The Problem Isn’t Just McCain’s Racist Tweet, but Conservatives Defending Racism

By: Sarah Jones/politicususa

John McCain tweeted, “So Ahmadinejad wants to be first Iranian in space – wasn’t he just there last week?” In this tweet, he linked to a story about Iran launching a monkey into space. After some backlash, McCain pulled out his “I was just joking, lighten up” card, which is crumbling from over-use but this is John McCain.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) tweeted, “Maybe you should wisen (sic) up & not make racist jokes. “@SenJohnMcCain: Re: Iran space tweet – lighten up folks, can’t everyone take a joke?”

It’s true that John McCain can’t get out of the locker room long enough to realize how inappropriate he can be. McCain is known for making tasteless “jokes” while taking great umbrage at things he imagines others did or said.

George W. Bush supporter John Podhoretz, also a columnist for the New York Post and a speechwriter for former President Ronald Reagan as well as former President George H.W. Bush, stepped into the fray in order to defend McCain by explaining that it’s okay to be a racist against an anti-semite, “How dare McCain say something demeaning & disparaging abt the foremost anti-Semite on the planet.” He added, “So…it’s defend-the-Jew-hater-from-the-war-hero day.”

Podhoretz isn’t the most rational guy in the world, but then what do you expect from someone who called W “the first great leader of the 21st century”. He has defined anti-semitism as Pat Buchannan calling Israel’s military action “Un-Christian” (talk about a war between reactionaries). “You want to know what anti-Semitism is? When Pat Buchanan calls Israel’s military action ‘un-Christian’, that’s anti-Semitism.” So those are his standards for what he sees as “his side”.

What is really telling is how Podhoretz justified McCain’s “joke”. It’s hard to stand tall against anti-semitism while concurrently justifying racism. Some people don’t seem to get this, but racism is the same mechanism as anti-semitism and it’s used for the same purposes. In other words, children, if you don’t want it done to you, don’t do it to others. Calling someone a “Jew-hater” does not excuse you from upholding your own value system, provided you have one.

And there it is. Republicans don’t seem to have a set of values, but rather cherry picked causes of resentment. According to them, it’s not okay to use some people’s heritage against them, but Republicans have made a party out of using other people’s heritage against them. That means that they don’t have a value or a certain level of behavior to which they don’t permit their leaders to stoop publicly. A value is something you apply to yourself as well as others, even when it’s not easy.

Imagine if a Democrat tweeted what McCain tweeted, but insert a different target. Insert a Republican cause. The wounded cries of self-pity would be echoing off the Hill for years to come. Instead, we have conservatives petulantly justifying McCain’s tweet because the other guy started it. It’s okay to be a racist if the other guy hates someone you don’t hate.

Personally I don’t believe that John McCain is a racist in the purest sense of the word. No, I am not excusing the racism inherent in his party or his pandering to the racists in his party. He is guilty of using racism politically when it suits him, but McCain’s adopted daughter was also the victim of racist attacks by his own party (while I’m distinguishing between the true believers and the cynical abusers of “isms”, neither is okay). That said, his tweet was an inappropriate racial attack and as such, it painted him out to be a racist.

McCain has always suffered from an out of control temper, bad judgment and jokes better suited for the last century. That’s nothing new.

The interesting nugget born of this scuffle is the thinking behind conservatives’ reactionary, immature and ever moving principles. Podhoretz just defended racism because he hates the other guy for hating more. And these are the people who criticize Obama’s foreign policy. Talk about leading from behind.

Pennsylvania Republicans To Introduce New Election-Rigging Plan

By Ian Millhiser/Think Progress

Last month, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus called up “states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red” to rig future presidential elections by changing the way electoral votes are allocated. Under Priebus’ proposal, blue states such as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would stop awarding electoral votes to the winner of the state as a whole, and instead would award them one-by-one to the winner of each congressional district. Meanwhile, red states would continue to award 100 percent of their electors to the Republican. This plan appears to have lost steam, however, as several top Republicans in key statesannounced they will not support it.

Even as Republicans in key states such as Michigan, Ohio, Florida and Virginia came out against this election-rigging plan, however, Pennsylvania Republicans have been eerily quite. We now know why. According to the New Castle News a local paper in western Pennsylvania, Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) will introduce legislation this month that will effectivelygive away a large chuck of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes to the Republican presidential candidate, regardless of who wins the state as a whole.

How This Election-Rigging Plan Works

Unlike the plan Priebus backs, the New Republican Plan would not tie electoral votes to congressional districts. Instead, it would award the overwhelming majority of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes proportionally according to the popular vote, with two additional electoral votes going to the winner of the state as a whole. If the New Republican Plan had been in effect in 2012, Mitt Romney would have received 8 of Pennsylvania’ 20 electoral votes, despite losing the state by a substantial margin.

The problem with the New Republican Plan is that it would only be enacted in blue states such as Pennsylvania — the Democratic candidate for presidential won Pennsylvania in every single election for the past two decades — while red states would continue to award all of their electoral votes to the Republican. Thus, the plan gives away Democratic votes to the Republican for free, while letting the Republican candidate keep all the votes they earn legitimately in other states:

Why Republicans Are Likely To Back This Election-Rigging Plan

In 2011, both Pileggi and Gov. Tom Corbett (R-PA) backed the original Republican Plan to rig the presidential election by tying electoral votes to congressional districts. The plan died, however, after most of Pennsylvania’s Republican U.S. House members rebelled against it. The problem with the original election-rigging plan, from their perspective, is that it would have encouraged the Obama campaign to move resources out of safe Democratic districts and into districts currently represented by Republican U.S. Representatives. In other words, the Republican lawmakers feared that tying the presidential race so closely to congressional districts could cost some of them their own jobs.

The New Republican Plan, by contrast seems designed to allay this fear among Republican U.S. Representatives by keeping the presidential race entirely separate from congressional districts — thus allowing Republicans to steal away Democratic electoral votes without risking Republican U.S. House seats.

Republicans Could Ram Their New Election-Rigging Plan Through In Just Four Days

In an interview with ThinkProgress, state Rep. Mike Sturla (D-PA), the Democratic Policy Committee Chairman in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, explained just how quickly this plan could become law if Republicans decide to ram it through before opposition to the plan can fully mobilize. In short, if Pileggi introduces the plan on a Monday, Republican lawmakers could have it on Corbett’s desk by Thursday:

They could have it out of the House in three days and it could go over to the Senate and they could have it out of there in three days and it could go to the governor’s office and he could sign it. . . . The Senate can suspend the rules and have it passed in less than 24 hours. [The House] has to have a 2/3s majority to suspend the rules so usually we can at least make them do the three days.

As Corbett supported rigging the 2012 election to place Mitt Romney in the White House, he is all but certain to sign this new plan to rig the Electoral College if he is given the opportunity to do so.

Study: Republican Gerrymandering Cost Democrats 1.7 Million Votes In Just 7 States

By Ian Millhiser/Think Progress

As ThinkProgress previously reported, Republicans so effectively gerrymandered congressional maps before the 2012 election that Democratic House candidates would need to win the national popular vote by over 7 points in order to win back the House. Last November, the American people preferred Democratic House candidates to Republican House candidates by almost 1.4 million votes, yet Republicans still hold a substantial House majority due in large part to partisan gerrymandering.

A new study by Princeton molecular biologist and neuroscientist Sam Wang digs deeper into the effect of the Republican gerrymander, and finds that the gerrymanders in seven states were so powerful that they are the equivalent of 1.7 million Democrats simply deciding not to show up at the polls:

[G]errymandering is a major form of disenfranchisement. In the seven states where Republicans redrew the districts, 16.7 million votes were cast for Republicans and 16.4 million votes were cast for Democrats. This elected 73 Republicans and 34 Democrats. Given the average percentage of the vote it takes to elect representatives elsewhere in the country, that combination would normally require only 14.7 million Democratic votes. Or put another way, 1.7 million votes (16.4 minus 14.7) were effectively packed into Democratic districts and wasted.

Such gerrymanders can exist because five conservative justices refused to block partisan redistricting in a case called Vieth v. Jubelirer.

Even Paul Ryan Opposes The GOP’s Election-Rigging Plan

By Ian Millhiser/Think Progress

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the 2012 GOP vice presidential candidate and author of a 2011 plan to phase out Medicare, was a leader of the Republican Party’s right-wing long before Gov. Mitt Romney tapped him as his running mate. Yet even he opposes a Republican plan to rig future presidential races for Republicans by changing the way electoral votes are counted:

Wisconsin’s U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the unsuccessful 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee, is the latest Republican to throw cold water on the notion of switching the way Wisconsin apportions its Electoral College votes — a shift that would have benefited his running mate, Mitt Romney. . . . Ryan, R-Janesville, said he would prefer that Wisconsin stay a winner-take-all state.

“I’ve always kind of liked the idea of being targeted as a state,” Ryan told the Wisconsin State Journal editorial board on Tuesday. “I’d hate to be a flyover state. I’d like to be in the hunt for being a targeted state. I think it’s good for us.”

Notably, Ryan’s argument — that allocating all of Wisconsin’s votes to the winner of the state as a whole ensures that presidential candidates pay more attention to the state — is an argument against both versions of the GOP election-rigging plan.

Republicans originally proposed rigging the Electoral College by allocating electoral votes in key blue states one-by-one to the winner of each congressional district, rather than to the winner of the state as a whole. This month, however, Pennsylvania Republicans are expected to introduce a modified election-rigging plan in that state which would allocate electoral votes proportionally according to the popular vote — so that a Republican candidate who receives 40 percent of the vote would also receive a little less than 40 percent of the state’s electoral votes, even if the Democratic candidate wins the state as a whole. Significantly, the Pennsylvania plan would not apply in red states, so those states would continue to award 100 percent of their electors to the Republican.

Eight Senators Vote To Block Violence Against Women Act

By Annie-Rose Strasser/Think Progress

Eight Senators on Monday voted not to consider the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a bill that protects victims of domestic violence. The Senators who voted against moving to debate on the bill were: Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Tim Scott (R-SC), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Rand Paul (R-KY), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and James Risch (R-ID).

VAWA’s reauthorization has been caught up in partisan gridlock over added provisions that would protect undocumented immigrants, as well as LGBT and Native American victims of domestic violence. Congress failed to reauthorize the bill by the end of 2012, and the Senate is now considering the same legislation again, in its new legislative session.

All of the women in the Senate, with the exception of Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE), co-sponsored the legislation.

Once Senators consent to take up the measure, it will be voted on in its entirety. It is expected to pass, but will face a tougher battle in the House

Random Friday:God of War Ascension

With The Fox News Empire In A Ratings Slump, Where's Roger Ailes' Magic Touch?

ERIC BOEHLERT/Media Matters For America:

As a TV pro, Roger Ailes is routinely praised in the press for his Midas touch. According to years of fawning coverage, Ailes has an uncanny ability to tap the programming pulse of the public. If that's true, now would be a good time for him to find his magic stroke because he just signed a contract reportedly worth more than $20 million annually, and two of his most important properties are flailing.

Fox's latest Nielsen numbers are bad. Really bad. Its worst in 12 years. And early indications are the slump may be part of a larger, systemic problem that could cause bigger headache as fast-climbing MSNBC continues to post gains.

President Obama's first term proved to be a ratings winner for Fox News as the channel gleefully projected the inner demons of the right wing and marketed itself as the final defender of freedom. Early 2013 indicators though, suggest that ratings cycle may be played out.

Question: Does Ailes the programming guru have a Plan B?

That's not the Fox chief's only problem. Ailes also runs Fox Business,  whose cable ratings remain anemic, and whose entire audience of 25-54 viewers can often fit inside a hockey arena, despite the fact Fox Business is available in 60 million homes coast to coast.

But that problem pales to the one looming at Fox News. According to Nielsen numbers, not only did MSNBC enjoy big gains in January, but for the Monday-Sunday primetime shows Fox logged its worst ratings since August 2001. (For Monday-Friday primetime, it was Fox's worst showing since May 2006.) Fox is still the most-watched cable news channel, but the margins are shrinking in a hurry, especially in the coveted 25-54 demo during primetime. (On The Record With Greta Van Susteren appears to be just weeks away from losing the 10 p.m. demo battle  to MSNBC's The Last Word.)

This gives you an idea of the January ratings winners and losers, via NewsCorpse.com:

I can hear the Fox defenders insisting the election season's over so of course cable news ratings drop off once the main event passes, right? Also, Obama won, so it's not surprising Fox's conservative viewers are tuning out for now.

Wrong and wrong.

MSNBC has been able to sustain the ratings growth it enjoyed during the campaign season when viewers flocked to programs for news and information. So why can't Fox sustain viewers? And if you go back to early 2009 when Obama was inaugurated, Fox News' ratings didn't decline in the wake of a Democratic victory like they are now. In 2009, its ratings went up. In fact, Fox News' first quarter ratings that year skyrocketed. (Sean Hannity's audience January 2009 grew 69 percent compared to January 2008.)

From a February 2009 industry report:

Two weeks into President Barack Obama's time in the White House, with a changed line-up to go with the change on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Fox News Channel is posting stronger ratings than during the end of George W. Bush's time in office.

Four years ago, Obama's presidency translated into ratings gold for Fox News, aided in part by the arrival of Glenn Beck, the Tea Party and Fox's full-on embrace of the fringe. Four years later though, that passion seems to have been replaced by indifference.

Or maybe the ratings drop-off stems from hard feelings. Maybe tuned-out Fox viewers feel like they were duped on Election Night. Led by the channel to believe the country suffered a severe case of buyers remorse and would vote Obama office at the first possible opportunity, Fox faithful were forced not only to watch the Democrat post an another election victory, but do it with ease. In other words, almost nothing Fox News had told its aging viewers about the state of the campaign, or about the state of the country, was accurate.

It's true that Fox viewers have rarely held the channel accountable for the bedrock of information that its programming is built on. (Don't people watch Fox in order to become misinformed?) But the elaborate election ruse may have been too much for some faithful to take. (Note that in 2008, Fox didn't bother pretending Sen. John McCain was going to win.) Any lingering resentment could explain why Fox just posted its worst primetime ratings since President George W. Bush's first summer in the White House.

As for struggling Fox Business, the channel simply continues to flounder. It's true that its ratings are upmodestly from last year. But when you're improving on dreadfully weak ratings, modest bumps don't mean much.

In 2011, when the channel was drawing just 10,000 25-54 viewers a source told AdWeek that when it launched in 2007, channel executives thought they'd be doing "a lot better than" that. Nearly a year and a half later, the story isn't much better: Fox Business' target demo audience has edged up to just 14,000 viewers.

And some of the rating for those Fox Business shows are just astounding, especially for the 25-54 demo.According to Nielsen, 16 of the 18 lowest rated shows in all of cable news belong to Fox Business, with several of them attracting fewer than 10,000 viewers aged 25-54.

Fox Business' sputtering performance six years after its launch raises doubts about Ailes' supposed programming magic. Will the looming slump at Fox News simply confirm it?

GOP vows to block Consumers Protection nominee

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

Rick Snyder's broken promises

BY DALE HANSEN/Detroit News Blog

Nolan have this man fired.

If you follow Rick Snyder you know that he is very proud of his “accomplishments” as governor. Even going as far as to use taxpayer funds to promote legislation he previously termed “too divisive,” because nothing attracts new business to a state like leadership that is not only willing to openly retaliate against its opposition but also to completely contradict itself.

Governor Snyder’s most recent self promotion involves a collection of corporate investments in Michigan that the governor claims will create 4,590 jobs. The numbers for this promotion come from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), which is a taxpayer funded organization that acts as the state’s marketing and business development arm.

Unfortunately for the governor, past MEDC job creation projections have severely exaggerated the number of jobs created. According to Michigan Capitol Confidential, the actual number of jobs created is around 28% of the MEDC estimate. This means that the 4,590 jobs the governor is promoting will end up being more like 1,285 jobs.

While the governor is more than happy to discuss the $1.1 billion invested by the 14 companies in the report, he seems less interested in talking about the $44 million dollars in tax breaks these companies will receive to create these jobs. Additionally there doesn’t seem to be any requirement that these companies use Michigan labor or products made in Michigan as part of their investments. For all we know the materials and labor for these projects could originate from out of state or overseas instead of from struggling Michigan construction and supply companies.

Of course the bigger concern here is the long list of broken promises that these investments exemplify.

The governor ran on the premise that his business background would help create jobs in Michigan and he laid out a specific vision for this job creation that he appears to have completely forgotten.

On the campaign trail when asked about government incentives for business,  the governor stated, “As a practical matter, my view is government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers because those incentives aren’t free. Basically, they come on the backs of other people having to make up those tax differentials.”

Yet here he is picking 14 different companies as the winners and using taxpayer funded incentives to do it.

In the gubernatorial debate the governor stated that “government doesn’t create jobs,” yet his press release regarding the 4,590 jobs coming to Michigan certainly appears to give his administration credit for these jobs.

Also in the debates he was asked about taxing pensions and his response was, “That’s not how you address tax reform,” yet that is percicsly what he did to pay for his 83% tax cut for Michigan businesses. It was a move that the governor said was made to increase jobs in Michigan, yet the number of people employed in Michigan has gone down since this bill was signed into law, while the number of unemployed in Michigan has steadily increased since last January.

In a later portion of the debate the governor spoke about his opinion on increasing the tax on gas. His answer to the question was, “I don’t support an increase in the gas tax” – yet just this past week that is exactly what he proposed to improve Michigan roads.

Of course the governor will also point out that he is for “giving the voters a choice” on how to pay for these road improvements, yet when the voters chose to repeal the emergency manager law Rick Snyder was quick to dismiss the voters’ choice and signed new legislation that included funding for new government jobs which eliminates the voters’ choice to repeal the law in the future.

Whether you support the governor or not, this list of broken promises is embarrassing and concerning. Rick Snyder came to this job touting his business roots and his ability to turn things around with a laser-like focus on “jobs, jobs, jobs.” His willingness to constantly abandon the ideas that got him elected in favor of big government self-preservation doesn’t instill confidence in the leadership capabilities of a man who can now be more aptly described as “One Unprincipled Nerd.”

Tea Party Community, Conservative Facebook Alternative, Set To Launch

  By Nick Wing/Huffington Post

Organizers of new social networking site The Tea Party Community have taken Facebook, eliminated the supposed liberal bullying, tossed in tens of thousands of conservatives and mixed it all together with a dash of conspiracy theory to create a new online hub, set to launch officially on Saturday.

The Tea Party Community co-founder Ken Crow tells Fox News, he wants to make it the Facebook alternative for conservatives and the Tea Party movement.

So far, it has drawn upward of 50,000 members, attracted to what Crow calls a “safe haven for the conservative movement where we can share ideas and thoughts and express ourselves without fear of retribution.”

Crow claims that he and other conservatives have been targeted by Facebook and its liberal users simply for attempting to express their political point of view.

“Most of us are subjected to censorship on Facebook,” Crow told Fox News. “I’ve been suspended there as have many of my friends. You also absorb a lot of abuse from liberals.”

While there have been high-profile examples of Facebook removing or threatening to remove conservative-leaning content, Facebook claims to not be involved in any intentional censorship of content.

Some Tea Party activists might be all too familiar with the content Facebook allows.

In Virginia, the Mecklenburg Tea Party drew statewide backlash last year when itrefused to remove a series of Facebook photos depicting President Barack Obama as a witch doctor, neanderthal and thug. In that case, the pressure came from the Virginia GOP, not Facebook.

And in 2011, a failed Tea Party candidate unleashed a racial epithet-laden Facebook post that called for the assassination of Obama and his family. The poster later took down the message under his own accord and replaced it with an apology.

As for The Tea Party Community, the website could draw some scrutiny from a design perspective. The basic page layout looks remarkably similar to Facebook's, with a little more in-your-face patriotism sprinkled around the frills.

GOP Senator: Don’t Filibuster Hagel Confirmation

By Ben Armbruster/Think Progress

A Republican senator who serves on the Armed Services Committee said on Friday he does not believe Chuck Hagel should need 60 votes to be confirmed as the next Secretary of Defense.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said on MSNBC this morning that he does not intend for vote for Hagel; but when asked if he would support a filibuster of the former Republican senator, Blunt said he would not and that Hagel should receive an up-or-down vote:

BLUNT: I will be voting no in the committee and then assuming there’s a vote on the floor I’ll be voting no on the floor.

CHUCK TODD: Well there’s two ways — and there’s a third way to vote no on him which of course is the issue of a filibuster. Would you support a filibuster of Chuck Hagel’s nomination?

BLUNT: I doubt it. I doubt it. I think for somebody who’s going to be there the length of time the president serves as opposed to a Supreme Court judge, thata majority in the Senate should be able to confirm. I wouldn’t intend to be a part of that majority but certainly my strong inclination would be that this is a vote that should be done by a majority rather than a 60 vote standard and this person’s going to leave the day the president leaves that makes a difference.

Watch the clip:

While only a handful of Republicans have said they will vote against Hagel, it does appear that he will get some GOP support. And with the Democrats in the majority, it seems increasingly likely that Hagel will get confirmed.

NRA Publishes Enemies List With 506 Names

By Ian Millhiser/Think Progress

Late last year, the National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm published a Nixonian enemies listnaming organizations and individuals that “lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations” or have otherwise backed efforts to promote gun safety. The list totals 506 names, including major medical associations, law enforcement organizations, former presidents and a long list of celebrities. Here are five examples of the kinds of groups the NRA views as its enemies:

Doctors & Nurses

As it turns out, the sort of people tasked with saving the lives of victims of gun violence would rather that America’s trauma centers were not quite so busy. A short list of medical and nursing organizations on the NRA’s enemies list includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, and the American Nurses Association, in addition to Ronald Reagan’s Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.

Educators

It turns out that sort of people who devote their lives to preparing our children for adulthood don’t much like to learn that a young life has been cut short by gun violence either. The NRA’s enemies list includes the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Education Association, the National Association of School Psychologists and the National Association of Elementary School Principals.

Law Enforcement

It also turns out that people who put risk their lives to keep our streets and schools safe don’t much like being in the line of fire. The National Association of Police Organizations, the National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers, and the Police Foundation are all on the NRA’s enemies list.

People of Faith

The NRA may not want Americans to “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks,” but many people of faith take the Bible’s command seriously enough to earn a place on the gun lobby’s list of enemies. They include the American Jewish Committee, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Congress of National Black Churches, the Episcopal Church’s Washington Office, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, the United States Catholic Conference, the United Methodist Church General Board & Church Society, and the United Church of Christ Office for Church in Society.

Boy Bands, Dweezil Zappa and MacGyver

Above anything, the NRA’s enemies list reveals its capacity to hold a grudge. It includes a long, long list of celebrities, many of which are far from Hollywood’s elite circles. It is not clear why the nation’s top gun organization feels so threatened by Art Garfunkel, for example. Or why Washington’s most heavily armed lobbyists fear a ragtag list of former talk show hosts, washed up actors and what appears to be the entirety of Frank Zappa’s progeny. Gun owners beware! Both Boyz II Men and ‘NSYNC are coming for your guns, and the NRA is very, very afraid.

6 Key Facts About The State Of The American Jobs Market In 2012

By Pat Garofalo and Travis Waldron/Think Progress

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today that the economy created 157,000 jobs last month. With significant upward revisions to previous months (including revising November up to nearly 250,000 jobs created), the jobs picture for 2012 is much clearer. Here’s where things stand:

1) 181,00 jobs per month were created in 2012. In 2011, it was 175,000 per month. Calculated Risk charts the improvement:

2) 2.17 million jobs were created in 2012. As Steve Benen noted, this “is the best annual total since 2005, and tops seven of the eight years Bush/Cheney was in office.”

3) The so-called “fiscal cliff” didn’t create “uncertainty.” During the fourth quarter of last year, with the “fiscal cliff” looming, 201,000 jobs were created per month. “All these concerns that the fiscal uncertainty deterred businesses from hiring, they certainly haven’t materialized,” said UniCredit economist Harm Bandholz.

4) 74,000 government jobs were lost last year. This includes 9,000 layoffs last month, 2,000 of which were in education.  Since February 2010, the public sector has lost 600,000 jobs.

5) 5.5 million lost jobs have been recovered. As Bloomberg News noted, “The economy has recovered 5.51 million of the 8.74 million jobs that were lost as a result of the last recession.”

6) About 100,000 construction jobs were created in the last four months. In a sign that the housing market is rebounding, the economy has added 296,000 construction jobs since January 2011, and a third of those gains occurred in the final four months of 2012. Still, construction employment is 2 million jobs below its 2006 peak.

GOP Lawmaker Behind Abortion Ban: ‘We’re Not Going To Allow Minorities To Run Roughshod’

By Josh Israel/Think Progress

On Wednesday, the Arkansas Senate approved anunconstitutional bill to ban abortion as early as six weeksinto a pregnancy. As The Nation’s Lee Fang noted Friday, this is part of a larger strategy by chief sponsor Sen. Jason Rapert (R) to remake America as a arch-conservative country.

Rapert explained his long-term goals in a racist 2011 rant at a Tea Party rally, as he bashed President Obama for hosting a Ramadan celebration:

RAPERT: I hear you loud and clear, Barack Obama. You don’t represent the country that I grew up with. And your values is [sic] not going to save us. We’re going to take this country back for the Lord. We’re going to try to take this country back for conservatism. And we’re not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in!

Watch the video:

Rapert’s other proposals include amending the U.S. Constitution to give state legislatures control of the federal debt limit and for the absolute elimination of all parole for state