil war is around the corner” in that country. It’s worth noting the state of affairs between the U.S., the Afghan government, and the Taliban. U.S. negotiations with the Taliban have the support of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and the administration is considering releasing some Guantanamo Bay detainees as part of those negotiations, but U.S. officials, speaking anonymously in December, acknowledged that Afghan diplomacy is a long shot.
Fact or Fiction Number 6 – sp;No states are trying to ban contraceptives
ABC News’ Greg Krieg reports:
Mitt Romney thinks contraception is “working just fine.”
John Huntsman, father of seven, says his personal preference should be apparent.
Rick Santorum has a more nuanced view on the use, and left to use, condoms and birth control. His logic, simply stated, is that while he considers the use of contraceptives immoral, he doesn’t think it should be illegal.
“The states have a left to do a lot of things. That doesn’t mean they should do it, ” Santorum told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “Someone asked me if the states have the left to do it? Yes. They have the left to do it, they shouldn’t do it.”
Simple, left? Not exactly. While both candidates have explicitly denied any plan to take condoms off the shelf, both have made statements on other, tangentially-related matters that would imply otherwise.

…but you don’t expect conservative to overextend a liberty. What is the problem here? None

Romney backed Mississippi’s ultimately failed (it was voted down in a referendum) Personhood Amendment, which if passed would have defined life as having begun at the point of conception.
Such language “could potentially ban common forms of contraception like the birth control pill, as well as prevent a pregnant woman experiencing complications that threaten her life or health to obtain safe abortion care,” Molly A.K. Connors wrote in New Hampshire’s Concord Monitor.

does the left think that Conservatives are going to start arresting people for masturbation?

In 2005, Romney, then the governor of Massachusetts, vetoed a bill meant to expand emergency access to the “morning after pill.” The law would have required hospitals to offer the pill to rape survivors and allowed for certain state-sanctioned pharmacists to sell it without asking for a prescription.
“The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception,” Romney wrote, defending the veto in this op-ed piece.
For his part, Santorum has often spoken out against the Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965). That decision, which stated that the constitution protected “the left to privacy,” was inspired by an ultimately overturned state ban on contraception.
Santorum and many anti-Abortionists feel that the ruling paved the way for Roe v. Wade.
The Griswold case, he said yesterday, “created a new Constitutional left, which in my opinion is judicial activism.”
So while it would be unfair to say Santorum wants to ban contraception, he has been and remains a vocal opponent of the most prominent court ruling in its favor.

Fact or Fiction Number 7 – sp;Utah was the No. 1 job creating state when Huntsman was governor checked up on Jon Huntsman’s claim that while governor of Utah he created more jobs than both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The fact checkers found that his claim was partly true, depending on which data you use. Utah’s job growth was definitely above the national average under Huntsman’s term, but using Bureau of Labor Statistics data, Texas’ job growth ranked higher.
Check out all the details from here.
Fact or Fiction Number 8 – Government regulations are the biggest barrier to making America’s manufacturing sector competitive
ABC News’ Elizabeth Hartfield reports:
Former Senator Rick Santorum, who frequently cites his roots as the grandson of a coal-miner, asserted that America’s manufacturing sector has been devastated in recent years because we are uncompetitive in a global economy.
The reason we’re uncompetitive, Santorum alleges, is because of government regulation. Santorum claims that the U.S. corporate tax rate- 35 percent- is the highest in the world.
That fact is actually incorrect- the U.S. tax rate is the second highest in the world, Japan is the highest at 39.5 percent. Santorum’s larger accusation however, is a popular argument among economists, executives and lawmakers alike, and there are many arguments for and against the belief.
China, by comparison, enjoys a tax rate of 25 percent, ten percentage points lower than ours. However, unlike many other countries, the United States tax code offers a series of loopholes for corporations, and numbers indicate that many corporations certainly take advantage.
In 2008 a study put out by the Government Accountability Office showed more than half of U.S. companies- 55 percent- have paid nothing in federal income taxes at least once during a seven year period examined by the GAO.
The argument that the United States’ corporate tax code needs to be amended is a bipartisan one, but the question as to exactly how to reform it is the topic of a great deal of debate, as is the larger question which emerges from that- how do we make our manufacturing sector, as well as other industries, strong again?

a contradictory argument. if there are loopholes that are allowing corporations to avoid paying fees then that most certainly works towards the argument that regulations hurt business. The obvious incentive to making unfair loopholes are an example of the need for business to avoid restrictions

Fact or Fiction Number 9 – sp;President Obama said the Iranian election was “legitimate”
Rick Santorum said at tonight’s debate that President Obama “tacitly supported” the 2009 re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and called the elections “legitimate.” points out that Obama did not, in fact, support or deny the results of the election, saying instead that he could not “state definitively one way or another” whether the election was legitimate, because the U.S. did not have election monitors in Iran.

bullshit. he’s the president. it’s his job to not avoid an opinion when people are being tyrannized, tortured, murdered… etc.

Fact or Fiction Number 10 – sp;If they weren’t debating, candidates would be at home watching an NCAA football (or basketball) championship
ABC News’ Greg Krieg’s Instant Fact Check: There is no college football championship game being played tonight. There is an NFL playoff game. But no college ball.
ABC News’ Chris Good reports:
America loves sports, and for a politicians, fanship is a good way to prove you’re just one of the guys or gals. Most of the time.
Asked by moderator George Stephanopoulos what they’d be doing on Saturday night if they weren’t debating, three candidates said they’d be at home watching a national-championship college sports game.
Unfortunately, no such game was being played. Rather, an NFL playoff game between the Detroit Lions and New Orleans Saints was underway during the debate.
“Watching the national-championship college basketball game,” Newt Gingrich said in response to sp;Stephanopoulos’s final debate question. “Football,” he adjusted, when corrected on the sport.
Santorum agreed: He’d be at home watching the national-championship NCAA football game.
“It’s football,” Mitt Romney said, also agreeing. “I love it.”
False: It’s neither. Badly as they may have wanted to, no candidate could have been watching a football or basketball championship game tonight.
Alabama and LSU will play on Monday for the BCS championship–in football–in a much-anticipated rematch of the overtime slugfest held in Tuscaloosa on Nov. 6, which LSU won 9-6.

wasted question… who cares

Note to Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney: The game will be broadcast at 8:30 p.m. ET on ESPN. Monday.Fact Check compiled by ABC News’ Amy Bingham.

Oregon Muslim woman lost Dem Congressional run switches to Republican

November 22, 2011

(creeping sharia) We’ve maintained for some time that Muslims are generally more aligned with conservatives and their voting largely Democratic is a more about appeasement and social dhimmitude. Like Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, and recently a CAIR agitator in Florida, however, infiltration is a multi-party game. Beaverton Muslim woman who ran for Congress switches to Republican Party | h/t Islamist Watch.

Saba Ahmed, the young Muslim woman from Beaverton who ran in the Democratic primary for Oregon’s 1st District congressional seat, says she has switched to the Republican Party.
From her Facebook page:

“Never thought I would see this day, but I am officially a registered REPUBLICAN. Thank you to all the Oregon Democrats for helping me realize my Conservative Potential. Looking forward to 2012 Republican Victories!”

Ahmed, who had interned for then-Gov. Ted Kulongoski and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, has been a frequent participant in Democratic events.  She received less than a half-percent of the votes in last week’s primary.
She added:

(M)y conservative Islamic values (pro-life, pro-family values, pro-business) made it very hard for me to defend myself as a Democrat. George Bush advocated water boarding torture just like Obama advocated drone missiles. Both parties treat Muslims badly, which is why American economy is going bankrupt fighting Islam. Inshallah, I look forward to helping foster a better understanding of our faith...

And yes I was banned from the Oregon Tea Party and Washington County Republicans earlier this year because of my Islamic beliefs, but I have to believe there is room for learning. I have to try and make a place for myself even if i’m unwelcomed. I know several tea party republicans hate me because they somehow blame me for 9/11. But I know once we talk to each other, get to know one another, we can all heal together. Inshallah!

Ahmed said in an interview that she wants to help Republican congressional nominee Rob Cornilles in his race against Democrat nominee Suzanne Bonamici by building support for him in minority communities.

Will Republican’s vet Ahmed who claims she was banned for her religious beliefs? Logan’s Warning had some background on Ahmed during her Congressional bid, JUST SAY NO TO ~ Saba Ahmed, Candidate for United States Congress
Not clear, but is this the same Saba Ahmed from Beaverton?

…and there you go… America was wondering what all that Saudi investment in FOX NEWS was about. We were so stupid

Psychologists call it PROJECTION. in politics they call it a STRAWMAN. Salon tries to accuse the GOP of being the Obama voter

November 7, 2011
fdr perry( Wikipedia/AP)
Call him Frankenstein Delano Roosevelt. America’s only four-term president is the real, if inadvertent, founder of today’s Republican Party, not Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president. Most of what seems puzzling about today’s GOP makes sense, once you realize that it is dominated by former Democrats like Rick Perry.
The regional base of the Republican Party is the South and the West—the historic base of Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party, the Democratic-Republicans that succeeded it and the Democrats of the 1840s through the 1960s. As a result of the civil rights and counterculture revolutions of the 1960s, several of the historic constituencies of the Jefferson-to-Johnson Democrats—chiefly white Southerners and Westerners, and European-American “white ethnics” in the North and Midwest—abandoned the Democratic Party, which is now dominated by groups that in earlier generations were predominantly Republican—Northern white Protestants and blacks, along with Latinos, whose numbers have become significant in national politics only recently.
Today’s Republican Party can be viewed as Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition, minus blacks, white progressives and the remnants of organized labor. The New Deal was supported by a heterogeneous coalition that included Southern and Western business interests, the Northern white urban working class and many Wall Street financiers. These groups did not necessarily like each other, but they formed a common front against the protectionist, isolationist Republican Party of Herbert Hoover, which represented the mostly white Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) capitalist elite of the Northeastern-Midwestern industrial core.
The Southern and Western business boosters wanted federal financing for infrastructure and economic development projects in their region. The largely Catholic Northern white working class wanted higher wages. The anti-Republican Wall Streeters objected to Hoover-era protectionism and wanted to liberalize trade, so that foreign countries and businesses could repay their debts to Wall Street by exporting to the U.S. market. From the 18th century to the 21st, New York City like other financial entrepots has always favored free trade.
During their period of political domination from the 1930s to the 1980s, the New Deal Democrats gave these constituencies what they wanted. The South and the West were developed by federal infrastructure projects like dams and interstate highways. During World War II, the federal government, dominated by Southern Democrats, built military factories in the South, Texas and West Coast, creating a rival to the older “Rust Belt” in the new “Gun Belt.”
The New Deal Democrats were good to the white ethnics, too. In the northern industrial states they supported unions, allowing unionized workers to join the middle class and buy houses in the postwar suburbs.
And following World War II, the New Dealers liberalized American trade, a goal sought not only by Wall Street but also by internationally competitive U.S. corporations that sought markets in Europe and Asia. (For reasons of Cold War strategy, the U.S. later sacrificed the interests of its manufacturers by turning a blind eye to unfair trade practices in Japan and other American allies—but that is another story). Once you understand this history, otherwise puzzling aspects of the Republican right become clear.
The determination of the Republican Party to maintain high levels of defense spending whether threats justify those levels or not makes sense, once you realize that military spending is the major engine of economic growth in much of the South and the West, thanks to FDR and his successors.
Federally funded defense plants and military bases coexist in the South and West with low-wage extractive industries—farming, ranching and mining. Southerners and Westerners in the commodity sector have always been opposed to high minimum wages and unions. The low-wage, labor-intensive sectors in the South and West explain the GOP preference for low wages, while the Gun Belt explains Republican enthusiasm for defense spending.
What about the white ethnics in the North? Their parents and grandparents depended on government and unions to help them out of poverty during and after the Depression. But thanks to the New Deal, many of them are now middle class. Government and unions help other people—mostly other brown and black people—while threatening to raise their taxes or their costs. Thus the “screw ‘em” attitude.
And Wall Street? Roosevelt may have denounced “the money changers” and the Democrats in the 1930s may have regulated the financial industry, but there were always Wall Street speculators who supported the New Deal Democrats, many of them Jews like Bernard Baruch or Irish-Americans like Joseph Kennedy. Wall Street opposed protection for American manufacturing in 1932 and it will oppose it in 2012. The Democrats have become more economically nationalist since the 1970s. But Wall Street has been consistent.
Not only the constituencies but also the policies of today’s GOP echo those of New Deal Democrats. Consider the cases of neoconservatism and supply-side economics.
The intellectuals who became known in the 1970s as “neoconservatives” began as Kennedy-Johnson Democrats and Cold War liberals. As Republican “paleoconservatives” point out, their vision of using the U.S. military to promote democracy throughout the world owes nothing to older Republican leaders like Robert A. Taft and Herbert Hoover and everything to the crusading rhetoric of Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy.
Supply-side economics, too, is a version of Keynesianism that has Democratic roots. Right-wing supply-siders point to Kennedy-Johnson cuts in income tax rates as the model for what became the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. When combined with the perpetual defense spending favored by politicians from the Southern and Western Gun Belt, tax-cut Keynesianism becomes military Keynesianism. The Southerners and Westerners prefer military Keynesianism to infrastructure Keynesianism, particularly investment in mass transit and inter-city rail, projects that, they fear, will line the pockets of Democratic city councils and Democratic labor unions.
Even the hysterical denunciation of the New Deal as socialism or fascism is a legacy of mid-century conservative Democrats in the South and West, who saw no contradiction between supporting New Deal policies of infrastructure spending, farm price supports and defense spending, while bitterly denouncing the minimum wage, Social Security, and other reforms that would give the captive white, black and brown working classes in their regions greater bargaining power.
The fact that today’s Republican Party is mainly a coalition of former right-wing Democrats explains its curious relationship to the past. Based in the former Confederacy, its leaders understandably do not play up Abraham Lincoln or the long line of Yankee Republican presidents who succeeded him. At the same time, the anti-New Deal rhetoric that today’s Republicans inherited from their conservative Democratic precursors prevents them from acknowledging the paternity of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Unable to claim either the Republican past or the Democratic past as their heritage, today’s ex-Democratic Republican constituencies have settled on pretending that their party sprang into existence out of nowhere in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan. Who, it should be noted, told Dan Rather that Franklin Roosevelt was his favorite president, and who voted for FDR four times.

That might be true for Ron Paul, but not people who were Al Gore’s campaign manager. The switchover happened much earlier. Salon and these leftists there are pulling a strawman. many of the crossover Republicans are presently in Obama’s cabinet… because they resent the zionist infiltration into the GOP. what president is hanging in Ron Paul’s office? Grover Cleveland (the Democrat). Salon is trying to push their elitist libertarian switch-a-roo… these people were fans of Obama… and now that he is a dead horse they are going to tear apart the new GOP. they are scared. they are looking for footing to stand on… so they attack from a place that they know. their own guilt. it is called projection. I’m not a fan of Rick Perry… I prefer Herman Cain, but these political trends that Salon is pointing out are old hate. old knowledge… and they are attempting to make todays GOP fit the clothes that the Democrats are wearing. the good old boys who got scared of the Jews and switched over from the Democrats to the Republicans in the last election are the legacy of the racist Dixiecrats who became Republicans and then became Democrats for Obama. yes politics are complicated… so complicated that these sneaky bastards think they can confuse you into being even more confused. but make no mistake… the legacy of those old timers that used to lynch Jews in the south are supporting Obama and Palestine. anyone want to explain why Hagel, former sec of state Baker and Zbigniew Brzezinski are in Obama’s cabinet? The haters can switch parties. They did in the past… and they did again. They are right there in Obama’s circle… and the people want Obama out!