President Obama: Don't Blame "Both Sides" for Fiscal Cliff

source: RawStory
Here's the President on Meet the Press today schooling David Gregory on why the press needs to give up the false equivalency meme. And I really loved that Obama used the phrase "country first" to describe his plans, since that was the McCain/Palin slogan in 2008. Ha.

The only thing I would caution against, David, is I think this notion of, "Well, both sides are just kind of unwilling to cooperate." And that's just not true. I mean if you look at the facts, what you have is a situation here where the Democratic Party, warts and all, and certainly me, warts and all, have consistently done our best to try to put country first.

And to try to work with everybody involved to make sure that we've got an economy [that] grows. Make sure that it works for everybody. Make sure that we're keeping the country safe. And does the Democratic Party still have some knee-jerk ideological positions and are there some folks in the Democratic Party who sometimes aren't reasonable? Of course. That's true of every political party.

But generally if you look at how I've tried to govern over the last four years and how I'll continue to try to govern, I'm not driven by some ideological agenda. I am a pretty practical guy. And I just want to make sure that things work. And one of the nice things about never having another election again, I will never campaign again, is I think you can rest assured that all I care about is making sure that I leave behind an America that is stronger, more prosperous, more stable, more secure than it was when I came into office.

More of the Transcript Here on PolicyMic

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

Palestinians are "Those People" to Romney

We would think that Mitt Romney could hide his class consciousness for just a little while on a foreign policy trip in the most volatile area of the world.

Nahhhhh . . . he just can't do it. His sense of "us" versus "them" is just too ingrained. There's always the "in group" and the "out group," very cut and dried to him, as when he attacked another student with long hair who "didn't look right" in his old school. I'm sure this comes from his wealthy upbringing, and perhaps his sense of moral righteousness as a Mormon. He seems to believe, and it is shared with many Evangelicals, that the Jewish state is so important to the fulfilling of some Biblical prophecy that they should get whatever they want. And Palestine is in the way of that prophecy, so they don't matter.  Therefore, Romney feels he can diss the Palestinians in favor of his rich Jewish donors and God will smile down on him and make him President of the United States. *gag*

Here is the worst part of his Jerusalem speech, in which is compares the West Bank to Mexico.

As you come here and you see the GDP [gross domestic product] per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality." Mr. Romney told a group of donors gathered at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. He added: "And that is also between other countries that are near or next to each other: Chile and Ecuador, Mexico and the United States

But wait, is Mexico an occupied country? They have problems, yes, but mostly of their own making. No one is bombing Mexico or keeping citizens from looking for jobs in Mexico City.

And then after bringing up this volatile issue in his Israeli speech, today Romney told CNN that "the issue of settlements is something which should be discussed in private by the American president and our allies."

Okay, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?  Romney once again mentions that "quiet room" he referenced once before when, not surprisingly, he was discussing inequality between two groups - rich and poor Americans. I think these are code words - "private" and "quiet" - that show he is embarrassed by inequality and injustice, but the rich just don't speak of such things, else they might have to feel guilty about their vast wealth, and that is an unacceptable idea.  He doesn't have much empathy for those "beneath" his status, but maybe he has learned over the years that he lacks that human feeling that would connect him as a human. This is why some refer to him as "Romneybot" - something is missing in the emotional intelligence department.

January 2012, from the Matt Lauer Today Show Interview:

I think it's about envy," Romney replied. "I think it's about class warfare. I think when you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent vs. 1 percent, and those people who've been most successful will be in the 1 percent, you've opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.

. . . Lauer asked, "Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?"

"You know I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms," Romney said. "But the president has made this part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It's a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach."

If Romney likes the "quiet room" approach so much, why is out there at the Wailing Wall making speeches about Israel without once mentioning the plight of Palestine? Why is it "class warfare" when Obama points out inequality, but off-limits to question when Romney compares the Palestinians and the Israelis?

Is he implying that all the problems of the Middle East are economic, and that perhaps the Palestinians are just envious? That's the way Romney's mind seems to work, with money and privilege being the only goals people aspire to in his private world.  What about just having enough to take care of your children? What about keeping your ancestral land?

He loves to invoke all that weight of the Holy Bible, plus the Book of Mormon in a roundabout way, but forgets that the Palestinians are vastly more connected to Jerusalem than his mythical Lost Tribe of Israel here in the United States.  I think most people who comment on Romney are missing that crucial point - Romney thinks he and his wife have more "divine right" to be there in Jerusalem than a people who have lived there for thousands of years.

Romney is just way out of his depth on the international stage, and sounds more like Sarah *doofus* Palin every day.

The White House had this to say through Deputy Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, via MSNBC:

"One of the challenges of being an actor on the international stage, particularly when you’re traveling to such a sensitive part of the world, is that your comments are very closely scrutinized for meaning, for nuance, for motivation," Earnest said, adding, "and it is clear that there are some people who have taken a look at those comments and are scratching their heads a little bit.”
When pressed, Earnest stopped short of elaborating on the larger implications of Romney’s comments.
“I would leave it to Gov. Romney to explain them, to the extent that there’s some measure of confusion."

You can say that again! Confusion reigns, although spokesperson Andrea Saul says Romney's words "grossly mischaracterized" although it's difficult to see just how Romney was misunderstood. Perhaps if the Romney advisers were doing a better job of helping their guy choose his words more carefully, and avoid all these racist dog whistles, everything would make more sense.

Mr. Romney, please go into a "quiet room" and think about it!

Wall Street Journal: Romney Irks Palestinians

Mr. Romney's figures Monday were inaccurate and underestimated the actual GDP gap between the economies. Per capita GDP stood at $31,400 for Israel last year, while Palestinians' per capita GDP was $1,500 in 2010, according to an April 2012 World Bank report, which attributed the figure to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.

Palestinians also rejected the comparison as inappropriate, pointing out their lack of sovereignty and the limitations enforced by Israeli military authorities.

"If he checked his facts, he would know why the Palestinians actually have to build an economy when they have no freedom of movement, no human rights, no fundamental freedoms," said Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator and a top official in the Palestine Liberation Organization. "We can't even control our natural resources, including our human resources; and then he compares us to our occupiers?"

Cory Booker ~ Democratic Concern Troll

Obama surrogate Cory Booker went on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday and did his best impression of Reince Priebus from the conservative side, insisting that Romney's company Bain Capital existed help the common people and even unions, if you can believe that. And it just went downhill from there, as he stated that Obama shouldn't "indict private equity," and then took false equivalency to new heights when he compared Obama's repudiation of Bain with the dredging up of Reverend Jeremiah Wright by the Republicans.

Mayor Booker: . . . I have to say from a very personal level I'm not about to sit here and indict private equity. To me, it's just, we're getting to a ridiculous point in America. Especially, I know, I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses, and this to me, I'm very uncomfortable with.
. . . This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough! Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop because what it does is it undermines to me what this country should be focused on. It's a distraction from the real issues. It's either going to be a small campaign about this crap, or it's going to be a big campaign in my opinion about the issues the public cares about.

Twitter and Other Reactions at Snark Amendment
After attacks on his Facebook and in the Media, Booker made it worse by trying to apologize on YouTube with a true Etch-A-Sketch moment:


Seriously? And this guy is supposed to be a Democrat? Oh wait - maybe he really isn't one. To me, Booker sounds like a guy on the fence, who might rather be a Republican if he didn't have to play up to his own constituency of Democrats back in Newark, NJ. Otherwise, why would he be spouting Republican Talking Points when he was the only Democrat on Meet the Press that day?

Anyone who reads a lot of politics on the Interwebs has seen this type of behavior before. It's usually done by vastly irritating people known as "Concern Trolls" who penetrate a discussion just so they can pretend to be the voice of reason, when really they seek to overturn one side or another. Such a person might be pretending to be on one side when really they are on the other, or worse, on the fence and loving it there with a board up their rear end. It never seems to occur to such people that they sound like a scolding nanny, or worse, they seem to lack any convictions of their own beyond steering the discussion or kissing up to one side or another.

From Wisegeek: What is Concern Trolling?

Concern trolling is a form of Internet trolling in which someone enters a discussion with claims that he or she supports the view of the discussion, but has concerns. In fact, the concern troll is opposed to the view of the discussion, and he or she uses concern trolling to sow doubt and dissent in the community of commenters or posters. Although this practice originated on the Internet, it has since spread to the real world as well, with concern trolls popping up in a variety of places from network television to op-ed columns.
. . . When a concern troll has done the job correctly, the discussion will split, factions will emerge, and support for the cause will have eroded. Concern trolling can also be highly distracting, as people band together to oppose the concern troll, rather than discussing serious issues, including valid concerns which should be addressed.
. . . When these cases are exposed, it can be quite embarrassing, as trolling is generally viewed as an underhanded and often questionable tactic.

Exactly - we should question Booker's motives. To me what Booker did is no better than Romney's etch-a-sketch weaseling. The only result has been a "with me or against me" discussion about Booker himself, and while he tries to sound so reasonable, he also doesn't sound like much of a Democrat. This year of all years, with so much at stake, Democrats cannot afford to be on the fence. Certainly no Concern Troll should ever be the spokesperson for a Presidential campaign - it's like having a fox in the hen house, and the end result is a bunch of squawking and feathers flying and nothing good at all. Which is why Mr. Booker needs to go back to New Jersey, where he can be Chris Christie's lapdog, and shut up until November is over.