Monday, January 30, 2012

Robert Creamer: Why Character and Core Values Could Prove Decisive in Battle for Presidency

More than most elections, the contest for President this fall is likely to be decided less on "wedge issues" - or even candidate positions that are symbolic of who is on whose side - and more on the character and core values of the candidates -- and for that matter on the question of the core values of the society we hope to leave to our children.

Last Friday, speaking to the Democratic Caucus Policy Conference, Vice-President Joe Biden told a story that speaks volumes about the character of Barack Obama.

According to Biden, the day before he ordered the raid that finally stopped Osama Bin Laden, President Obama met with his top national security advisers in the Situation Room. At the close of the meeting, he went around the room asking each person for his or her recommendation on whether to launch the risky nighttime mission.

As it went around the table, Leon Panetta recommended that the President proceed. Most of the others expressed reservations and handicapped the odds of success as only fair. Finally, the President got to Biden who said he recommended not proceeding until two additional steps were taken to enhance the odds.

Then the President stood and told his advisers he would let them know of his decision in the morning.

The next day, as Obama stepped onto his helicopter to leave on a day trip, he turned to his National Security Adviser, Tom Donilan, and issued a simple order: "let's go."

Much more was at stake in the Bin Laden mission than success or failure killing or capturing the most wanted fugitive of modern times. In some respects Obama's Presidency itself was at stake.

To quote Biden, "The President has a backbone like a ramrod."

Whether or not you like all of his policies - or all of his decisions - it's hard to argue that Barack Obama is not a tough, decisive guy - a guy who is guided by solid core principles and has a disciplined, laser-focused will. This is not a President that flip-flops in the political wind or is swayed by the last person who talks to him. Above all, Barack Obama is centered. He has a solid core built around strong core values.

America - and the rest of the world - have seen those character traits over and over again during the last four years.

They saw them when he announced his candidacy to become the first African American president of the United States - and then organized the highly disciplined, leave-no-stone-unturned campaign that elected him 2008.

They saw that same inner toughness in his - at the time unpopular -- decision that saved the American auto industry.

In early 2009, Obama simply refused to throw in the towel on health care reform, when the election of Senator Scott Brown made it appear impossible to succeed - and he won.

Later that year, Obama's force of will guaranteed the passage of Wall Street reform and the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And his willingness to just say no to Republican obstructionism last month by making a recess appointment of Richard Cordray, guaranteed that American financial institutions - for the first time - have a regulator dedicated solely to looking out for the interests of everyday consumers.

Obama has remained determined and unflappable in the face of the toughest economic and political environment in sixty years and has emerged from three years of battle ready to wage a highly organized, focused campaign this fall that will center on most fundamental question facing our society: whether we will have a nation where we look out for each other, and have each other's back - or a society where we are all in this alone.

Obama intends to make this campaign a battle over core values - a choice between a society where we are all responsible for our future, and for each other - or a society where selfishness is our highest value - where "greed is good." His campaign will frame the choice before America as whether we have a government dedicated to defending privilege - or one whose mission is giving everyone a fair shot, a fair share, and a guarantee that we all have to play by the same set of rules. His campaign will be about reigniting the values that underlie the American Dream and the hopes of the middle class and all of those who aspire to it. It will be about restoring fairness and opportunity and hope.

Contrast that kind of President - and that kind of campaign - with Obama's likely opponent, Mitt Romney.

Right after the 2004 election I was riding in a New Jersey taxicab. The driver was a typical male New Jersey cabbie. "So what do you think of Corzine?" I asked." "Oh, Corzine, tough guy. Like him," he replied about the then-Senator.

"What do you think of Bush?" I said. "Like him too. Tough guy. Stands up for what he believes," came the answer.

"How about Hillary Clinton?" I asked. "Tough gal. Like her," he said.

"What about Kerry?" I asked. "Kerry? Can't stand him. Flip-flopper--a phony."

Ideology, policy positions - none of that mattered to this cabdriver who liked Corzine, Clinton and Bush. He wanted a tough, committed leader. But the Republicans had convinced him of its central message - "John Kerry is a flip-flopper--a phony."

Bush strategist Karl Rove had sold that version of Kerry - a Senator who in fact has strong core values - largely because of his tendency to "Senate-speak." He also realized that Kerry's vote for the Iraq War, and then against continued funding in 2004, could be portrayed as the symbolically powerful flip-flop. The icing on the cake was Kerry's explanation of the 2004 vote: "I voted for it before I voted against it." Rove illustrated his flip-flop message with an iconic commercial that featured pictures of Kerry windsurfing and tacking one way and then another.

Kerry's perceived lack of core values was the factor that, more than any other, led to George Bush's second term as president.

Voters want leaders who believe in something other than their own election. Quite correctly they want leaders with a strong moral center. They want leaders who make and keep commitments to their principles and to other people. And they want to know that the candidates they support are the leaders they will get after the election - not, as John Huntsman said of Romney, "a well-oiled weathervane".

Romney has never seen a position he couldn't change if he determined it would be to his advantage to do so. He thinks of politics as a business marketing project, where you say what you think you need to in order to maximize sales. Romney doesn't think of voters as citizens to be engaged - he thinks of them as customers to be manipulated.

As Massachusetts Governor, Romney was pro-choice - now he is anti-choice.

Romney was the author of the Massachusetts health care plan that in many respects served as the model for Obama's own health care plan. Now he wants to repeal "Obamacare."

Romney once refused to sign the "no new tax pledge." Now he has signed the "no new tax pledge."

Romney favored extension of the assault weapons ban. Now he opposes extension of the assault weapon ban.

Once he said the TARP "was the right thing to do." Now he says he opposed it.

Right after the economy collapsed he said he favored an economic stimulus program; now he says he opposed the stimulus bill.

Once Romney said he believed that human activity contributed to global warming; now he says he doesn't think we know what causes global warming.

One day he was emphatically neutral on Ohio Governor Kasich's union-busting legislation - that was ultimately "vetoed" by the Ohio voters. The next day he one hundred percent supported that legislation.

Romney is a guy who, when called on his flip-flops and inconsistencies, said: "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake."

The reason Romney is having such a difficult time making the sale in the Republican primary contest is that many Republicans don't think he has strong core beliefs, don't trust him and think he's a phony.

Wait until he has to convince swing voters that he's anything more than a "vulture capitalist" who will say anything and do anything to make the biggest deal of his life -- the "acquisition" of the government of the United States of America.

But, you say, maybe he will flip-flop back into a more "moderate" Mitt Romney if he becomes President. Don't bet on it. People who have no core values will sell their services to the highest bidder. Romney's Presidency has already been sold lock, stock and barrel to the big Wall Street banks, the CEO class, the multi-millionaires who are behind his SuperPac and the Republican Establishment that have financed his campaign.

In fact, throughout his career, Mitt Romney has demonstrated that his only "core value" is his own financial and political success. In Romney's view, both in politics and in business, every other belief or commitment can be thrown overboard if it weighs him down in his quest for success. And that goes for the people and communities that were impacted by the "creative destruction" of his corporate takeovers and leveraged buyouts at Bain Capital. To him, they were apparently nothing more than "collateral damage."

In the end, it is likely that the ultimate irony of the Romney campaign will be that his own willingness to toss aside positions and values that might at one time or another have appeared inconvenient, will ultimately weigh him down more than anything else.


Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. He is a partner in Democracy Partners and a Senior Strategist for Americans United for Change. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.

?

?

?

Follow Robert Creamer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rbcreamer

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/why-character-and-core-va_b_1240694.html

colorado avalanche bass lake michael jackson kids michael jackson kids father of the bride father of the bride bluebeard

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Chris Brown to Perform at Grammys


Chris Brown will perform at the Grammy Awards next month, E! reports. It will be his first appearance at the annual show since 2009, when ... you know.

The singer, whose career has rebounded nicely despite some memorable flare-ups, is up for three awards this year, so his appearance isn't too surprising.

Plans for his performance are still being worked out, so details are lacking at the moment. Meanwhile, his ex Rihanna will perform with Coldplay.

Breezy Live

Chris Brown and Rihanna have been the subject of great speculation lately, most recently after they partied together (but separately) in W. Hollywood.

The two are said to be on good terms now, and even hooking up ... but they kept their distance last week. Brown was there with GF Karrueche Tran.

The Grammy Awards will be hosted by NCIS: LA star LL Cool J and telecast live on CBS from Los Angeles' Staples Center on Sunday, February 12.

Also set to perform are Jason Aldean, Kelly Clarkson, Foo Fighters, Bruno Mars, Paul McCartney, the Band Perry, Nicki Minaj, Taylor Swift and more.

[Photo: WENN.com]

Source: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/01/chris-brown-to-perform-at-grammys/

matt moore matt moore national grid day light savings time 2011 hocus pocus hocus pocus bj penn

Saturday, January 28, 2012

93% Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol

All Critics (191) | Top Critics (36) | Fresh (178) | Rotten (13)

Brad Bird passe his audition for a career as a live-action director. And "Ghost Protocol" more than makes its bones as an argument for why Tom Cruise should continue in this role as long as his knees, and his nerves, hold up.

Brad Bird passes his audition for a career as a live-action director. And "Ghost Protocol" more than makes its bones as an argument for why Tom Cruise should continue in this role as long as his knees, and his nerves, hold up.

"Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol" is sheer hurtling mechanism-and it's great silly fun.

As usual with the series, the movie combines a plot line a toddler could understand with gadgets that would baffle an engineering Ph.D.

I'm thinking it, so I might as well say it: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is no Fast Five.

...it's pretty much state-of-the-art.

... a good-size barrel of fun.

still does not have the hang of what made the TV show so good.

Cruises on the WOW! factor.

Snagging Oscar-winning animation director Brad Bird to fill the director's chair proves to be an inspired choice--and, upon thought, a bit of a no-brainer.

The screenplay doesn't rely too much on gimmicks to advance the plot. Instead, the plot is also character-driven to an extent. There are interesting dynamics going on in the Mission Impossible team.

Director Brad Bird juices and gooses the whole affair with edge and excitement, new energy, humor and heartbeat, and a terrific feel for big, bold, audaciously daring sequences that beg for the biggest screen available.

Great stunts and not a dull moment,

Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol could very well be the series' best installment.

It has a few very good ideas, and then, the rest of it is totally lackluster.

Watching Tom leap from a hospital window on to a passing truck, I couldn't help but worry: Tom, those knees won't last forever.

Succeeds in dishing up exactly what you would expect: State of the arts stunts, non-stop action, and a series of clearly laid-out heists and chases that go awry in all kinds of creative ways.

Bird manages the escalations from the preposterous through the more preposterous to the most preposterous with skill and wit...

...great cinematic entertainment.

Better than the tower climb is the scene in which Hunt infiltrates the Kremlin with, essentially, a high-tech magic trick; the playfulness of the effect demonstrates the usefulness of Bird's background in the astonish-the-audience culture of animation.

So exciting you have to remind yourself to breathe.

Ghost pulls off the impossible.

Film number four has found its optimum screen display, its best director for the job and its sense of humour while increasing the gadgets and death-defying stunts.

More Critic Reviews

Source: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mission_impossible_ghost_protocol/

mcqueary mike mcqueary joe paterno fired joe paterno fired glen campbell matt nathanson matt nathanson

Obama to spell out plan to target universities that don't control rising tuition costs (Star Tribune)

Share With Friends: Share on FacebookTweet ThisPost to Google-BuzzSend on GmailPost to Linked-InSubscribe to This Feed | Rss To Twitter | Politics - Top Stories News, RSS and RSS Feed via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/192202278?client_source=feed&format=rss

dressage byu football byu football delonte west bank of america black eyed peas central park occupy wallstreet

RBS chief's taxper-funded bonus angers Britons (AP)

LONDON ? The chief executive of the part-nationalized Royal Bank of Scotland PLC will get a bonus worth about 963,000 pounds ($1.51 million), the bank announced Thursday, drawing the ire of many Britons and reviving questions over whether top finance figures are rewarded for failure.

Bonuses at RBS are particularly sensitive because British taxpayers took an 83 percent stake in the bank following a disastrous acquisition binge which saddled the company with billions' worth of rotten debt. Stephen Hester wasn't in charge when the bank nearly went bust, but he's been lavishly compensated by the taxpayer at a time when the bank is still struggling to reverse its fortunes.

RBS made a net profit of 1.2 billion pounds in the third quarter of last year but its share price has slumped and it has shed thousands of jobs.

The mass-market Daily Mail described the bonus as a million-pound "REWARD FOR FAILURE" on the front page of the paper's Friday edition, made available to journalists late Thursday.

Britain's opposition Labour Party agreed, saying in a statement that "anyone who thinks it is acceptable to award a bonus of almost 1 million pounds on top of a basic salary of 1.2 million pounds in these tough times is desperately out of touch with millions of people who are struggling to make ends meet."

Britain's Unite union said the bonus was "disgusting and offensive."

The massive awards executives give themselves ? even when their companies do badly ? has long been an embarrassment for both political parties, particularly when it happens at banks which had to be bailed out to the tune of several tens of billions of pounds in the wake of the credit crunch.

Last year Hester accepted a roughly 2 million pound bonus after his company reported a 1.1 billion pound loss for 2010, although that figure was an improvement on the catastrophic losses suffered by the bank in previous years.

Hester's bonus may have fallen by just over half, but it is still more than 36 times a Briton's average annual wage.

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/europe/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20120126/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_britain_rbs

preamble preamble constitution constitution james carville james carville rimm

Friday, January 27, 2012

Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie Want To Get Married?

Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie Want To Get Married?

Brad Pitt and his partner of seven years, actress Angelina Jolie, have had a change of heart about marriage. The Hollywood couple previously said they [...]

Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie Want To Get Married? Stupid Celebrities Gossip Stupid Celebrities Gossip News


Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/stupidcelebrities/~3/j62NxFqEhRE/

macys stratfor bears vs packers after christmas sales 2011 tyson chandler tyson chandler best ipad apps

Nadal tops Federer in Australian Open semifinal

Rafael Nadal of Spain celebrates after defeating Roger Federer of Switzerland during their semifinal at the Australian Open tennis championship, in Melbourne, Australia, Thursday, Jan. 26, 2012.(AP Photo/Aaron Favila)

Rafael Nadal of Spain celebrates after defeating Roger Federer of Switzerland during their semifinal at the Australian Open tennis championship, in Melbourne, Australia, Thursday, Jan. 26, 2012.(AP Photo/Aaron Favila)

Spain's Rafael Nadal, left, celebrates a point win against Switzerland's Roger Federer during their semifinal at the Australian Open tennis championship, in Melbourne, Australia, Thursday, Jan. 26, 2012. (AP Photo/Joe Castro,Pool)

Spain's Rafael Nadal signs autographs after defeating Switzerland's Roger Federer in their semifinal at the Australian Open tennis championship, in Melbourne, Australia, Thursday, Jan. 26, 2012. (AP Photo/Sarah Ivey)

Rafael Nadal of Spain celebrates after winning his match against Roger Federer of Switzerland in the mens semifinal match at the Australian Open tennis tournament in Melbourne, Thursday, Jan. 26, 2012. (AP Photo/Sarah Ivey)

Roger Federer of Switzerland walks off Rod Laver Arena after his loss to Rafael Nadal of Spain during their semifinal at the Australian Open tennis championship, in Melbourne, Australia, Thursday, Jan. 26, 2012. (AP Photo/Andrew Brownbill)

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) ? Rafael Nadal outlasted Roger Federer 6-7 (5), 6-2, 7-6 (5), 6-4 in an Australian Open semifinal on Thursday night, the longtime rivals playing with the intensity normally displayed when meeting in a Grand Slam final.

The stars who met in eight Grand Slam finals were on the same side of the draw for the first time at a major since 2005.

Two weeks ago, Nadal injured his right knee and wasn't sure he'd be able to start the tournament. Now, he can barely believe he's in the final.

"If you tell me that two Sundays ago, I really cannot imagine," Nadal said. "For me, it's a dream to be back in a final of the Australian Open."

Nadal will have the opportunity to win another championship on Sunday night when the Spanish left-hander plays the winner of the semifinal Friday between defending champion Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray.

Earlier Thursday, Maria Sharapova overcame Petra Kvitova to advance to the women's final against Victoria Azarenka. Sharapova broke Kvitova's serve in the last game to finish off a 6-2, 3-6, 6-4 victory and the third-seeded Azarenka beat defending champion Kim Clijsters 6-4, 1-6, 6-3 to set up a Saturday night final at Rod Laver Arena that will decide the No. 1 ranking.

Nadal, who holds a 6-2 edge in Grand Slam finals against Federer, made the key service break in the ninth game of the fourth set, making an incredible cross-court forehand winner from well behind the baseline, then watching as Federer hit a backhand wide to give Nadal a 5-4 lead.

Serving for the match, Nadal moved two points away from the win when Federer sent a backhand long. He won on his second match point when Federer floated a forehand long.

At the end, Nadal smashed a ball up high in the stadium, almost clearing the roof. He then applauded along with the crowd when Federer walked off.

The 25-year-old Spaniard won the 2009 Australian title but lost in the quarterfinals in his next two trips to Melbourne Park. Federer hasn't added to his record 16 Grand Slam titles since he won the 2010 Australian Open.

"I thought Rafa played well from start to finish," Federer said. "It was a tough match physically as well. I'm disappointed, but it's only the beginning of the season. I'm feeling all right, so it's OK."

When the often enthralling play was suspended for 10 minutes late in the second set for an Australian Day fireworks display, Federer seemed to be affected most. Nadal led 5-2 at the time, and Federer lost his serve in the next game to give the Spaniard the set. In all, the Swiss dropped 11 points in a row.

"It's tough, it's not helpful, that's for sure," Federer said of the break for the fireworks. "They told us before, so it was no surprise. But I knew it was a lot of points in a row that I lost."

The capacity, 15,000-strong crowd was evenly split in its support, with the names seeming to blur after the R in rival chants.

Each time somebody called out for Rafa, it was met by a response for Roger. The cheers were just as loud for Nadal's scrambling, sometimes astonishing, passing shots as for Federer's deft winners.

With the players on serve in the second set, Nadal went so far wide on a Federer return that he was near the side wall of the arena. Incredibly, he stretched wide and returned the ball crosscourt for a winner. That set up three break points and Nadal clinched the game to take a 4-2 lead in the second set.

Federer saved a set point in the 11th game of the third set that eventually forced a tiebreaker. But Federer made three unforced errors in the tiebreaker to give Nadal a 6-1 lead, and the Spaniard eventually clinched the set on his last opportunity of five set points.

"Please win the point, that's all," Nadal recalled when asked what he was telling himself at 6-5 in the tiebreaker. "I was very, very nervous at that moment. Losing four set points in a row is tough, especially when you play the toughest in history."

Both players were asked if they bring out the best in each other.

"I don't know if it's true ... it's my assumption," Federer said. "I feel he plays really good against me. He's also got a winning record against me which maybe gives him extra confidence. I think he has a clear plan and he follows that one very well."

Nadal said that's not the case.

"I don't play my best tennis because it's Roger in front, I play my best tennis because I am ready to play my best tennis," Nadal said. "It's true I played a lot of good matches against him during my career ... but I believe that he played a few fantastic matches against me, too."

Clijsters was in the crowd, only hours after her title defense ended. And Ivan Lendl was at Rod Laver Arena for a second night, scouting opponents again as Murray's coach. So were former Australian greats Laver, Ken Rosewall and Pat Rafter.

Sharapova lost to second-ranked Kvitova in the Wimbledon final last year, her first major final since returning from an injury layoff following a shoulder operation in 2008. She has won three majors, but none since the 2008 Australian Open.

"In the third set, I felt she always had the advantage because I was always down on my serve," said Sharapova, who served five double-faults in the third set and 10 in the match. "I just told myself 'You just gotta go for it, don't let her finish off the points like she likes to.'"

Azarenka won the first semifinal after twice recovering from periods when a resurgent Clijsters seemed to have the upper hand, to secure victory in only her second appearance in a major semifinal.

"I felt like my hand is about 200 kilograms and my body is about 1,000 and everything is shaking, but that feeling when you finally win is such a relief. My God, I cannot believe it's over. I just want to cry," Azarenka said as she choked back tears, then buried her face in a towel.

Clijsters is popular in Australia, where she's widely known as "Aussie Kim" after dating Lleyton Hewitt years ago. She had most of the backing from the crowd on the national holiday in what is likely to be her last Australian Open.

Azarenka held her nerve despite the crowd and playing against a proven big-match player. Clijsters has won four majors and has defended a Grand Slam title ? winning the U.S. Open in 2009 and '10. To reach the semifinals, the Belgian saved four match points despite a sprained ankle to beat French Open champion Li Na in the fourth round and beat top-ranked Caroline Wozniacki in the quarterfinals.

"I guess before you all thought I was a mental case," Azarenka said in a courtside interview. "I was just young and emotional. I'm really glad the way I fight, that's the most thing I'm really proud of. I fight for every ball."

Wozniacki will vacate top spot in next week's rankings after her quarterfinal loss, leaving either No. 3 Azarenka and No. 4 Sharapova a chance to move to the top.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2012-01-26-TEN-Australian-Open/id-3e4708f8494a473ca2744f5316f47418

jason campbell android ice cream sandwich shia labeouf teleprompter ashley greene mukesh ambani mukesh ambani