Americans for Prosperity: Absentee Ballots - The Facts

The Democrats and their Leftist media mouthpieces have been foaming at the mouth about the sinister "mistake" on absentee ballots sent out by Americans for Prosperity.

They claim it was an intentional, sleazy means to suppress the vote.

Here are some FACTS on what happened:

(Do you remember "facts"? They used to matter.)

1. Fixing the Typo

The Absentee Ballot Mailing was mailed only to AFP Wisconsin members in the eight Senate Districts that have recall elections. The date included on the absentee ballot application (August 11th) was intended solely for the two senate districts with elections on August 16th. However, the printer/mail house sent that version out to all districts, including those that have elections on August 9th.

While the Left is hoping to make this into a voter suppression issue, this is anything but. It is in AFP’s best interest to have all of our members vote and that was the intention of this mailing. Here is a statement from AFP Wisconsin State Director Matt Seaholm explaining the printing mistake.

AFP sent the ballots to its own members.

In effect, the typo hurt themselves.

It makes absolutely no sense that AFP would try to suppress the vote of its members.

It's ridiculous to scream about voter suppression. The media are doing a dismal job of covering this story. The headline should read: "Americans for Prosperity mistake could hurt conservatives in recall elections."

Furthermore, "AFP-Wisconsin is directly addressing this mistake by sending out a call to each and every individual on the mailing list to clarify the date of the elections."

Voter suppression? Corruption?

NO WAY.

2. DNC Makes Similar Error

The media is largely ignoring the fact that the DNC made a similar mistake -the DNC placed robo calls last week to voters in Republican Sen. Dan Kapanke's western Wisconsin district urging them to vote in the election, but wrongly gave the date as Aug. 16. Click here to read more about the DNC’s robo call errors.

This DNC error isn't getting much media attention at all.

Why? Why isn't this error being cited as voter suppression?

Where's the outrage?

Cue the crickets.

3. Wisconsin Jobs Now and Citizen Action Wisconsin

Perhaps the most egregious offender of all in this story is Wisconsin Jobs Now and Citizen Action Wisconsin, which is also being largely ignored. Wisconsin Jobs Now has been hosting “block parties” with free food and then busing people over to early voting.

Wisconsin Jobs Now is connected to Citizen Action, a union group that has spent big money supporting Sandy Pasch in the District 8 recall election. It just so happens Sandy Pasch sits on Citizen Action's board as well.

Here's the corruption.

"Block parties" in celebration of voting?

Give me a break!

It appears that Sandy Pasch and her campaign are engaged in dirty politics.

There's a world of difference between the tactics of Wisconsin Jobs Now and AFP sending a ballot with a typo to its own members.

I'm not surprised that Pasch and the Democrats and the union hacks would spin the AFP mistake the way they are.

Pasch's remarks on the mistake are idiotic.

Unfortunately, I'm also not surprised that the media are happily spreading misinformation as well.

The Democrat-Union-Media Complex chugs along.

Come on, TMJ4! Give your viewers the truth, not what you want them to believe.

Charles Benson, Obama lapdog, should be ashamed of his handling of the story.

Thaddeus McCotter and Dennis Miller

Here's audio of Thaddeus McCotter on Dennis Miller's show, August 2nd:

Brian Williams: Fair and Balanced?

When NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams appeared on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon last Friday to plug his upcoming NBC Dateline special, Taking the Hill: Inside Congress, Williams made the absurd claim that he was a fair and balanced journalist without an agenda.

Video.

JIMMY FALLON: We don't get really too political on our show, but now and then we'll do a joke about Obama, or we'll do a joke about Sarah Palin. Keep it balanced. But, man, people go nuts on Twitter. They go, 'Hey, stop making fun of Palin. Why aren't you making fun of Obama?' And I go, 'We do make fun of Obama.'

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Just today, somebody tweeted me, 'Hey, Brian, does your back get tired carrying all that water for Obama?' (Speaking with a mocking tone, sounding dim-witted)

FALLON: Wow.

WILLIAMS: Dude. Really.

FALLON: First of all, I apologize for sending that tweet. I apologize. I was drunk. I didn't know what I was doing.

WILLIAMS: And it's always like, you know, 'Partyboy@Arkansas.' (Dim-witted voice again)

FALLON: That's crazy, yeah. But I mean, do you find it hard. Being, you know, Brian Williams you can't really have a side. You have to be... you can't pick a side.

WILLIAMS: Well, I try to play it down the middle like you do every night. I do it in news, you do it in comedy. We try not to take a side.

That exchange made me gag.

I think Jimmy Fallon does a great job of keeping his show balanced. It's not overly political. He doesn't push an agenda. It's a great respite from all that stuff. The focus is on fun, not mean-spirited political sniping.

Brian Williams, on the other hand, does not provide balanced coverage of the news. He most definitely has an agenda.

The fact that Williams mocked someone criticizing him the way he did is revealing. Williams didn't cite a tweet complaining about him carrying water for the Republicans. He didn't say it's always from 'Partyboy@Massachusetts.'

Brent Bozell wrote a column about Williams' special and his assault on the Tea Party.

Of course, I didn't watch Taking the Hill, but Bozell's take is interesting.

Somehow, Williams never spent a second on his Obama special asking the President how he was going to handle the demands of “hardline liberals” – or any kind of liberal, for that matter. The only hardliners are conservatives who want to stop the spending madness. What this country desperately needs are more “hardline conservatives” to dismay network anchormen.

Williams undermined his own musical intro by questioning Boehner’s grip on power. “Mr. Speaker, is it fair to say you have a bit of a rebellion on your hands?” Sadly, Boehner tried to play along. “I've got a little rebellion on my hands every day. It comes with the territory.”

Williams pulled out the New York Times, not exactly where Republicans go to look good. “You don't look happy on the front page of the New York Times. It says ‘Boehner's Grip on His Caucus is Put to Test on Standoff.’ Feel like you're being tested?” Boehner agreed. The question is whether Boehner wants to pass that test by pleasing liberals like Brian Williams, or by pleasing conservatives.

Williams suggested the newest Tea Party Republicans in Congress weren’t real Republicans: “Your job is to run your party, but there is another party in there too. You have this Tea Party caucus that didn't come to Washington with the same values.”

This time, Boehner had a good answer. “It's not the Tea Party caucus. It would be more what I would describe as some hardline conservatives who want more. I don't blame them. I want more, too.”

And now we arrive at the point where Williams and NBC made colossal fools of themselves.

Williams wanted the political narrative to be painted by ultraliberal Sen. Charles Schumer. “Word has gotten around” that House Republicans held a meeting and showed a motivational movie clip from the Ben Affleck crime movie “The Town,” which Williams said “eventually involves hockey masks and baseball bats and tons of bullets.” Horrors!

After Schumer declared the Republicans were violent nuts, the NBC cameras turned to Republican whip Kevin McCarthy. Williams pushed him about this press-stopping scandal. McCarthy professed amazement that Schumer would be highlighting a movie clip from a meeting he didn’t attend.

He shouldn’t be amazed, and Brian Williams would never try to embarrass Democrats by accepting leaks about movie clips from internal party meetings. That partisan double standard defines the Old Media.

I wonder if Williams sincerely believes that he's fair and plays it down the middle.

Does he really fail to notice the way he exposes his bias?

Could he be that delusional?

Jim Cramer: Obama, Panic

Jim Cramer of CNBC was on the Meet the Press yesterday discussing the debt ceiling situation.

In terms of leadership, Cramer declares that Obama handled the matter very poorly, saying that Obama caused panic.

Video.



Transcript

DAVID GREGORY: Let, let me ask Jim Cramer about the president's leadership in all of this. To show you how toxic this atmosphere is here, Peggy Noonan wrote in her piece in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend the following about the president has supporters still, but there is grim support. She writes, "Obama is losing a battle in which he had superior forces - the presidency, the U.S. Senate. In the process he revealed that his foes have given him much too much mystique. He is not a devil, an alien, a socialist. He is a loser. And this is America, where nobody loves a loser." Pretty strong language. From your vantage point, how has the president led through this?

JIM CRAMER: All right. One of the things that happened, I want to talk about what the congressman said about the media, that the media exacerbated or even caused the problem. We were all hopeful in Wall Street and in Main Street that the president would come out and say a few things which said compromise. He came out and panicked the heck out of us. He talked about the higher interest rates for mortgages, he talked the spike--the spiking credit card, he talked about how hard it is going to be to get a student loan. It took us all aback because we felt that he'd be a compromise leader. Instead, he created tremendous fear. Tremendous fear means uncertainty. Uncertainty means no spending. Uncertainty means no spending by businesses. It means no hiring. It was a setback.

GREGORY: But...

CRAMER: He caused the panic, not the media.

I agree.

Obama caused the panic.

He says what he believes to be in his best interests politically. He puts himself first, not the country.

In short, Obama is not a good leader. He's too selfish.

Obama: Debt Deal (Video, Transcript)

Why did NBC, ABC, and CBS preempt prime time programming to carry Obama's political shtick on Sunday evening?

FOX didn't let Obama hijack its normal schedule. The Cleveland Show continued to air as usual while the other networks showed Obama's address.

That was a good call by FOX. Obama's remarks didn't contain any information so pressing that it required him to seize the airwaves.

The votes haven't been taken. It's not a done deal. Nonetheless, Obama announced that the debt crisis was essentially over. What was the rush?

Here's video:



Here's the complete White House transcript of Obama's remarks:

8:40 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. There are still some very important votes to be taken by members of Congress, but I want to announce that the leaders of both parties, in both chambers, have reached an agreement that will reduce the deficit and avoid default -- a default that would have had a devastating effect on our economy.

The first part of this agreement will cut about $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years -- cuts that both parties had agreed to early on in this process. The result would be the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was President -- but at a level that still allows us to make job-creating investments in things like education and research. We also made sure that these cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on a fragile economy.

Now, I've said from the beginning that the ultimate solution to our deficit problem must be balanced. Despite what some Republicans have argued, I believe that we have to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share by giving up tax breaks and special deductions. Despite what some in my own party have argued, I believe that we need to make some modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to ensure that they’re still around for future generations.

That's why the second part of this agreement is so important. It establishes a bipartisan committee of Congress to report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit, which will then be put before the entire Congress for an up or down vote. In this stage, everything will be on the table. To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don’t act. And over the next few months, I’ll continue to make a detailed case to these lawmakers about why I believe a balanced approach is necessary to finish the job.

Now, is this the deal I would have preferred? No. I believe that we could have made the tough choices required -- on entitlement reform and tax reform -- right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year.

Most importantly, it will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America. It ensures also that we will not face this same kind of crisis again in six months, or eight months, or 12 months. And it will begin to lift the cloud of debt and the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy.

Now, this process has been messy; it’s taken far too long. I've been concerned about the impact that it has had on business confidence and consumer confidence and the economy as a whole over the last month. Nevertheless, ultimately, the leaders of both parties have found their way toward compromise. And I want to thank them for that.

Most of all, I want to thank the American people. It’s been your voices -- your letters, your emails, your tweets, your phone calls -- that have compelled Washington to act in the final days. And the American people's voice is a very, very powerful thing.

We’re not done yet. I want to urge members of both parties to do the right thing and support this deal with your votes over the next few days. It will allow us to avoid default. It will allow us to pay our bills. It will allow us to start reducing our deficit in a responsible way. And it will allow us to turn to the very important business of doing everything we can to create jobs, boost wages, and grow this economy faster than it's currently growing.

That’s what the American people sent us here to do, and that’s what we should be devoting all of our time to accomplishing in the months ahead.

Thank you very much, everybody.

END
8:44 P.M. EDT

Obama's acting as if he's the master negotiator, while at the same time distancing himself from the negotiations.

He praises members of both parties for arriving at an agreement, but chastises them for their haggling, for taking "far too long" to arrive at a deal.

Obama is still relying on the "balanced approach" talking point, giving Americans what he thinks they want to hear. But then, he asserts his belief that raising taxes is the answer to manage his wild, historically reckless spending. That's not the kind of "balance" that makes sense in this mess of an economy. It's impossible to raise taxes high enough to keep pace with the Obama astronomical spending spree.

Obama doesn't mention that Democrats failed to pass a budget when they had total control of Congress. It's disingenuous for Obama to express his concern about the impact of recent uncertainty on business confidence and consumer confidence when he's been screwing up the economy for years and making disastrous policy moves.

Way to go, Democrats!

Obama also doesn't mention that this deal doesn't mean the U.S. government will retain its perfect credit rating.

And of course, America needed Obama to take over programming to thank the people for their tweets.

Good grief.

I'm sick of Obama's political posturing and campaigning being sold to the public as Obama carrying out his presidential responsibilities.

It's all political maneuvers, election strategy.

What a leader!

What a crock!

Jimmy Fallon and Brian Williams: Debt Ceiling

Brian Williams, aka "Bri Willy," stopped by Late Night with Jimmy Fallon to Slow Jam the News.

With help from The Roots, they examine the debt ceiling.

Video here.



I still don't know why there was never an Anthony Weiner edition of Slow Jammin' the News.

Steny Hoyer: Republicans, Bullets, Obama

The Left went berserk over Sarah Palin and crosshairs.

Why is it acceptable for DEMOCRAT leader, House Minority Whip, Steny Hoyer to use extremely violent imagery when referring to Republicans and their interaction with Obama?

Hoyer was on the despicable MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday. He used language that was not at all in line with the supposed "new tone" in Washington ushered in after the Tucson shootings.

Video.



Transcript:

STENY HOYER: Bob, I think you're right. I think it's unfortunate that politics is playing a role. I think we're playing Russian roulette, frankly, with the nation's credit worthiness. And unfortunately, all the chambers seem to be loaded in the House side. They want to shoot every bullet they can at the President. I think it's political in that sense, but it is much, much too dangerous to be playing politics with the credit worthiness of the United States, where for the first time in history we wouldn't be able to pay our bills.

I am hopeful, again, John Boehner has offered a number of proposals. Remember back when John Boehner offered a continuing resolution to keep the government open. He lost 59 of his members then on a deal that he made, not a Democratic - Republican agreement, on a deal that he made.

No one called Hoyer on his terrible choice of words.

It's incredibly irresponsible for Hoyer to speak of Republicans wanting to riddle Obama with bullets.

Saying Republicans "want to shoot every bullet they can at the president" is a startling way for Hoyer to make his point.

Where's the outrage now?

Crickets.

The Leftists apply a different standard to themselves.

The hypocrisy of the Left knows no limits.

George Lopez and Sarah Palin

On Tuesday's Piers Morgan Tonight, George Lopez expressed his extreme distaste for Sarah Palin.

If she became president, Lopez says he would leave the country and go to Canada.

Video.



Transcript, from NewsBusters:

PIERS MORGAN,HOST: You said on immigration, "Elect Sarah Palin as President of the US in 2012 and we'll all leave voluntarily."

GEORGE LOPEZ: I agree. If Sarah Palin becomes president at any point, I will say allegedly, I will move to Canada.

MORGAN: Really?

LOPEZ: I will go further north. I've been south. I'll go further north.

MORGAN: You would literally leave the country?

LOPEZ: I would leave the United States of America.

MORGAN: Why would you be so drastic?

LOPEZ: I like my politicians to actually have a political background, to be politically -- to know politics, to actually have inherited something from working in the political world.

MORGAN: Why is someone like Sarah Palin so popular with so many people, do you think? How does she resonate with people?

LOPEZ: Well, she's --

MORGAN: What is she giving them they're not getting from conventional politicians?

LOPEZ: I -- is it that maverickness? Is it that homespun kind of Andy Griffith wink your eye, shift your imaginary gun thing? Maybe. Is it just that we've become a culture of personality? Of do we elect somebody by their smile instead of by their content? It's a little bit of all of that.

Morgan is a terrible interviewer.

Sarah Palin does have a political background.

Lopez is clueless.

When Lopez refers to a "culture of personality" and electing "somebody by their smile instead of by their content," it sounds like he's referring to Obama and his election.

As NewsBusters points out, Morgan promoted the show last night via Twitter using the Lopez statement about moving to Canada.



CNN and Morgan attract viewers with the idiotic bashing of Sarah Palin?

Lopez, Morgan, and CNN all look simply awful here.

Jimmy Williams, Grover Norquist, 'Butt Buddy'

The liberal media are really going off the deep end lately, particularly MSNBC.

Civility is out the window.

On the Dylan Ratigan Show, panelist Jimmy Williams, a Democrat lobbyist, referred to Grover Norquist as Newt Gingrich's "butt buddy."

Video.



Transcript

JIMMY WILLIAMS: One person is controlling the agenda of the United States of America right now and his name is Grover Norquist.

Grover Norquist was Newt Gingrich's butt buddy. He was Jack Abramoff's close friend and laundered money from Native Americans. He charged people $25,000 a pop to go to a Bush White House signing ceremony. He is a petty criminal. And he's made just about every single member of the House of Representatives on the Republican, not the Tea Party, the Republican side, and almost all Republican senators sign a pledge saying that they will never ever for the rest of their lives raise taxes.

I need to know, first of all, do we have on the Left a Grover Norquist? And if we don't, why not?

I don't think it's appropriate for a panelist on a televised news program to use such a crass term as butt buddy.

MSNBC is really a mess.

There is a lack of decency. It's vulgar stuff. This level of discourse at the cable network reflects horribly on NBC News. This gathering place for Leftists is a disgrace.

I know they're desperate for ratings and they're trying to appeal to the fringe Left, but how low are they willing to go?

Jay Carney and Obama's Plan

Jay Carney put on a pathetic performance during the White House press briefing yesterday.

He insisted that Obama has a plan to handle the debt ceiling but he can't quite locate it.

It exists, but where?

What are the numbers?

Video.



Transcript

QUESTION: you basically have this Boehner plan that you say can’t get through the Senate, and you’ve got a Reid plan that the Republicans don’t think you can get through the Senate or the House, and you’re saying we want a compromise, what was the point of giving a primetime address to the nation without an Obama plan and say neither of these other plans can work? Where is -- where is your plan?

MR. CARNEY: I understand that idea that there is not an Obama plan is like --

QUESTION: But there’s not. There’s not one on paper. There’s not one on paper.

MR. CARNEY: -- point number one -- is point number one on the talking points issued by the Republican Party. I get it.

QUESTION: No, no, that’s not a talking point.

MR. CARNEY: Okay?

QUESTION: No, no, show us the plan. It’s not a talking point. That’s unfair. Where is the plan?

MR. CARNEY: We have said from the -- first of all, the President put forward in detail his principles at George Washington University --

QUESTION: Principles, right. That’s not a plan.

MR. CARNEY: -- quite a lot of detail. The President stood before you -- I can’t remember if you were here Friday night. Some of you weren’t because you cut out early, but a lot of you were.

And he put forward in detail with numbers what he’s willing to do. He then referred from the podium to the fact that White House officials will be briefing in detail what our plan is.

Now, the purpose of putting forward a plan on paper -- our interest in this has been to get a compromise, to get a deal. It has not been to politically position ourselves, say, with things that appeal to our base, maybe pieces of legislation that we know can’t pass but it would be greeted warmly by certain constituencies. Our goal, and the reason why the negotiations have been conducted the way they have been conducted, is because we want a result. That’s the way the President has.

And it is simply not the case. The senior members of the House Republican leadership can open their desk drawer, pull out reams of paper that represents the President’s proposals and his counterproposals, and his counter-counterproposals, and his understanding that they need more of this and that he would like more of that. There is plenty of detail.

QUESTION: But even the President gave numbers on Friday night -- White House aides were saying last night he was giving the speech to the nation because most Americans were not paying attention until last night. So even if he gave these numbers on Friday night, they have not -- the American people were not paying attention Friday night, by your own estimation. So why didn’t he say last night, here are the nine things that I support? Here are the numbers, here’s what I want to do on taxes, and just lay it out -- and say, call your congressman with this -- not with this vague --

MR. CARNEY: The point -- I mean, the fact is you address the nation only so often on primetime. The President has been out here with an unbelievable amount of regularity talking to you, talking to the American people throughout this process. He has put forward in great detail -- I mean, if you guys haven’t talked about it on air or put it in your newspapers or online, then you should, because the detail is there.

Secondly, he needed to talk to the American people last night because -- for a good reason -- because they have their own lives to worry about and they count on Washington not always to take care of everything, but to take care of the big things like making sure we don’t default on our obligations. And he needed to talk to the American people, to those Americans who haven’t been paying close attention, to let them know where this stands and why it’s so important and why the risk is there that if Congress doesn’t act -- and we believe it will -- something that has never happened before in our history could happen and it would be very bad, indeed.

That’s why he had to address the country and why he wanted to explain to them his view that compromise is so necessary.

QUESTION: One other quick thing. I think on CBS radio this morning Dan Pfeiffer said that if Congress does not act by August 2nd this could lead to a depression. Is that your position, that we might have a depression in America?

MR. CARNEY: You know what, depression, how you -- what I know, what economic experts have said, is that -- and, again, Republican and Democrat, Jim Baker, Ronald Reagan, all sorts have said that a default on our obligations would produce an economic calamity. How you define that obviously depends on how long it lasts and what the ongoing implications of that would be.

We don’t believe it’s come to pass. Economic calamity is plenty scary and we should not even entertain that.

QUESTION: But over the weekend Democrats were saying there’s going to be a “Boehner drop” if there’s no action. Asian markets are going to crash on Sunday. Didn’t happen. American markets didn’t crash on Monday, and thankfully they have not crashed on --

MR. CARNEY: Ed, I want to move on, but you should go on the air and tell your viewers there’s nothing to worry about. That’s one approach.

Chuck.

QUESTION: Jay, why not release the last offer that Boehner made? I mean, instead of -- if you don’t want to release your own plan, release that plan. If that’s the deal -- if that’s the last offer he made and you guys are willing to go back with a few minor tweaks, release it. It’s the last week -- release it.

MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to -- look, we have shown a lot of leg on what we were proposing --

QUESTION: Where?

MR. CARNEY: From the podium, right here. (Laughter.) And from the Roosevelt Room. Certainly the Speaker of the House can address, or his people can address what they were -- what their last offer was. They claim that they walked away from the table because of the $400 billion --

QUESTION: Why not you do it? If they throw it out there and then you’re --

MR. CARNEY: The President stood here -- Chuck, again, I can’t remember if you were here -- it might have been Kristen -- but the President stood here on Friday night and went into great detail. You should look at the transcript. The President’s people met --

QUESTION: I understand, I’ve seen the transcript -- there’s still nothing out there. Why not just release that plan?

MR. CARNEY: Is it because you -- I mean, look, you need something printed for you, you can’t write it down? There is ample detail --

QUESTION: It’s not a plan. No, it’s not a plan. It was details of the plan, but it wasn’t a plan the same way that we’re getting a plan on the House side or that we’re getting a plan on the Senate side. It’s not.

QUESTION: We don’t know what the Medicare thing is. We don’t know what the Social Security part of this is. There wasn’t -- I mean, there was a lot of missing detail.

MR. CARNEY: We talked in great detail about what’s in Medicare, and you know it.

QUESTION: Why not put it out there, though? You guys went before the American people last night -- and I know that you’re probably getting frustrated because we’re all asking a version of the same question -- but you went before the American people last night and said come -- call your members of Congress and tell them we want a compromise. Well, you had a plan that you were making the case for which sounded like a version of the compromise. Release it to the public. I mean, that’s --

MR. CARNEY: $1.5 to $1.7 trillion in agreed-upon domestic discretionary non-defense savings -- cuts; other savings -- and on the most important stuff, the tough stuff, the stuff that makes it very hard for Democrats to do it but they’d be willing to do it -- important savings on entitlement reform. You know the issues; the President talked about it, other people talked about it, in terms of the kinds of reform that would produce significant savings. Okay? Significant savings in defense -- $400 billion -- significant savings in defense spending. All right? Significant savings in revenue through closing loopholes and tax reform that would produce -- by lowering rates and broadening the base, it would produce significant savings.

There are details -- we can go through details. And what we put forward -- again, this is a fluid situation. The point is, as both parties have said, they were engaged in serious negotiations; we were close to an agreement. One party said they walked away because of an insistence on an extra $400 billion in revenue. We said we could easily talk about that and resolve that issue. And that’s the kind of compromise --

QUESTION: -- $800 billion in new revenue into the Treasury --

MR. CARNEY: That’s correct.

QUESTION: -- coming out of tax reform.

MR. CARNEY: Correct.

QUESTION: And which parts of -- and was entitlement reform going to be cuts upfront and then a condition?

MR. CARNEY: Well, you know how things that had been talked about in terms of the reforms that would obviously be in the entitlements be phased over a certain period of time -- nobody has talked about upfront tax revenues. For example, the President himself said nothing before 2013 -- and how these things would play out. But these were significant savings, real savings -- the kinds of things in terms of entitlement reform that people have talked about for a long time, and Republicans in particular -- the President was willing to do. And he was looking for a partner, and he felt he had one, and he hopes he still has one going forward.

QUESTION: If he comes back with that $800 billion, why don’t you guys just accept the deal, ask a senator to introduce it in the Senate?

MR. CARNEY: We’ll see.

Carol.

QUESTION: Just quickly to follow on Chuck, I mean, the President did say to us on Friday that you guys would open the books and show us the paper. And then when we were in the Roosevelt Room, there was paper that we asked for that we weren’t actually physically handed. So was that -- are you going to give that to us?

MR. CARNEY: The senior people in that room walked you through the numbers, okay? You know -- I mean, we can engage in this, but you know that the reason why we’ve approached it this way is precisely to make it -- to create the optimum circumstances for a compromise. It is -- most of you are veteran Washington reporters. You know how this process works; that if you -- that when you put forward a position, it becomes highly -- on difficult issues, before a compromise is reached -- it becomes charged politically and your chances of actually getting an agreement diminish significantly. That’s how it works. You know that’s how it works.

And it’s for that -- if you don’t, well, you should. Others do. It is precisely because we wanted and believed and hoped that we could reach a compromise that the negotiations were conducted the way they were -- by both sides, by the way.

It is one thing to say that, yes, Republicans put forward plans that everybody knows can’t become law. Republicans were also engaged in quiet, detailed, concrete negotiations to reach a compromise.

QUESTION: Are you worried about activists tearing this -- activists on your side of the aisle tearing it apart?

MR. CARNEY: And theirs. And theirs.

QUESTION: But that’s why you didn’t -- that’s why this hasn’t gone public?

MR. CARNEY: You know how it works.

QUESTION: I understand that, but that is the reason you --

MR. CARNEY: Because we wanted an outcome that if -- as we’ve talked about, we’ve cited Bob Dole and others, you got to hold hands, get in the boat together, okay? That’s why.

Oh, my God.

What an embarrassment!

Listen to the press actually boo Carney:



The guy is a disaster. He lacks control. He isn't quick on his feet. Carney is a lot like his boss.

Paul Ryan 2012 Reelection

The lead story of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel online edition is a "what if" piece by Craig Gilbert.

It's a Democrat fantasy about Paul Ryan struggling to win reelection and the possibility of him losing.

It's a very odd article, something that reads more like Democrat party campaign literature than news.

As the fiscal voice of the GOP and the architect of its plan to scale back Medicare, Paul Ryan is the Republican many Democrats would most like to defeat next year.

A Ryan loss would cost his party a lot more than a seat in Congress. It would deprive it of one of its most influential figures. And it would be a huge blow to its policy agenda, which Ryan has played a central role in crafting.

Could Ryan, often touted as a candidate for Senate or even president, lose a re-election bid for his own U.S. House seat?

That would be a shock. By any conventional calculus, the odds are substantially against it.

At the same time, Democrats are correct in saying this contest won't be a nonevent like Ryan's past campaigns. Wisconsin has been turned upside down politically since the last time Ryan was on a ballot.

"It will definitely be a race he's not used to running," says his likely Democratic opponent, Kenosha County Supervisor Rob Zerban.

In other words, prepare for national money to probably pour into the state again, this time to bloody Ryan.

I'm sure Obama would encourage roughing Ryan up.

Gilbert concludes:

Ryan will enjoy obvious advantages next year (money, the makeup of the district, his own political skills, his electoral history). But there are major wild cards: the political fallout from his Medicare plan, the impact of having Obama on the ballot (and possibly even Walker if there's a successful recall drive next year), and the mad intensity of Wisconsin politics these days.

Gilbert seems to be giving a "you gotta believe" pep talk to Democrats: Stop Ryan. Recall Walker. Reelect Obama.

I think Obama being on the ballot will help Ryan, not hurt him.

This election is going to be a referendum on Obama's policies and his stunning ineffectiveness, especially in terms of the economy.

Obama and Lincoln, Debt and Slavery

Last week, while speaking at a town hall meeting at the University of Maryland, Obama compared himself to President Lincoln.

He stated that the nature of our politics means you don't get 100 percent of what you want.

Obama said he's making compromises in the tradition of our greatest presidents, like Lincoln did with slavery.

Obama asks, "Can you imagine how sort of the Huffington Post would have reported on that? I mean, it would have been blistering, right? You know? I mean, think about it. 'Lincoln sells out slaves.' There'd be protests, run a third party guy."

Not funny.

Video.

Anders Behring Breivik

Anders Behring Breivik

Anders Behring Breivik has been arrested in the deadly Norway attacks.

He's reportedly a "Christian fundamentalist with right-wing tendencies."

Good news for the liberal media!

From Bloomberg:

A 32-year-old Norwegian man was arrested on the island of Utoeya, about 40 kilometers (25 miles) from Oslo, and authorities have begun interrogating the suspect, police said at a press briefing today. The same person is likely behind the bombing and the shootings on the island, they said. The suspect’s name is Anders Behring Breivik, local media reported. Police declined to confirm the suspect’s name.

The man has been charged on two counts of “dangerous crime to society,” which means he could be sentenced to 21 years in prison, Norway’s toughest punishment, Roger Andresen, deputy Oslo police chief, told reporters today. The man is a Christian fundamentalist with right-wing tendencies, Andresen said.

From the Telegraph:

The blond-haired 32-year-old appears to have set up accounts on the social networking sites Facebook and Twitter just a few days ago.

Although police have not officially named Breivik as the suspect, Norwegian media identified him as the gunman. Police say the suspect is talking to police and was keen to "explain himself".

Eyewitness reports from the island of Utoya, where the shootings took place, have also described a tall, blond haired, blue-eyed Norwegian man dressed as a police officer.

On the Facebook page attributed to him, Mr Breivik describes himself as a Christian and a conservative. It listed his interests as hunting, body building and freemasonry. His profile also listed him as single. The page has since been taken down.

Police chief Svinung Sponheim said that internet posting by Breivik suggested he has "some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views".

Blond, blue eyes, Right-winger, with anti-Muslim views - Breivik is a dream come true for the lib media!

It just doesn't get better than this!

...The Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang quoted a friend as saying that the suspect turned to right-wing extremism when in his late 20s. The newspaper also said that he participated in online forums expressing strong nationalistic views.

A Twitter account attributed to the suspect has also emerged but it only has one post, which is a quote from the philosopher John Stuart Mill: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests."

More, from the New York Daily News:

The killer behind Friday's bloodletting in Norway is a boyishly handsome, blond-haired anti-Islamic nationalist interested in politics, violent video games and the T.V. show "Dexter."

Anders Behring Breivik, a 32-year-old Norwegian national, claims to be a fan of Winston Churchill, classical music, and gory movies like, "300," and "Gladiator," on his Facebook page.

He also claims on the page to be a fan of the sappy HBO vampire drama, "True Blood," and the serial killer show, "Dexter."

Breivik, who was reportedly a Free Mason at one time, has been fingered for the dual attacks that claimed more than 7 lives in the capitol of Oslo, and 80 campers on the island youth retreat of Utoya.

...The shooter belongs to "right-wing circles" in Oslo, the city in which he resides, according to Norwegian TV2. Meanwhile, The Huffington Post cites the Swedish news site Expressen as saying that he is a "self-described nationalist who has also written a number of posts critical of Islam."

He studied at the Oslo Commerce School, an instituion devoted to business and financial management.

In published photos, the alleged killer is shown to don a half smile, preppy clothing, and piercing green eyes that stare into the camera.

...On his Facebook page, Breivik describes himself as a fan of shoot-em'-up video games like "Modern Warefare 2," as well as the fantasy epic, "World of Warcraft."

Perfect!

As more is learned about Breivik and his background, do you think American leaders and officials will bend over backwards to insist that Breivik's horrific rampage is not to be taken as a reflection on Christian fundamentalists or those with conservative views?

Will they warn against a backlash against conservatives?

Will their concern be with people lashing out violently against those with blond hair and blue eyes?

Will they say that the millions of "Modern Warfare" and "World of Warcraft" players should not be considered potential mass murderers?

My guess is no, not a chance.

No way.

Breivik is allegedly a mass murderer, a cold-blooded killer. He allegedly committed heinous acts.

My heart goes out to the families and friends of his victims, and all those affected by the rampage.

Without question, Breivik is to be condemned. This intentional slaughter of innocents is absolutely barbaric. The perpetrator is a monster.

And his profile is what it is.

I just hope that your Mayor Michael Bloomberg types and Leftists in the media emphasize how important it is not to paint blue-eyed (or green-eyed), blond, Christian, conservatives with a broad brush.

Anger over the massacre must not be directed toward blond, blue-eyed conservatives.

Where are the admonitions against profiling the blond and the blue-eyed, the Christian and conservative, the gamers and Winston Churchill admirers?
____________________

Inevitable… “Far Left” Links “Right-Wing” Oslo Killer to Palin and Tea Party
____________________

Watch Breivik's YouTube video.
____________________

Read "An Interview with a Madman: Breivik Asks and Answers His Own Questions."
____________________

New York Times Reader Kills Dozens in Norway

John McCullough R.I.P.

Once upon a time, local television news actually was informative.

The broadcasts weren't loaded with sensational crap and goofy features.

Those days are gone, and now so is the long-time anchorman of Channel 4, John McCullough.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Even in so-called retirement, John McCullough remained a newsman.

He was best known as the respected anchor at WTMJ-TV (Channel 4) - long the station's lone anchorman at 5 and 10 - until he officially retired in 1988. He went on to start McCullough Productions, producing award-wining documentaries for WMVS-TV (Channel 10) and WTMJ.

"John was an icon in the TV news business in Milwaukee," said Mike Gousha, now distinguished fellow in law and public policy at Marquette University. "At a time when viewership for TV news was at its zenith, there was nobody bigger than John."

That said, McCullough didn't act it.

"It was always about the news," said Gousha, who found a mentor in McCullough as a young reporter at WTMJ. "It wasn't about John."

McCullough died Wednesday at a hospital in South Bend, Ind. He was 77. He collapsed Sunday while with his wife, Sandy, at their summer-and-football-season home in Granger near South Bend. No cause of death is known, but it might have resulted from a heart rhythm problem.

...McCullough joined WTMJ-TV in 1967. The station is owned by Journal Communications, which publishes the Journal Sentinel.

"McCullough personified the station," wrote Mike Drew, then TV-radio critic for The Milwaukee Journal. "Older, sincere, solid to the point of stolid, unflashy to the borderline of dull. But also, year after year, reliable, right and no-nonsense."

..."He was a legend," said Hank Stoddard, former WTMJ sports director and a longtime friend. "He was not big on too much happy talk - he could throw a one-liner out - but he didn't tolerate the fluff that you see today on TV news."

When he decided to step down, McCullough made the announcement himself - on his 5 p.m. newscast.

"I spent 22 years here breaking stories, and I wanted to break my own retirement," he said.

I can still hear McCullough's sign-off after the 10:00 news, before Johnny Carson's Tonight Show: "Sleep warm."

Rest in Peace.

Contessa Brewer and Mo Brooks

Contessa Brewer, MSNBC, has yet another clip to add to her highlight reel.

Brewer, former TMJ4 reporter and anchor, is the gift that keeps on giving.

Video, from Breitbart:



Transcript

CONTESSA BREWER: You're simplifying the issues that were on the plate of the nation at that point. We were looking at going, reverting into a depression at that point. Everyone-- the Fed Chairman, the...

REP. MO BROOKS: Well, I disagree that we were going into a depression; but go ahead.

BREWER: Do you have a degree in economics?

BROOKS: Yes, ma'am, I do. Highest honors.

BREWER: OK, so... so, you disagree with the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke.

Oh, Contessa, you stepped in it - AGAIN!

What a fool!

Mo Brooks is no schlub.

Mo graduated from Duke University in three years with a double major in political science and economics, with highest honors in economics. In 1978, he graduated from the University of Alabama Law School.

Other "highlights" in Contessa Brewer's career:

Contessa Brewer and John Ziegler

Contessa Brewer and Zach Lahn

Contessa Brewer, MSNBC, White People, and Guns

MSNBC Bashes Republicans on Olympics

Contessa Brewer: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton

Contessa Brewer and Judd Gregg

Contessa Brewer: Global Warming Snow Job

Contessa Brewer: Islamic Ties, Faisal Shahzad

Contessa Brewer, MSNBC, and Living Green

Contessa Brewer and Tony Katz

Protester at Rupert Murdoch's New York Residence

This guy is truly a disgrace to Cheeseheads everywhere.

This crazed Leftist does not speak for Cheeseheads.

Video.

Rick Santorum and Dan Savage

Dan Savage, founder of the "It Gets Better Project," exposed his hypocrisy when he went on a hate-filled rant during his appearance on Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher.

In addition to asserting, "I wish [Republicans] were all f---ing dead," Savage made some despicable comments about Rick Santorum after Marc Maron had blasted Michelle Bachmann and her husband, Marcus.

Transcript and video.

MARC MARON: I don't want to be crass, but I just hope that Marcus Bachmann takes all that, you know, that rage that comes from repression and denial and brings it into the bedroom with her. I hope he f---s her angrily, because, because that's how I would. And I've thought about it. It's a political statement I'm trying to make.

DAN SAVAGE: Just so you don't get charges of sexism because only Michele Bachmann was involved, I sometimes think about the f---ing the sh-- out of Rick Santorum, just 'cause I think he needs it. It's not just women we're talking about f---ing. It's like, let's bone that Santorum. I'd go for whipping up some Santorum in Santorum.

Do these sound like the sort of comments that would come from someone wanting to spread peace, love, and understanding?

Savage wants everyone to take the "It Gets Better" pledge.

"Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are. I pledge to spread this message to my friends, family and neighbors. I pledge to spread this message to my friends, family and neighbors. I'll speak up against hate and intolerance whenever I see it, at school and at work."

Clearly, Savage does NOT believe in showing respect. He doesn't speak up against hate and intolerance.

To the contrary, Savage is a purveyor of hate.

Yesterday, Rick Santorum was a guest on the Steve Malzberg Show, responding to Savage's remarks.

Here's audio, from NewsBusters, via Breitbart:



Transcript here.

STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: What’s your reaction to this filth?

RICK SANTORUM: It’s just that. It’s filth. It’s, you know, this man has, has gone out there and tried to destroy my integrity. I mean, you’ve heard the whole issue of the Google issue. That’s Dan Savage. You know, it’s, it’s the lowest, you know, debasement of public discourse. It’s, it’s offensive beyond, you know, anything that any public figure or anybody in America should tolerate, and the mainstream media laughs about it. They, they, they kid about it. They write about it. They say, “Oh, Santorum’s got a Google problem.”

And then when you see this kind of even over the top, you know, not even, beyond that, the Google is worse than, than what he said there. They, they laugh about that, too. Why? Because it’s a liberal beating up on a conservative. And that’s okay. Whether it’s Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, it’s the Left making fun of someone who believes in the values that built America. It believes in traditional marriage. How outrageous. How bigoted. How hateful that you actually believe that, that, you know, raising children and, and, and families with mothers and fathers is something to be encouraged. That you’re, that, that, just because you hold those opinions, you are subject to the worst form of, of, of, of vulgarity on the internet, on television, and everywhere else, and they get away with, not only do they get away with the mainstream media, but they are applauded by the mainstream media. They are made, they are celebrated by, as you mentioned, in New York, by taking on these, these people who believe in these outmoded virtues, and, the bottom line is I stand and I wear it as a badge of honor that someone as vulgar and as, and as disgusting and as hate-filled as Dan Savage sees me as public enemy number one. To me, that tells me I must be doing something right.

There's no question that a double standard exists in the liberal media.

Leftists like Savage get a pass when it comes to spewing hate.

Casey Anthony Freed (Video)

Casey Anthony is free.

From the Associated Press:

Casey Anthony was freed from a Florida jail early Sunday, 12 days after she was acquitted of murder in the death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee in a verdict that drew furious responses and even threats from people across the U.S. who had followed the case with rapt attention.

Wearing a pink Polo T-shirt and blue jeans, Anthony left the jail at 12:14 a.m. with her attorney, Jose Baez. After three years behind bars, Anthony was given $537.68 in cash from her jail account and escorted outside by two sheriff's deputies armed with semi-automatic rifles. Neither Anthony nor Baez said anything to reporters and protesters gathered outside.

Anthony, looking somber with her eyes cast downward, said "thank you" to a jailer in the few seconds it took to escort her to the waiting SUV.

"It is my hope that Casey Anthony can receive the counseling and treatment she needs to move forward with the rest of her life," Baez said in a statement released to reporters.

News helicopters briefly tracked the SUV through Orlando's streets, but she quickly vanished from public view.

"This release had an unusual amount of security so, therefore, in that sense, it would not be a normal release," Orange County Jail spokesman Allen Moore said. "We have made every effort to not provide any special treatment for her. She's been treated like every other inmate."

Moore said there were no known threats received at the jail. Officials had a number of contingency plans in place, including plans in case shots were fired as she was being released.

Contingency plans in case shots were fired?

People need to get a grip.

When one believes justice has not been served, it can be extremely disturbing. However, violent outbursts are not appropriate reactions.

...As midnight approached, upward of 100 spectators had gathered outside the jail's booking and release center, where plastic orange barricades had been erected. The crowd included about a half-dozen, sign-carrying protesters who had gathered despite a drenching thunderstorm earlier. Onlookers had varied reactions to her release from the jail, where seven or eight deputies in bullet-proof vests patrolled the area. At least one officer carried an assault weapon and about five officers patrolled on horseback.

"She is safer in jail than she is out here," said Mike Quiroz, who drove from Miami to spend his 22nd birthday outside the jail. "She better watch her butt. She is known all over the world."

Lamar Jordan said he felt a pit in his stomach when he saw Anthony walking free.

"The fact that she is being let out, the fact that it is her child and she didn't say what happened, made me sick," Jordan said.

Not all of those who gathered condemned the 25-year-old.

"I'm for Casey," said Kizzy Smith, of Orlando. "She was proven innocent. At the end of the day, Caylee is at peace. We're the ones who are in an uproar."

Some people are absolutely obsessed with this case. It's a little weird.

Whenever something like this becomes a big TV event, I cringe. It becomes entertainment and the lines between reality and fictional TV drama blur. I view it as exploitation, with the media profiting from crime.

I'm probably one of the few people in the country who didn't follow this case at all. I wasn't interested. I certainly care that a child was murdered, but I didn't want to get wrapped up in the soap opera aspect.

Of course, I'm aware that many believe Casey Anthony killed her sweet little girl, and she got away with murder. Many consider her to be a terrible mother and a terrible human being.

If that's true, that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, Caylee, she's not really free.

I believe justice will be done eventually. Maybe not in this life, but eventually.

Here's raw video of Anthony's release from jail:

Dan Savage: Wishes Republicans F---ing Dead (Video)

UPDATE, July 19, 2011: Rick Santorum responds to Dan Savage.
__________________

Dan Savage is the creator of the "It Gets Better Project."

Many LGBT youth can't picture what their lives might be like as openly gay adults. They can't imagine a future for themselves. So let's show them what our lives are like, let's show them what the future may hold in store for them.

Savage seems like such a compassionate guy, doesn't he?

He cares about people. He really cares.

Here's the "It Gets Better" pledge:

THE PLEDGE: Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are. I pledge to spread this message to my friends, family and neighbors. I'll speak up against hate and intolerance whenever I see it, at school and at work. I'll provide hope for lesbian, gay, bi, trans and other bullied teens by letting them know that "It Gets Better."

"I'll speak up against hate and intolerance whenever I see it."

Oh really, Dan?

I think you're a hypocrite. You speak hate. You exhibit intolerance.

On Bill Maher's Real Time, Savage declared his wish regarding Republicans.

DAN SAVAGE: I wish they were all f---ing dead.

Video.



What a horrible thing to say!

Is this appropriate coming from the founder and ultimate moral authority of the "It Gets Better" Project?

Such hate speech reveals Savage to be a serious part of the problem when it comes to achieving peace, love, and understanding rather than part of the solution.

This statement wasn't an unguarded, private moment for Savage. He said this while on a panel of a nationally televised program.

Savage is a terrible role model.

"It Gets Better"?

Bottom line: Savage says don't hate LGBT people, but wish that Republicans "were all f---ing dead."

Disgusting.

What a hypocrite!
_______________

Savage has realized that his ugly, horrible comment has repercussions. It reveals the "It Gets Better" founder to be a fraud.

He wrote an apology on his blog:

I was on Real Time with Bill Maher tonight. I was talking to someone at the party after the show, and they asked me how I thought it went. Okay, I said—and then I told them that I said something really, really stupid, half under my breath, and I was relieved that Bill and the rest of the panel didn't hear it. But folks watching the show at home might have heard it... so... I want to apologize for... um... wishing all Republicans dead.

I don't feel that way. My dad is a Republican. (Well, he says he's an independent, but he hasn't voted for a Democrat since JFK. My dad is a Republican.) I'm fond of Michael Bloomberg and William Weld and Lincoln Chafee, and I wish no harm—save the political variety—on those Republicans I loathe. Even the one Republican I really had it in for once upon a time—Ronald Reagan—managed to outlive my anger.

It was a stupid, rude, thoughtless remark. I regret it and I retract it and I apologize to anyone watching at home—particularly my father (!)—who may have heard me say it. I had a drink before the show—first and last time I've ever done that—but this wasn't a case of, "In vino, veritas."

This was a case of, "In vino, stupidtas."

Why would Savage say something he didn't mean?

I would NEVER say "I wish all Democrats were f---ing dead."

Those words would NEVER come out of my mouth. Absolutely NEVER. Impossible.

It's not about Savage being "stupid" and "thoughtless." You just don't say something like that unless it's in you. It doesn't happen.

It's like Obama's terribly cruel and mocking Special Olympics remark.

It can't happen unless it's in you.

It's good Savage apologized, but you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
________________

Here's more hate from Savage:

*Warning: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE*



After Marc Maron makes some positively inexcusable remarks about Michele Bachmann and her husband, Marcus Bachmann, Savage follows up with this:

DAN SAVAGE: They're grifters and scumbags - the Bachmanns.

...

MARC MARON: I don't want to be crass, but I just hope that Marcus Bachmann takes all that, you know, that rage that comes from repression and denial and brings it into the bedroom with her. I hope he f---s her angrily, because, because that's how I would. And I've thought about it. It's a political statement I'm trying to make.

DAN SAVAGE: Just so you don't get charges of sexism because only Michele Bachmann was involved, I sometimes think about the f---ing the sh-- out of Rick Santorum, just 'cause I think he needs it. It's not just women we're talking about f---ing. It's like, let's bone that Santorum. I'd go for whipping up some Santorum in Santorum.

Savage didn't issue an apology for this. I guess he stands by these comments.

"It Gets Better" Pledge:

"Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are. I pledge to spread this message to my friends, family and neighbors. I pledge to spread this message to my friends, family and neighbors. I'll speak up against hate and intolerance whenever I see it, at school and at work."

Why would anyone, like the president of the United States, want to be associated with a project headed by Savage?

I fully support the idea behind the project.

Unfortunately, Savage's remarks degrade it.

He reveals that he isn't against hate and intolerance. He foments it.

Carmageddon

The freeway is closed this weekend!

It's CARMAGEDDON!

Am I supposed to care?

I might care that 10 miles of the 405 freeway are being shut down if I lived in Los Angeles; but I'm two time zones away.

I don't think traffic will be impacted here in Wisconsin, but it's still stressful knowing that CARMAGEDDON is upon us.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Promptly at 7 p.m. Friday, contract traffic workers in Day-Glo coveralls began systematically shutting down one turn lane after another at Ventura Boulevard and Sherman Oaks Avenue. Finally, they moved in and placed red-orange cones, traffic barricades and signs to block the onramp to the 405 Freeway.

And thus it began: "Carmageddon" -- the closure of 10 miles of the 405 freeway as part of a $1-billion widening project.

The early work wasn't a complete severing of one of the main transportation arteries that keep Los Angeles pulsing. That doesn't happen until midnight. Instead, it was a slow, systematic squeeze, one onramp at a time.

Meanwhile, the usual pool of Friday night traffic seemed to have long bled out of the Sepulveda Pass, as workers left their jobs early, hunkered down at home or fled the area entirely. The few remaining drivers zoomed at unusually rapid speed over the hill that divides the city's Westside from the San Fernando Valley.

Sepulveda Boulevard, which crisscrosses the freeway, was similarly drained of usual congestion. One driver complained of difficulty staying under the speed limit.

The closure of the onramp at Ventura and Sherman Oaks Avenue was watched by perhaps 100 party-goers who celebrated Carmageddon at a poolside party on the fourth floor of the Courtyard Marriott. Some of the revelers were wearing Caltrans costumes, offering an Only-in-L.A. moment when a network of freeways offers as much a common bond as it does corridors for transportation.

I should be thankful that I'm not experiencing CARMAGEDDON. Some people in L.A. aren't taking it too well.

Carmageddon: Tempers flare as 405 Freeway shuts down

Even before the clock ticked midnight -- the official start of a planned 53-hour closure of the 405 Freeway between the 10 and 101 freeways -- authorities had halted all traffic nearing the Mulholland Drive bridge.

The stoppage prompted honking from drivers in the few vehicles caught on the freeway between Skirball Center and Mulholland Drive. A couple of people exited their cars.

One person took another approach, driving backward and swerving around stopped traffic, alarming onlookers concerned that the driver might strike someone in the roadway. Instead, the car was able to make its way in reverse all the way off the highway.

Not good.

CARMAGEDDON. KARMAGEDDON.

It's bad.

Video.


_________________

MORE:

In the Carmageddon drama, L.A. drivers had to know their roles