Kevin Koster wrote “The terrorists who did this are obviously being tracked down, but these investigations are not things that we discuss in public for obvious reasons.”

But, Kevin, according to the GOP, we MUST discuss those investigations in public in order to disgrace the current Democrat in the White House, no matter the cost to the security and well-being of every other American, whether in the United States or abroad.

Now, let the Dems even bring up the mere idea of such an investigation (even if the investigation is genuinely warranted) under a GOP President, and the GOPers will rage and howl at such “treasonous actions,” bolstered by the cretins at FoxNoise and the unwitting lackeys of the “lamestream” media that (for some unfathomable reason) seem to blindly support the occupant of the White House. (Has anyone else noticed that the “lamestream” media is greatly respected by the GOP and FoxNoise when it “supports” a GOP President but becomes disrespected when it “supports” a Dem President? I don’t recall FoxNoise chastising NBC or CBS or even CNN as being part of the “lamestream” media* when they were toadying for the Dubya/Cheney cabal; yet when these same news operations report the truth, which far too often supports Obama’s positions, suddenly, they become little more than toadies for Obama and the Dems.)

*Okay. They probably couldn’t be chastised as part of the “lamestream” media since I only seem to be aware of its first use from the blathering mouth of Sarah Palin, though I’m positive it had to have come from another source—Palin’s simply not clever enough to have come up with such a “witty” comment.

Oh, and Carol, I should also remind you that during Romney’s last couple of years as Governor of Massachusetts more people LOST their jobs than found new ones, and this was during the slight uptick in the economy which was finally showing signs of recovering following the post-9/11 economic crash. Every other state’s economy was growing but Massachusetts’ was contracting—and Romney did not care. He blamed the Democratic legislature (which had worked with him pretty well from the start) and tried diverting attention from the state’s bad economy by attacking same-sex marriage. (One of the reasons so many in Massachusetts had supported marriage equality was the ECONOMIC BENEFITS expected from all the gays flocking to the Berkshires or the Cape or Martha’s Vineyard to get hitched. Then Romney stepped in and dusted off a 90-year old law that had been introduced to prevent interracial marriages—if the couple’s home state didn’t recognize a marriage’s validity, then Massachusetts officials wouldn’t/couldn’t perform them. So, instead of helping to grow his state’s economy, Romney decided to step on it, just a little bit more.)

@Antoinette: Here’s a bit more information on the “bomb” level of “Atlas Shrugged II” from boxofficemojo.com. Pay careful attention to the first sentence and its numbers.

“In 11th place, Atlas Shrugged: Part II bombed with just $1.75 million from 1,021 locations. In comparison, the first movie opened to $1.69 million from just 299 theaters. The issue here isn’t the source material, as Ayn Rand’s novel is one of the best-selling works of 20th century fiction. Instead, blame it on the terrible execution: only the most die-hard fans are going to show up for what appears to be a cheap interpretation of the beloved novel.”

What’s even more interesting is looking back at the site’s forecast from Thursday the 11th.

“After over 50 years, Ayn Rand’s influential novel was finally brought to the screen last April in Atlas Shrugged: Part I. Unfortunately, it failed to tap in to the Tea Party zeitgeist and wound up topping out at just $4.6 million without ever reaching nationwide release. Still, producers decided to move ahead with Atlas Shrugged: Part II (the second in a proposed trilogy), which is getting a nationwide release in to 1,012 theaters this weekend.

Commercials for Part II have copy that reads “Ayn Rand’s best-selling novel is now a major motion-picture event,” which seems to ignore the presence of the ill-received first movie. They also attempt to tie the movie in with the upcoming presidential election (Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan regularly references Ayn Rand), but the connection isn’t as inherent as it was with documentary 2016: Obama’s America. With the massive release, the movie will probably get past $2 million this weekend, but much more would be a surprise."

So, it appears the film didn’t even meet these low expectations (although I’m not sure what the film’s distributor, Atlas Distribution—not really sure how it’s connected to Rocky Mountain Pictures, the studio behind Part 1—actually expected).

WHY THE HELL hasn’t Ablow’s medical license been pulled? This man (and I use that term VERY loosely) should’ve been whatever-the-medical-equivalent-of-disbarred-is years ago. To think that he’s allowed a forum to even suggest a diagnosis without having any direct contact is beyond absurd, and to think he’s allowed to spew his entirely unmedical opinion on the public airwaves is reprehensible.

I wish someone would check St Ronnie of Reagan’s debates with Walter Mondale in 1984. For some reason, I can’t get out of my head the image of that annoying smirk and chuckle that accompanied Reagan’s “There you go again” line. And, FWIW, Reagan was 73 at the time—4 years older than VP Biden is now.

Okay, maybe that’s not really a great analogy, given the eventual disclosure of Reagan’s Alzheimer’s but it is interesting (Reagan’s opponents poked fun at Reagan’s age but never went so far as to call him senile). I also don’t recall the right accusing Pat Robertson’s disgusting post-9/11 comments as the result of senility (even though he was 71 when he said them) nor has senility been offered as an excuse for any of his other reprehensible comments since then.

@paul brown: But, from what the cons have been saying, Paul Ryan’s also Irish. And, given his looks, I’d say Ryan’s one of those typical fratboy drunks—the ones who are sober from Sunday night to Friday afternoon, but come Friday night, and the frat’s holding its latest party, starts drinking and doesn’t stop until he passes out and when he finally wakes up, he starts drinking again, and keeps this up until early Sunday morning (when he realizes he needs to be sober enough for class the next day).

It’s kind of funny. I read the other night on a prog website that covers Pennsylvania (Keystone Politics) where a number of non-incumbent GOPers in the state are running AGAINST one of Corbett’s biggest “accomplishments”—education funding. In short, the story is about a Dem who’s attacking his non-incumbent GOP opponent for supporting Corbett’s education cuts while the GOPer is claiming he doesn’t support the cuts—even though, when he won his primary campaign, he, along with his other GOP opponents, said they fully supported the cuts. And this GOPer is just one of many other non-incumbent GOPers—those who don’t have a record they have to support—who are now fighting their Dem challengers’ accusations of GOP candidates’ support for Corbett and his policies. (Full story at www.keystonepolitics.com/2012/10/if-youre-explaining-youre-losing-pa-gop-education-funding-edition/ )

@Thx4 Fish: You are so right. When you take a look at the crap currently airing on so many of the “information” channels, it’s truly disheartening.

Networks like TLC (The “Learning” Channel), National Geographic Channel, even the various Discovery networks and the History channels, which all aired quality documentaries that focused on science and scientific theories and principles, have turned into havens for “reality” shows and too many incredibly trite fluff pieces.

And then there’s the tragedy of A&E and Bravo, networks which began as havens for “highbrow” entertainment—where you often saw truly classic films with only the rare post-1970 film (anything after 1970 had to be a true classic, either in terms of Oscar wins or being breakthrough films) or stage productions of operas or Broadway/West End musicals and stageplays (like “Oklahoma” starring Hugh Jackman or “Cats”); entertainment that, at one time, was almost completely relegated to PBS. Now, of course, this “highbrow” programming has been pushed aside because it doesn’t pull in the “big numbers” to pay for the quality.

We’ve seen how the Murdoch Empire is willing to screw over its right-wing news network by allowing some rather “left-wing” programming on the basic Fox network since THAT is where the Empire rakes in the big money (that, in turn, finances the obscene salaries of the FoxNoise folks). Fox ignored the “moralists” by airing “Married…With Children” for a decade and just look at the continuing success of shows like “The Simpsons,” “Family Guy,” and “The Cleveland Show” which routinely skewer the right-wing’s most favorite topics. (Even “American Dad,” which is essentially “Family Guy” turned on its head, tends to be more in line with “The Colbert Report” in its “conservative” tack—posing as being conservative while satirizing conservative principles.)

@paul: I think you meant that Ann descended from the Planet Kolob (or maybe the Star; even Mormons aren’t completely in sync on whether Kolob is a planet or a star—the “Book of Abraham,” an LDS canonical work, uses planets and stars somewhat interchangeably).

“He mentioned that she wrote a pro-PBS article without mentioning government subsidies. (Does Fox mention subsidies when they praise various industries?)”

You forgot a related question: Does Fox mention any conflicts of interest from their guests—such as a host interviewing her husband in promoting his book? Or when a global warming denier is interviewed without mentioning his generous “research grant” from a major oil company? Or when a “concerned mother” is interviewed over aGay/Straight student alliance without mentioning her ties to the Eagle Forum or some Tea Party group?

I’ve noticed that, whenever NBC News reports a story that involves its parent company (NBCUniversal via Comcast and GE) or any of its “sibling” divisions (like SyFy or Universal Pictures or Bravo), the anchor will state a disclaimer reflecting the potential “conflict of interest.” And CBS does the same thing if a story is about Simon & Shuster publishing or Westinghouse. But NOT FoxNoise. That would be beneath them. FoxNoise holds themselves to a completely different standard.