This FOX News article is just delicious. The conclusions are superb.

When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.

Yes, this author is totally serious. Link via dkos.

Did you know, you make more than 250K a year in a lot of cases? I mean, you teachers, you firefighters, you police officers…you’re almost part of the 1%! Feel wealthy yet?

Cuz Scott Brown sure thinks you are. Great catch and commentary by BMG’s David, who also has the real numbers that Brown apparently failed to look up. Touché, David, playing in my backyard. ^_^

Update: Via Marie (on Facebook), Talking Points Memo has picked it up…way to go Sen. “Wall St” Brown! (Edit: sorry, BMG quotes TPM, so obviously TPM got there first. So David, there goes my respect for your timely reading of our erstwhile newspaper…sorry!)

Nothing showcases everything that is wrong with our post-Citizen’s-United world today, than the entertainment industry’s complaints about the SOPA/PIPA fight (bold text mine):

Hollywood bought its politicians, and it expects them to stay bought

Talk about everything that is wrong with government.

Leo Hindery, a major Democratic donor whose New York media private equity firm owns cable channels, said Obama might have reason to worry about his entertainment industry fundraising base.

“[The bill] is an issue that has no business being decided politically – by anybody on one side or the other – and the fact that it might be becoming a political issue is unfair to the content producers,” said Hindery, who’s contributed more than $3 million to Democratic candidates and groups.

Ah, yes. There’s an expectation that throwing money at Congress and the White House will lead to decisions being made for, well, financial reasons, as opposed to valid policy ones.

I can’t think of a more blatant we-bought-you, so-stay-bought! worldview than that.

Here’s the bottom line—how many people are lining up behind the pro-PIPA/SOPA forces? How many regular Americans are fighting alongside the studios? How many petition signatures has the MPAA and RIAA gathered from its customers?

The answer is none. There isn’t an industry more disdainful of its audience than these self-styled “content producers” (as if they’re the only ones producing content). And while they aren’t busy trying to kill new technologies like the VCR (and the internet), or pre-accusing their customers of being criminals by flashing that insulting FBI warning before every video that they’ve bought, or suing teenagers and parents for posting videos of their babies dancing to commercial music, then they’re working the congressional backrooms to screw the broader public.

I couldn’t say it much better than that. This industry has been behind every resistance to innovation and progress since the friggin’ radio. And every time, it’s proven that if they’d just change and adapt accordingly, there’s a ton of money to be made (see: iTunes)! But they let someone else beat them to the punch every. Single. Time. While they grasp like drown victims to their sinking ship.

If Democrats are going to lose Hollywood (industrial) support, so be it. Good effing riddance to a bunch of whiny, petulant, privileged, unethical, hide-bound marketplace LOSERS. And Democrats, I expect much more from you on this front. We should not be Republicans, to be swayed by an industry forking over gobs of of money in order to get a very bad bill (for the rest of us) passed. We should be better than this.

This country is in very deep trouble until we can fix the “corporations are people, my friend” stranglehold of the Citizen’s United and other Supreme Court rulings. Nothing will change until that does.

Update: This Mark Fiore cartoon is super awesome (and snuggly!)

Has anyone else seen the new ad by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads attacking Elizabeth Warren? I did, this morning, and all I could do was think: thanks, Karl Rove…?

The ad hits Warren about her support for the Occupy movement (and talking about her contribution to the seeds of the movement, the idea that the middle class and the American dream have been under attack, something Warren has been fighting against for decades). The ad labels the movement as socialist/radical/yadda yadda yadda.

Is Karl Rove aware that he’s running the ad in Massachusetts? I’m just wonderin’. Maybe he’s getting senile in his old age. And he is aware, I have to assume, of the polling that shows more Americans support Occupy than not? Or that 2/3rds agree that income inequality needs to be addressed and the system as it is is not fair? The numbers are likely a lot higher in MA, since, as we keep getting reminded (by the “red speck” who’s running for President, if nothing else) that our state is one of the most liberal in the union.

If I were Scott Brown, I’d beg Karl to please…stop helping.

Seriously, if what’s come out of the MA GOP, the Brown campaign, and the Republicans in general thus far is indicative of their future attack strategy…I am not going to say it’s cakewalk because nothing ever is and one’d be a fool to underestimate the underwear model…but geez. Make it a bit competitive at least!

Update: and we have video! I will also make the point that if Scott Brown wants to win a real term next November, he has to tack to the middle and look moderate, and divorce himself from the radical right. It’s his only chance. However, this goes in the opposite direction - and his campaign will be tarred with the same brush, as these sorts of ads go into the general mindset as “from the opposition” - they don’t make such distinctions as “oh that was an independent Karl Rove ad, and I’ll judge Brown accordingly.” That just doesn’t happen.

I’ve been following (mostly online) the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Boston protests since nearly the beginning. They got traction and coverage on blogs and Twitter long before the media was covering it - in fact, before the unprovoked pepper spray incidents that made the news, the only place to read about what was happening was online.

The media complained that they weren’t cohesive enough and there wasn’t news to cover. Well, that has quickly changed and evolved. For starters, there were some very bad decisions from the NYPD - both institutionally, and by some idiot individuals - which put the protests on the map for the media, and solidified the motivation of participants and supporters. What’s more, it seems the organic sort of organizing that has sprung up has - and I have to use the word evolved again - to meet the challenges of running a protest, dealing with the media, finding a set of demands to articulate why they are angry and not going to take it any more. OWS has spokespeople and media tents and a strong online presence - all while being relatively leadersless in the traditional sense.

In some ways, my personal cynicism alert flag is up. (Yeah, I know, I’m too young to be truly cynical…) I spent years organizing with the peace movement against the Iraq war, butting my head up against the sheer stubbornness of the Bush administration and, later, Obama’s. After all, GitMo is still open, the USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and is being used to spy on Americans without due process, we’re still in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan though with some troop drawdown, and Obama even unilaterally bombed, for right or wrong, Libya, without the consent of Congress.

The only satisfaction we got out of our fight was that most of the American public got on our side after a while. But it still reelected Bush and let itself be lied to about Kerry’s war record and ability to lead, and we never got a truly different kind of leader to replace him in 2008, either. Obama put Wall St executives in charge of the economy even after it was evident they were full of shit.

But there is something really interesting happening with Occupy[America]. For one thing, it’s just average citizens (not diehard liberals or extremely informed people like me) who are protesting. Photo after photo, interview after interview, this is very evident.

There are so many people in this country who have been foreclosed on, laid off, unable to move forward, that a segment of them, with nothing left to lose, are truly taking the fight to the streets. Since they have nothing left to lose - no middle class lifestyle, no prospects - they have a lot to fight for. I always said the worst part about being an anti-war protester is that most of our citizens, even when sympathetic (and the majority was by the time I left that movement) are busy with their lives, making their livings, feeding their families, going to soccer games, and being generally content that things aren’t that bad for them, personally. There’s nothing wrong with this. It’s totally human, and what’s more, a legacy of the last century of American progress. We built the middle class. A country with a middle class able to make ends meet is a relatively politically stable country. It’s a good thing.

Which is why I think there is something different in the air.

Gradually, we’ve seen the erosion of the buying power and the salaries of the middle class. For so many decades before, our children did at least a little better than their parents. Then, since the Reagan era, we started to see the slide. We began to only tread water…then occasionally swallowed some. Then we began drowning, but we as a people were the last to see it happen.

Even in the 2008 economic meltdown, we failed to notice our lungs filling with something other than air.

This generation of young people really are the first who truly believe - nay, who know - they are not destined to do better than their parents. Unlike the spoiled kids of my generation (raised largely in the 80s and coming of age in the 90s), they see the coming tide sweeping over them and pulling them under the water before they even get a chance to begin. They are left behind. And they know that if they do nothing, it will only get worse. They have nothing left to lose.

They join every one of their older siblings, parents, grandparents who have lost a house, a job, a future, despite being of the generations born with more promise. For some of us older ones, we’ve experienced firsthand how it’s gonna be going forward if there are no changes. For the rest of us older ones, we are beginning to understand how fragile our position of comfort is. The OccupyWallSt movement presents this to us in bas-relief - the notion that the middle class is under siege and has been for quite some time.

The thing that is different from now from these previous movements is that the situation that has caused these long term problems is not going to be alleviated by last generation’s leaders. Obama is cut off at the knees to even patch a pathetic temporary band-aid (the jobs bill) on our economic slide by Republican intransigence. And even Obama’s half-measures would probably only prove to elongate the stagnation, not solve the underlying problem. We’re now seeing the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us reach the levels seen right before the 1929 crash. Eventually, this was going to get noticed by someone. By everyone.

Even the Tea Party movement, while misguided to the extreme, is an expression of this loss of power by the average person. Why did they catch fire? Despite being such a minority of even the Republican party? Because poor and middle class Republicans too are suffering in this economic climate, this class warfare on us by the super-wealthy. They just aren’t right on who to blame for this.

Most of America, on the other hand, already knows what and who is to blame. They already overwhelmingly want to see taxes raised back up on the uberwealthy. They know that Wall St needs taking down a peg or three, and that we need to go back to regulating our economic system so that the playing field becomes level again. They just need the energy to look up from their day to day struggles against the tide, to look up, and see that horizon again.

I don’t know where the Occupy movement is going to go. It seems to change and swell bigger by the day, though it could have an upper limit, I suppose. But if this truly is the moment where the American people reach the tipping point, if this is the straw that, finally, after 30 years of straws, breaks the camel’s back, then maybe we can make the changes without the economic crash that I have been foreseeing for years. That crash (which will make 2008 look like cakewalk) could still be coming. But if we organize enough in advance, if we can offer an alternative to the American people now, perhaps we will not lose a decade like they did in the Great Depression. After all, we have history to inform us how best to rebuild the American middle class and spread prosperity around to everyone.

So, occupy on! There may not be an immediate result, but it could offer a long term solution. Hats off to the most powerless among us.

“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” - V

Really. Don’t make it so easy for us, Scotty!

Customer at restaurant: You’re asking us about jobs and the economy. I mean, what are you seeing?

Scott Brown: People are hurting, they’re frustrated, they’re scared. They’re just basically getting up day to day and paying the bills…what I’m finding as I’m traveling around is that they need regulatory certainty, tax certainty, and taking that wet blanket off…they need government to just take that wet blanket off and leave them alone.

It goes on from there, the whole thing, Scott Brown droning on with the standard anti-governing memes you would expect.

Putting aside for the moment the fact that Senator Pickup Truck is doing his August recess “tour of the state” with only people who’ll pay or are invited to get in (a self-selecting group of constituents that’ll tell him exactly what he wants to hear), what do you see wrong with this campaign video?

All right, I’ll tell you, if you haven’t spotted it. So normally, you see a candidate speaking to a crowd or a small group and hearing from them. Listening to what they have to say and being sympathetic with [insert issue here]. What’s different about this exchange, is it’s all about Scotty. HE gets asked a question about what HE is seeing and HE gets to drone on about it. Normally in a campaign event it’s the other way around.

Talk about man of the people. Even his language, “what I’m finding…is that they need…” Condescending, self-righteous, and then couple that with his self-selecting campaign events full of funders and no one else, and you just have to shake your head. Is this just the real Scott Brown and these were the best clips they could get of him talking to so-called “constituents”? Or are they just stupid?

I am pretty sure this is the real Scott Brown - top-down, faking the “man-of-the-people” routine, totally out of touch. But I wonder why his campaign is so eager to showcase it.

Just to add to the snark, from one of the links talking about his “invite only” policy:

Even reporters were barred from the actual tour portion of the day, with staff citing “liability concerns.”

Riiight. Liability concerns. Like the candidate himself.

[Via BMG.]

Lizz Winstead, co-creator of the Daily Show, nails it…just nails it. I almost spit my water out on my laptop keyboard.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Classic, forever and ever. Nevermind the rest of the clip I cut this from, talking about Perry’s “big mouthful,” also a total exercise in absurdity.

Seriously, with entertainment like this, who needs comedy any more?

You can’t make this stuff up. Senator Scott Brown wrote an op ed in the Boston Globe, noting that in after the 2001 dot-com crash, Massachusetts got itself out of recession with spending cuts and no tax hikes (bold added):

In 2001 to ’02, the bursting of the technology bubble hit the Massachusetts economy hard. Our unemployment rate was growing faster than any other state in the country, and we faced a fiscal crisis that many experts said was the worst since World War II. The projected deficit for 2003 was nearly $3 billion.

But instead of raising taxes, Democrats and Republicans worked across the aisle: We tightened our belts and balanced the books by cutting spending. It wasn’t easy, but after some tough negotiations and re-setting of priorities, we turned our deficit into a surplus and the economy and jobs started coming back.

Except, “hesterprynne” points out in her post, it isn’t true (bold mine):

A pretty story that neatly coincides with the Senator’s campaign platform. The only problem is that it’s not true. The state did raise taxes on income, capital gains and cigarettes in 2002, increasing revenues by $1 billion.

David, in promoting the diary, also points out that while Scott Brown appears to claim that S&P’s 2005 upgrade of Massachusetts’ credit rating had nothing to do with spending increases (since they didn’t happen according to him) but all because of the cuts, he’s wrong there too. From the op-ed:

In 2005, when S&P upgraded Massachusetts’ credit rating, it cited two key factors: reduced spending and greater budget certainty. Washington needs to do the same thing.

Funny, how that also isn’t true. In fact, that “greater budget certainty” cited had a lot to do with tax hikes (bold mine).

Gov. Mitt Romney lobbied the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s in 2004 to raise his state’s credit rating in part because Massachusetts had raised taxes during an economic downturn two years earlier.

The claim was part of a presentation to the ratings agency obtained by POLITICO under a state freedom of information law from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

(That article is interesting too, how Mitty is using this 2005 upgrade in his stump speech, but arguing for just spending cuts, when in reality the tax hikes had a lot to do with it. Oops, Mittsy!)

Anyway, is there any more proof you need that Scott Brown is an empty suit? Let’s hope the Globe isn’t shy about doing a followup, unless, you know, it wants to get the reputation of misleading its readers by allowing false information to go unchallenged by its op-ed writers. Just sayin’.

Whose pockets, Mitty? Whose?

ROMNEY: To balance our budget and not spend more than we take in, we need to make sure that the promises we make in Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are promises we can keep, and there are various ways of doing that. One is we could raise taxes on people. That’s not the way…

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Corporations!

ROMNEY: Corporations are people, my friend.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No they’re not!

ROMNEY: Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people.

AUDIENCE (laughter)

ROMNEY: Where do you think it goes?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: In their pockets!

ROMNEY: Whose pockets? People’s pockets. Okay, human beings, my friend.

No one should be defending the “corporations are people” schtick that the Supreme Court’s 100+ year old precedent claims. It, of course, led to the modern conservative court ruling in favor of Citizens United, a very unpopular ruling that has incredibly damaging effects on our democracy.

Of course, if you’re Mitt Romney, you’ve had corporate profits go into your pocket, but for the vast majority of Americans, we don’t get any or much of that slice of the pie, do we? But gutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? That doesn’t hurt anyone, does it? Way to be out of touch, Mittsy.

I also love the condescending “my friend” he puts at the end of sentences. Who’s he fooling?

Via dkos.

635. Can we safely say now that the Republicans are not serious about jobs, the economy, or anything else pertaining to solving the problems this country faces right now?

‘K, thanks.