IBSP

---

Via C4P, the lamest spin ever:

Levi Johnston and Sarah Palin Book Debuts Bomb

First week sales were tepid for both “Deer in the Headlights: My Life in Sarah Palin’s Crosshairs” and “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin.” Is public interest in the Wasilla family drama on the wane?

Despite massive publicity, two new books chronicling the Sarah Palin soap opera—The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin by veteran political writer Joe McGinnis and Deer in the Headlights: My Life in Sarah Palin’s Crosshairs by Bristol Palin baby daddy Levi Johnston—have gotten a lukewarm response from the buying public since their release on Tuesday. Hard sales numbers will not be available for a week but the rankings on Amazon and Barnes & Noble provide a good indication of consumer interest. The Rogue is ranked in the fifties on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Deer in the Headlights is hovering in the seven hundreds on Amazon and in the two hundreds on Barnes & Noble. Both books had weak pre-sale numbers as well with The Rogue in the high hundreds and Deer in the Headlights in the high thousands.

[...]

The Rogue was the beneficiary of a massive rollout campaign. Author Joe McGinnis promoted it on the Today Show and The View. He partnered with Garry Trudeau in a first-of-its-kind deal to excerpt the book Doonesbury. The Rogue was also the subject of featured reviews in The New York Times, Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. The only other fall book to get a comparable rollout was Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy which debuted at number one on Amazon. Another political book, Ron Suskind’s Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President, about the early days of Obama White House, arrived in bookstores on the same day as McGinnis with much less fanfare but has already risen to fifth on Amazon. Relative to the publicity The Rogue’s sales numbers must be a disappointment to publisher Crown.

Deer in the Headlights is selling far fewer copies than The Rogue, despite the coup of appearances on the Dr. Phil, The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, and the Joy Behar Show. It has also received wide coverage in newspapers and on blogs.

What the weak sales say about Sarah Palin’s political future is hard to assess. Most Americans have already made up their mind about Palin, pro or con. Those who support Palin tend to dismiss The Rogue as unsubstantiated gossip and for those who dislike her, the most salacious details just confirm their worst impression of the former Alaska governor. Interestingly, most of the criticism of McGinnis’ use of anonymous sources has come from conventional media critics like CNN’s Howie Kurtz. The conservative blog The Thinking Voter called out other conservative bloggers for failing to defend Palin: “When a liberal loon goes on attack spree against Sarah Palin, even if one doesn’t support her for the presidency, were is the outrage? This is an embarrassment for the conservative movement.”

The weak sales probably say more about the dim future of Sarah Palin as a celebrity. The real life soap opera story of the Palin family is beginning to look like it’s in the thirteenth minute of its fifteen minutes of fame. With both Bristol Palin and Johnston having released books in the last few months, the story of their acrimonious relationship seems to have run its course. Johnston, in particular, appears ready to step out of the spotlight. He had one story to tell and now that he’s told it, the public interest in him is sure to dim. The soft book sales of The Rogue and the poor ratings for last fall’s TLC show Sarah Palin’s Alaska suggest limits to the public’s interest in Palin when the story is not directly centered on a potential presidential campaign.

---

So, two trashy tabloid “tell-alls” about Sarah Palin flop like an Obama speech and that’s . . . Sarah’s fault?

Seriously, WTF?

One of the comments sums it up:

Only Sarah Palin could have a nasty hit piece book written about her and be blamed for its failure.

---

---

Saturday Night Open Thread

---

I don’t care what the calendar says, as far as I’m concerned it’s still summer. What are you doing this weekend?

---

---

Take that, Mr. Freeman!

Herman Cain, GOP presidential candidate, hits back at Morgan Freeman for calling Tea Party ‘racist’

Herman Cain is hitting back at Morgan Freeman for calling the Tea Party racist.

The Republican presidential candidate called the Oscar-winning actor’s eyebrow-raising remarks “short-sighted” on Friday. “Most of the people that are criticizing the Tea Partiers about having a racist element, they have never been to a Tea Party,” Cain told Fox News.

---

But wait! There’s more:

In a stunning upset Saturday, Herman Cain won Florida’s Presidency 5 straw poll, a vote of 2,657 Republican activists that in past years has predicated the party nominee.

Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza who charmed the three-day Republican conference’s delegates, took 37.1 percent of the vote, with Texas Gov. Rick Perry second with 15.4 percent.

The rest of the results: Mitt Romney, 14 percent; Rick Santorum, 10. 9 percent; Ron Paul, 10.4 percent; Newt Gingrich, 8.4 percent; Jon Huntsman, 2.3 percent; and Michele Bachmann 1.5 percent.

---

If Cain becomes the GOP nominee how will Obama play the race card?

---

Notice: This is a Maher-free zone

---

Bill Maher: Sarah Palin Would ‘F–k’ Rick Perry If He Was Black

---

Bill Maher is a misogynistic cretin whose lack of shame is made worse by his craving for attention. We’re not going to give him any.

Henceforth this blog shall be a Maher-free zone. His name shall be forevermore written into the Filter of Spam.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

{{makes sign of The Klown}}

Illegitimi non carborundum

---

This doesn’t pass the laugh test

---

Joe Nocera at the New York Times:

The Phony Solyndra Scandal

If Brian Harrison and W. G. Stover, the two Solyndra executives who took the Fifth Amendment at a Congressional hearing on Friday, ever spend a day in jail, I’ll stand on my head in Times Square.

It’s not going to happen, for one simple reason: neither they, nor anyone else connected with Solyndra, have done anything remotely criminal. The company’s recent bankruptcy — which the Republicans are now rabidly “investigating” because Solyndra had the misfortune to receive a $535 million federally guaranteed loan from the Obama administration — was largely brought on by a stunning collapse in the price of solar panels over the past year or so.

The company’s innovative solar panels, high-priced to begin with, became increasingly uncompetitive in the marketplace. Solyndra didn’t have enough big commercial customers to create the necessary economies of scale. And although Harrison and Stover remained optimistic up to the bitter end — insisting six weeks before the late-August bankruptcy filing that the company was going to be fine — they ultimately failed to raise additional capital that would have allowed Solyndra to stay in business.

The Republicans are trying to make that optimism appear sinister, but if we’ve learned anything from the financial crisis, it is that wishful thinking in the face of a collapsing market is not a crime. Otherwise, Richard Fuld, the former chief executive of Lehman Brothers, would be wearing prison garb.

Harrison and Stover are on the hot seat. Anything they say in their defense — even an off-hand remark — can and will be used against them. Their lawyers would be fools if they didn’t insist that their clients take the Fifth Amendment.

Do the Republicans know this? Of course. Do they care? Of course not. For an hour and a half on Friday morning, they peppered the two men with questions about this “taxpayer ripoff,” as Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, described it, knowing full well that Harrison and Stover would invoke their constitutional right to remain silent. Joe McCarthy would have been proud.

First of all, half a billion dollars is missing. That’s a scandal even if nothing criminal took place. Secondly, if there is “nothing remotely criminal” here then where did the FBI get probable cause for their search warrants?

Even if nothing criminal took place as to the original loan, what about the second loan they didn’t get? What were they telling the government about the “stunning collapse in the price of solar panels?”

The investigation is just starting. It is way too early to proclaim anyone’s innocence yet.

BTW – If you know your client is innocent you tell them to go ahead and talk.

---

Liberal Electoral Racism

---

If you thought voting for Obama in 2008 proves you’re not a racist, think again.

Melissa Harris-Perry:

Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama

The 2008 general election was another referendum on old-fashioned electoral racism—this time among Democratic voters. The long primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama had the important effect of registering hundreds of thousands of Democrats. By October 2008, it was clear that Obama could lose the general election only if a substantial portion of registered Democrats in key states failed to turn out or chose to cross party lines. For Democrats to abandon their nominee after eight years of Bush could be interpreted only as an act of electoral racism.

Not only did white Democratic voters prove willing to support a black candidate; they overperformed in their repudiation of naked electoral racism, electing Obama with a higher percentage of white votes than either Kerry or Gore earned. No amount of birther backlash can diminish the importance of these two election results. We have not landed on the shores of postracial utopia, but we have solid empirical evidence of a profound and important shift in America’s electoral politics.

Still, electoral racism cannot be reduced solely to its most egregious, explicit form. It has proved more enduring and baffling than these results can capture. The 2012 election may be a test of another form of electoral racism: the tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts. If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.

The relevant comparison here is with the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Today many progressives complain that Obama’s healthcare reform was inadequate because it did not include a public option; but Clinton failed to pass any kind of meaningful healthcare reform whatsoever. Others argue that Obama has been slow to push for equal rights for gay Americans; but it was Clinton who established the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy Obama helped repeal. Still others are angry about appalling unemployment rates for black Americans; but while overall unemployment was lower under Clinton, black unemployment was double that of whites during his term, as it is now. And, of course, Clinton supported and signed welfare “reform,” cutting off America’s neediest despite the nation’s economic growth.

Today, America’s continuing entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan provoke anger, but while Clinton reduced defense spending, covert military operations were standard practice during his administration. In terms of criminal justice, Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which decreased judicial disparities in punishment; by contrast, federal incarceration grew exponentially under Clinton. Many argue that Obama is an ineffective leader, but the legislative record for his first two years outpaces Clinton’s first two years. Both men came into power with a Democratically controlled Congress, but both saw a sharp decline in their ability to pass their own legislative agendas once GOP majorities took over one or both chambers.

These comparisons are neither an attack on the Clinton administration nor an apology for the Obama administration. They are comparisons of two centrist Democratic presidents who faced hostile Republican majorities in the second half of their first terms, forcing a number of political compromises. One president is white. The other is black.

In 1996 President Clinton was re-elected with a coalition more robust and a general election result more favorable than his first win. His vote share among women increased from 46 to 53 percent, among blacks from 83 to 84 percent, among independents from 38 to 42 percent, and among whites from 39 to 43 percent.

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

---

There is no hope for me, I didn’t vote for Dick back in 2008.

According to the Nation, Melissa Harris-Perry is professor of political science at Tulane University. Now I didn’t go to a fancy-shmantzy school like that so I don’t know how they do things there, but at the cow college I went to if I turned in an essay with so many assumptions, factual errors and unsupported assertions I would have received a Certificate of Attendance instead of a diploma.

For starters, in 1996 Bill Clinton got 49.2% percent of the popular vote in a 3-way race. I love me some Big Dawg but that’s not exactly what I would call “enthusiastically re-elected.”

My vote in 2008 had nothing to do with the color of Obama’s skin and everything to do with the content of his character. And where the hell does this “tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts” bullshit come from?

Excuse me, I need to go bang my head on something.

---

---

(h/t VastLeft)

Make it Hurt

Unlike the traditional Buffet line rule about tasting and putting food back, the Warren Buffet rule would encourage double dipping. Warren (and his poor secretary) certainly knows this, but yet he continues to argue that he’s taxed at an unfairly lower level. Apparently, his corporate taxes are too high for his liking, since Berkshire Hathaway likely paid too little in taxes for years.

This goes back to the fact that different money is taxed differently. Capital gains are considered one-time income adjustments and are taxed at the low rate of 15%. This is great if you sell a house. Would you really want to pay 35% income tax because a house you sold increased your income by 400% in one year? The problem comes in when capital gains are abused with annual disbursements that effectively become a salary. This is outrageous and must be stopped!

Well, hold on there. People like Warren Buffet are provided these gains by investments and investment firms. Since it represents the increased revenue of a corporation, that profit is taxed at the current corporate income tax rate of 35%. People like Buffet get what’s left after the taxes. Then he pays 15% taxes on that.

Look at it this way. If you make less than $100,000 per year, 12% of your income goes to Social Security taxes. Usually, your employer pays 6.2% before your salary. That means you don’t even see this on your paycheck. You pay the other 6% (or 4% while Obama de-funds Social Security). If you are a private contractor and fill out a 1099, then you get the privilege of paying 15% out of your income by yourself. So, the employee who makes $50,000 a year saves $3,000 compared to the independent contractor. The government gets the same amount, but the screw job is redistributed.

Some people like Bill Clinton have proposed lowering the tax on job creating corporations while increasing it on the less job creating billionaires. Billionaires could potentially pay the same amount if capital gains were 35% and corporate tax rates were 15%. It would be about the same amount going to the government, but it would hurt them more.

Daily Solyndra

---

The bloggers in Wingnuttia are having a field day with this story. Here in Left Blogistan it is slightly more reported on than Fast and Furious (i.e. next to none)

---

Takin’ bacon

---

Midwest Farmers Are on Alert Against Pig Thieves

Here in pig country, the pigs are vanishing.

This month, 150 pigs — each one weighing more than an average grown man — disappeared from a farm building in Lafayette despite deadbolts on its doors. Farther north near Lake Lillian, 594 snorting, squealing hogs disappeared last month, whisked away in the dark.

And in Iowa, with added cover from the vast stretches of tall cornfields, pigs have been snatched, 20 or 30 at a time, from as many as eight facilities in the last few weeks, said the sheriff of Mitchell County, adding that among other challenges, the missing are difficult to single out.

“They all look alike,” said Curt Younker, the sheriff, who said he had only rarely heard of pig thefts in his decades on the job. “Suddenly we’re plagued with them.”

[...]

Was this all the work of a single roving band of pig thieves, or were they isolated incidents with separate culprits, all driven by the high price of pigs (which were going for about $200 apiece right now, and were even higher last month)?

And who would have enough experience with 270-pound pigs (a group that would not, for instance, simply march out of their barns with a whistle and a “come here, boy”) and sufficient equipment (at least a large livestock trailer) to pull off such heists?

And where exactly would they have taken the pigs?

“Hundreds of pigs don’t just disappear,” said Marc Chadderdon, a sheriff’s investigator who has worked in Nicollet County, home to about 33,000 people, since 1994 and said he had never before received a similar crime report.

“It’s not exactly like stealing a pot of gold,” he added. “You have to do something with them.”

---

I live in an agricultural area and Ag theft is no joke. Our county sheriff’s office actually has a special unit to deal with the problem.

Cattle and pig rustling is part of it, but so is crop theft. All you need is a pick-up truck and a couple friends and you can quickly steal a truck bed full of melons that you can sell for $2 apiece.

Around here thieves also steal the copper from irrigation systems and even trees – walnut burls are valuable.

---

And so it begins

---

Politico:

Warren’s TARP panel under scrutiny

---

Elizabeth Warren’s campaign revises pay from TARP panel

---

You didn’t think she was gonna get a free ride, did you?

I’m not saying Warren has done anything wrong, but as Vince Foster said, in Washington D.C. “ruining people is considered sport.”

I just can’t help wondering one thing.

{{Puts on foliehatt}}

If she does have any dirty laundry, which side will leak it to the media?

---