Unfortunate Accident

Last month, we witnessed what happened when some "open carry advocates" decided to pack the wrong kind of heat at Chipotle. Then, we saw armed madness erupt at Chili's and Sonic. But now, Open Carry Texas has fallen to a new low.

And what might that new low be? Oh, their Fort Worth group harassed a Marine veteran. And not only that, but they chased down James Henry on a city street. And they were doing so while brandishing assault weapons in an urban neighborhood on Memorial Day... Just 3 days after the Isla Vista massacre.



Perhaps sensing the negative publicity this was causing "the cause", the NRA actually criticized the Open Carry Texas groups that have been packing heat on the street. However, keep in mind that the NRA only criticized Open Carry Texas' tactics, not Open Carry Texas' policy goals. After all, they share the same policy goals.

That's because the NRA shares the same radical agenda as the open carry radicals. That's because a group of radicals took control of the NRA in the 1970s and changed its mission over time from one of promoting gun safety to one of prioritizing gun industry profits over all else (even people's lives). The NRA is still promoting this radical agenda. It just doesn't want the kind of public backlash that Open Carry Texas is now experiencing.



Funny enough, 85% of Texans support stronger and universal background checks for gun purchases. This is in line with the numbers we've seen for Nevada and the rest of the nation. Even the US House approved additional funding for the background checks system.

For the record, Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) voted for the additional funding. However, Rep. Heck continues to reject legislation to make that funding go further by closing the loopholes that allow criminals to obtain lethal firearms. Rather, he and his fellow Nevada Republicans remain proud of the fact that they were what stood in the way between us and better gun safety laws.



Last week, a Republican running for US Senate in Iowa described the Isla Vista massacre as an "unfortunate accident". Joni Ernst's fellow Republicans were then quick to criticize... Those who criticized her characterization of this tragedy as merely an "unfortunate accident".

As is the case in this era of "Republican rebranding", G-O-TEA "gun enthusiasts" have occasionally criticized wording, "framing", and "lighting". They're working hard to "change the optics". But when it comes to the policy they're celebrating, they refuse to stop celebrating that. Why let some "unfortunate accident" get in the way of "gun enthusiasm"? Just make sure not to carry an assault weapon into "the wrong restaurant" or make "the wrong comments" about the next mass shooting.

Game Change?

Well, today looks to be quite the exciting day. On the G-O-TEA side, Rick Perry dropped out...



And Mitt Romney didn't really win Iowa, after all!

The Iowa state GOP says their certified results show Rick Santorum winning by a 34-vote margin over Mitt Romney, a reversal of Romney’s reported caucus night lead of 8 votes — but the party has nevertheless called the result a “split decision,” citing the matter of 8 missing precincts. But those precincts aren’t really missing. [...]

[...T]he results that were reported on caucus night by the state GOP are still online. And for those precincts, we can get an idea of how Santorum and Romney performed against each other. Of course, we should remain aware that there still could be a typo in these numbers — but on the other hand, the probabilities strongly favor them being accurate for both Santorum and Romney, as errors that do occur (if at all) could have been spread across the other candidates, as well.

And as it turns out, when incorporating the numbers from election night, Santorum’s lead actually becomes even wider. [...]

In those precincts, based on the reported caucus night results, Santorum received a total of 81 votes, to Romney’s 46.

If those results are added to the certified results, Santorum’s 29,839 votes would become 29,920, and Romney’ 29,805 would become 29,851 — for a “final” result of Santorum winning the caucuses, by a margin of 69 votes.

They don't like Mittens... They really don't like him. And with Perry bowing out to endorse Newt Gingrich and Romney's "dazzling Iowa win!!!" officially taken away from him, perhaps South Carolina will provide fireworks, after all...

But Nevada's G-O-TEA Caucus still looks to arrive like a dud. Now that Perry's out, Brian Sandoval's endorsement doesn't seem to be worth a hill of beans. And funny enough, the big candidate appearance that everyone is now talking about... Is President Obama's.

President Barack Obama will visit Las Vegas next week, on a five-stop swing through the West and Midwest.

Obama will be arriving in Las Vegas on Wednesday, Jan. 25 and stay overnight, departing on Thursday, Jan. 26. No further details about the trip were immediately available, except that the president’s visit — like Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Reno’s Galena High School on Thursday to talk about college affordability — is official White House business.

The two trips bookend the Nevada Democratic Caucuses this Saturday. While the vice president and president’s stops in the Silver State are not officially part of the 2012 reelection campaign effort, the high-profile visits are likely to drum up Democratic enthusiasm just before the Republican presidential field arrives in Nevada for the GOP caucuses on Feb. 4.

Oh, and this will be just a week after Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Reno today.

Add all this together, and the big picture looks far less rosy for Mittens. He didn't win the Iowa Caucus, he still may not win the South Carolina Primary, and a Nevada Caucus win still won't mean anything. He still has a tough primary schedule ahead to tackle, and his general election numbers are still lousy. So how again is Mittens "the winner"?

Is It Over Just Yet?

Mitt Romney may be trying hard to crown himself as "the chosen one", but it may really not be over just yet. Rick Santorum is now hiring Nevada staff, and he's making noise about staying in the race for more primary and caucus contests to come. I guess that's why he's turning up the TEA-nuttery in New Hampshire and repeating the odious radical right lie about how much the working poor pay in taxes (and staying mum on how little big multinational corporations pay).



But wait, isn't Mitt "the establishment pick" with all the money and all the resources to lock this up and do so quickly? Perhaps so, but the G-O-TEA base won't let him.

Romney, who is expected to win in New Hampshire, still remains the leading candidate — but not a candidate with groundswell support from Republicans, said Eric Herzik, the chairman of the political science department at the University of Nevada, Reno.

“I’m not the only person saying this, but he (Romney) started the race (in Iowa) with 25 percent of the vote, and he ended the race with 25 percent of the vote,” said Herzik, a registered Republican. “That says Republicans have not warmed up to Mitt. And that is why Santorum is the next and probably last of the great evangelical conservative challengers.”

The fractured vote in Iowa showed that the Republican Party has issues, Herzik said.

“This is a party that is split among social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and those with antigovernment feelings, so the message of the Republican Party is not clear coming out of Iowa,” he said.

Unfortunately for Romney, Herzik is right. The G-O-TEA base is just not that into Mittens. No matter how hard his campaign tries to spin it into something else, that's what the Iowa results revealed.

How else could a candidate like former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who nearly beat the alleged frontrunner Romney in Iowa, actually compete after being in the single digits at the beginning of December? Voters have to really know they don’t want the conventional pick if they’ll go with someone who they really just heard about in the last few weeks of campaigning, even if Santorum did commit to retail politicking in the state.

The main idea seems to be that the GOP fractioning seen over the life of the Obama administration, from the real beginnings of the Tea Party movement, is really showing. If the same percentage of Republicans would be enthusiastic about Paul as they would be about Romney, then the field has reached a sort of ideological parity within the party — the proponents of the conventional choice no longer outnumber the rabble rousers. Of course, the idea would be to find a candidate that can unite the two, but as 2012 has shown, that candidate isn’t in the running.

And already, the same looks to be emerging in New Hampshire as well.

The "enthusiasm gap" has returned... But this time, it's the Republican Party that's suffering from it. They're still wrestling over what to do about Mitt. They know he's the "favorite son" of the Wall Street elite, but they also know he's hiding some deep, dark secrets in his tax returns that could come back to bite all of them later this fall. Oh, and there's that little "vulture capitalist" firm by the name of Bain Capital.

Bain Capital has been responsible for thousands of layoffs at companies it bankrupted, such as American Pad & Paper, Dade International, and LIVE Entertainment, which Romney’s stat completely leaves out. He’s also taking credit for jobs created long after he left the firm to launch his political career. To sum it up, the stat Romney uses [to claim he's a "job creator"] is incredibly dishonest, like much of his jobs rhetoric.

One of Romney’s Bain business partners has said that he “never thought of what I do for a living as job creation.” “The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors,” he added. And Bain has certainly done that, maximizing earnings “by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits.” Due to a lucrative retirement deal, Romney is still making millions from Bain, as he goes across the country calling himself “middle class” and joking about being “unemployed.”

Despite Rick Santorum's constant attacks on the 99%, he's now seen by conservatives as "the blue collar guy" who's more relatable to "Middle America" than that white-collar, coastal, Bain Capital elitist. And that's telling. I guess some of these Republicans are starting to publicly admit they will have a major image problem if Romney emerges as their nominee. In an election when not just the nebulous, overarching theme of "the economy", but also the specific worries about income inequality and the slow decay of America's middle class, will be front and center, it just won't look right for the Republican nominee to be boasting of how much money he made while laying off American workers and shipping their jobs overseas.

One big mistake I've noticed in most "mainstream media" coverage of the Republican primary is the dismissal of Rick Santorum as a "One Issue Wonder" who's only claim to fame/infamy is his extreme religious right zeal. Now yes, that really is a big part of who he is as a politician. However, don't "misunderestimate" Santorum's ability to cut through the cultural divide on the right and appeal to those G-O-TEA "culture warriors" looking not just for someone who hates women and gays and people of color, but also someone who seems "populist" and in touch with them (even if Santorum's actual economic policies are just as pro-Wall Street-elite as Romney's). And no matter what ultimately happens to Santorum in the coming weeks, Romney's "99% problem" isn't going away any time soon.

Sorry, Mittens. It Ain't Over 'til It's Over.

So Mitt Romney won... By eight votes??!! And we're supposed to crown him "inevitable"? He's the big "winner", even though he only mustered the same support he got in Iowa four years ago?

Take a look at this map, then look at this map... And then, look at the exit poll. Looking at what happened in Iowa yesterday, it's looking increasingly clear that the Republican Party is a house divided against itself. As much as Mitt Romney is trying to ignore the battle on his own turf, the Iowa results prove that he really can't.

Is that why he has to resort to using deranged TEA-nut extremists as his campaign surrogates? And is that why Romney won't acknowledge the reality that continues to stare at him?

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

And is that why he has to resort to lying about President Obama?

First, there’s no comparison between President Obama’s rescue of the American automotive industry and Romney orchestrating leveraged buyouts at his vulture-capitalist firm. Obama wasn’t trying to profit; Romney was trying to make himself and his investors rich.

Second, Romney now claims to have created “over 100,000 jobs” at his vulture-capitalist firm, but he appears to have made this number up out of whole cloth. Keep in mind, just a few weeks ago, when Romney’s Super PAC ran an ad claiming he “helped create thousands of jobs” as CEO at Bain, Super PAC officials were asked to back that up with evidence. They refused. Fact-checkers haven’t been able to substantiate the claim in any way.

Third, Romney seems eager to boast about his record in Massachusetts, but that’s a mistake. His administration’s record on job creation was “one of the worst in the country,” ranking 47th out of 50 states in job growth. It’s one of the reasons Romney left office after one term deeply unpopular, and why his former constituents don’t want him near the White House.

I guess he just can't run on his own record.

Of course, Romney has tried to spin his private sector role as that of a “job creator.” But a closer look at Bain’s modus operandi reveals that firm spent a lot of time laying off company employees rather than hiring them — all while turning a profit. More than 20 years ago, Bain — with Romney at the helm — opened a new plant in Gaffney, South Carolina with the promise of “highly anticipated manufacturing jobs,” only to shut down that plant four years later, laying off 150 workers while making millions [...]

“In the real world, some things don’t make it,” Romney offered as an explanation for the layoffs he had overseen as Bain’s CEO. However, the plant in South Carolina is not an isolated incident. Under Romney, “four of the 10 companies Bain acquired declared bankruptcy within a few years, shedding thousands of jobs.” But documents show that “Bain investors profited in eight of the 10 deals, including three of the four that ended in bankruptcy.” Indeed, the firm pointedly made higher profits “by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits.”

As Romney’s own business partner stated, “I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation.” It’ll be an interesting display of acrobatics to see how Romney explains to South Carolinians that the profit his company made off the backs of 150 laid off workers proves his bona fides as a job creator.

Mittens was hoping he could wrap up the G-O-TEA nomination last night so he could start distracting us from what he really did and what he really said. But funny enough, Rick Santorum simply won't let him. Apparently, Rick Santorum is now the G-O-TEA's "great 'white working class'/blue collar hope"! I guess that's why he recently went on his crazy @ss racist rant against imaginary black people on welfare?



Mittens thought he could wrap it all up last night, but he forgot. It ain't over 'til it's over.

And the Winner Is...

Well, it certainly isn't sanity!





And it isn't the 99%.

A close examination of all of the GOP candidates’ records and policy positions reveals that Mitt Romney is not the only candidate who “represents the one percent.” All of the Republican candidates share at least one thing in common: an economic agenda that will benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans at the expense of the other 99 percent.

Each and every Republican candidate has called for trillions of dollars in new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and corporations — all while calling for ending Medicare as we know it and dramatic cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, and countless other programs and services that Americans depend on each day.

All of the candidates would take us back to the Bush-era policies that increased income inequality, resulted in the worst job growth in decades, exploded the deficit and national debt, and ultimately crashed the economy. Indeed, the policies proposed by the candidates would not only embrace this failed economic agenda, they would take it even further.

Let's not forget what Mitt Romney has said about underwater homeowners in our own state.



No matter what the final results from Iowa are tonight, it's looking increasingly clear that sanity and equity did not win the day among Republicans there. So why do we even treat these looney tunes like "serious" candidates? The winner of Iowa's G-O-TEA caucus tonight is: CRAZY!!!

"Strong public option" will pass by Christmas?

Well, that's what the new Senate HELP Chairman is saying.

At his 32nd annual Steak Fry fundraiser, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) was cheered by an enthusiastic crowd when he declared that a health care reform bill would pass both houses of Congress “by Christmas,” and that it would include a government-run, not-for-profit health insurance plan.

“Mark my word — I’m the chairman — it’s going to have a strong public option,” said Harkin, who last week replaced the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) as chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) committee.

“[It] now falls to me to pick up the torch” left by Kennedy, he noted.

At least we have some Senators in high places looking out for us plebes. Still, I feel we need to do all we can to back Harkin up. Don't let the insurance industry backed ConservaDems gut the health care bill. Do as Desert Beacon says, and contact our one sane Senator and two rational Representatives and make them promise to deliver a good, pro-consumer health care bill with a strong public option.