Saying the “nation needs Romney,” The Boston Herald endorsed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination today.

“There is only one candidate in the Republican field with the integrity, the experience, the organizational strength and the intelligence to beat Barack Obama and that man is Mitt Romney,” the paper wrote in an editorial. “But perhaps more to the point, there is only one candidate who can put this nation back on the path to fiscal sanity and restore it to its central role on the world stage. That candidate is Mitt Romney.”

The news comes as Romney has begun to emerge as the frontrunner for the nomination in a recent Boston Globe poll.

“I don’t think the answer to our economic woes is to raise taxes,” he told Herald editors and reporters at a recent meeting. “People are already paying half of their income in taxes [to every level of government].

“Government is simply taking too large a slice out of our economy,” he added.

He’s out.

With poll numbers dropping like a stone and no new money coming in, Herman Cain has suspended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

Staffers had speculated that he would drop out today, but no official word had come until now. The announcement came in Atlanta, at the opening of Cain’s new headquarters, which was supposed to be a joyous occasion for the one-time GOP frontrunner.

On Friday, Cain returned home to suburban Atlanta and met face-to-face with his wife, Gloria for the first time since 46-year-old Ginger White came forward to say she had a 13-year extramarital affair with Cain.

Barney Frank, one of the first openly-gay politicians and one of Massachusetts’ most well-known politicians, announced he would not seek re-election.

Frank, who has usually coasted to re-election, has come under fire as chair of the House Banking Committee given the current state of the economy.

Massachusetts Republicans were quick to comment on his decision not to run again:

“It is clear that Congressman Frank was not looking forward to another hard fought campaign after losing his gerrymandered district and spending nearly every penny he had in 2010,” said Massachusetts Republican Party Executive Director Nate Little in a statement. “Republicans were already gearing up for a strong race and Frank’s sudden retirement injects added optimism and excitement into the election.”

Frank has been in office since 1981.

NEW YORK — I stand behind the tenets of Occupy Wall Street. But, Thursday night’s assembly at Foley Square and subsequent march across the Brooklyn Bridge was an exercise in futility and misguided sloganism. Commiseration does not equate consequence and without consequence for the targets of this movement, I fear it is quickly going the way of the Dodo.

I arrived at Foley Square just before 5pm and the park was abuzz. Rude Mechanical Orchestra could be heard above the din of cheers and chants. Entering the pool of my fellow Americans, I steeled myself for what I thought would be an emotional convergence of like-minded and like-hearted citizens. Instead what I got was a lesson in framing. And a headache, caused by excessive eye-rolling.

The microphone passed among the unseen faces of musical acts, union leaders, members of clergy and the assembly, projected songs and speeches made up of iterative clips and phrases about the 99 percent movement, meant to electrify the crowd. We were informed that Wall Street is corrupt we’re not going to take it anymore! We were told that “this is what democracy looks like” and “we are unstoppable, a new world is possible.” The commiserating stories shared by our fellow 99 percent-ers were meant to inspire solidarity and strengthen our resolve to keep going, but therein lies the crux of the problem. Aside from from our plans to successfully march across “our” Brooklyn Bridge, where were we supposed to go?

Occupy Wall Street is at an impasse right now. It has the spotlight, but the movement is lacking in both leadership and a clear message. An epitomizing example of this void came when the NYPD stopped half of the assembly from moving forward toward the bridge. An ensuing mic-check (a whisper-down-the-lane style of disseminating announcements among the crowds) informed those of us near the front that “50 percent of the assembly has been barricaded back at the square. What do we do?” True to form of an OWS mic-check, the crowd repeated the announcement. As the masses around me dutifully, if not robotically, repeated – for the second time – “what do we do?” I found myself stifling a growl of frustration. The crowd fell silent in response to this question and it became clear that no one really knows what to do next.

The highlight of the evening came in the way of a rogue bat-signal shining its beam of movement rhetoric onto the Verizon building. As the projection ran through the list of subsequent occupations around the globe, I remembered why I came to Foley Square in the first place – we are 99 percent strong and there are more than enough of us to truly revolutionize the way America does business. Unfortunately, until the movement outlines some clearer goals, I’m not sure I can stomach going back. What can I say? I just didn’t have the same ethereal experience as one Gothamist-quoted protester who said he could “literally feel the ground shaking.” Don’t get me wrong, I felt the ground shake too, but it wasn’t so much the energy of the crowd as it was the movement of the subways, directly below the park.

As I have said, I stand behind the tenets of Occupy Wall Street. I would like to see this movement make strides in the democratic process of America, but the pace of this movement has me so worried that I would like to humbly make the following suggestions to my sisters and brothers on the front line:

1. Occupy Wall Street needs to hone its message so that it resonates with more than just a handful of the 99 percent. OWS must do for the word “revolution” what Obama did for the word “hope” and Charlie Sheen did for the word “winning.”

2. When using the microphones to communicate with the crowd and it’s loud enough to be heard by everyone in a five-block radius, Occupy Wall Street should not employ the mic-check system. It is a painfully redundant waste of time. Furthermore, precious time on said microphones should be used to disseminate worthwhile information, not useless rhetoric. Fine, “this is just the beginning,” but it’s been two months. Can we please start talking about the middle?

3. Everyone should do their best to be vigilant with the truth when it comes to reporting about Occupy Wall Street, particularly about rally head counts and police brutality. Someone erroneously reported that there were over 32,000 people present at Thursday night’s march, which was just an absurd estimate that ran through the crowd like wildfire. NYPD reports the numbers were closer to 5,000. I surmise it was somewhere in between.

4. Yes, police brutality has occurred and excessive forced has been used, but not as much as the media glorification of these incidents would have us believe. These stories are being used to incite distrust and hatred and serve only to further the “us versus them” mentality the movement is trying to overcome. A general discourse among protestors and the NYPD needs to be met with clear and cool heads. We the people of Occupy Wall Street should start by refraining from antagonizing officers so that when brutality does happen there is no doubt as to who is to blame. Recent events at UC Davis are a perfect example.

5. Finally, please, for the love of all that is sacred, STOP LITTERING and shame those who do. Every once in a while, OWS should use a mic-check to have protesters take a moment and check their surrounding area for litter. It’s pretty difficult to buy the movement’s love of the land when we’re shitting all over it. If we clean up our streets while we clean up Wall Street, maybe we can have it all.

All photos by Sarah Berman for Blast Magazine.

CAMBRIDGE — Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House (R-GA) and current Republican candidate for president, appeared at Harvard University last night to introduce a documentary he helped create, “A City upon a Hill: The Spirit of American Exceptionalism,” at John F. Kennedy School of Government. But was soon interrupted by members of Occupy Boston and Occupy Harvard using the “mic check” call and response popular throughout the Occupy Movement.

The conservative non-profit organization Citizens United Productions is producer of this documentary and was the lead plaintiff in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” the 2009 Supreme Court case which resulted in unions and corporations being allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads. Citizens United produces a variety of media – from television ads to feature-length documentaries – and describes itself as being dedicated to “…American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security.”

The protestors interrupting Gingrich used sarcastic mockery and said, in part, “Mic check / mic check / we love you Newt / thank you for standing up for corporations / they have rights too / thank you for understanding / that simple point / we are / the ninety-nine percent…”

Gingrich is the latest in a line of Right Wing figures (including Karl Rove, Michelle Bachmann and Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin) who have been “mic checked” by members of the Occupy protest in recent weeks. The male demonstrator leading the mic check in Cambridge, whose words were repeated by fellow protestors, seems to have been ad libbing his lines. This stands in contrast to interruptions in other states where protestors seem to have been reading prepared statements. Gingrich, standing with his wife, Callista, remained smiling and composed throughout the interruption but another person in attendance admonished the demonstrators by yelling “go back to your tents.”

Harvard security guards quickly removed the protestors. No arrests were made. Newt and Callista Gingrich where scheduled to sign copies of his book about American exceptionalism, “A Nation Like No Other,” at the Harvard Square Coop following his appearance at the Kennedy School. The cancellation of this appearance was celebrated on Twitter for several hours by Occupy supporters who tweeted messages such as “rare yellow-bellied newt sighting in Boston” and “@newtgingrich enjoy this while it lasts- you’ll never be this popular again!”

Rick Perry, in a debate Wednesday night in Michigan, made the mistake of forgetting one of the three government agencies he announced that he would cut if he were president. But, the Texas governor brushes the blunder off as a simple memory slip, saying “All of us make mistakes. I’m a human being. And the issue here is that I had a lapse of memory. So many federal agencies were coming to mind that I forgot the one I was trying to think of, which is the Energy Department”.

Still, the presidential candidate acknowledged his mistake, saying “I admit I may not be the best debater, the smoothest politician on the stage,” but he says he is “an individual of substance when it comes to creating an environment where jobs can be, in fact, the focus of the entrepreneur class out there that are creating those jobs that Americans really need now”.

With the 2012 election season approaching fast and the majority of election news covering the GOP hopefuls, a major blow was struck to Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann’s nomination hopes as her entire New Hampshire staff resigned today.

According to the Global Post, the five-person team, including right wing radio personality Jeff Chidester who had called himself a “longtime friend” of Bachmann, all resigned at once in protest of the lack of attention New Hampshire was receiving from the campaign.

While there has been no official statement made by the team, it has been reported that Southern New Hampshire field director Caroline Gilger will be joining Texas Governor Rick Perry’s effort.

With the New Hampshire primary election poised to happen on January 24, this is the most recent hit to Bachmann’s bid for the nomination, which began strong with the winning of the Iowa Straw poll in August, but has dwindled down to a fourth place standing ever since.

David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama said Sunday that the Republicans seeking the presidential nomination don’t understand the reasons behind the “Occupy” protests that haves sprung up around the country, including Boston.

Axelrod told ABC’s “This Week” that people “want a financial system that works on the level. They want to get a fair shake.”

The remarks came the day after dozens of protesters from Occupy Wall Street were arrested in Times Square in a violent clash with police.

Meanwhile, the Occupy Boston protest has continued to grow after two weeks, and a similar movement has begun in Providence.

Axelrod said that American’s aren’t “impressed” by GOP presidential candidates saying they want to “roll back Wall St. reform.”

He also slammed frontrunner Mitt Romney for changing positions on issues throughout his political career.

“I think there’s this question about what his core principles are,” Axelrod said, citing changes in Romney’s positions from earlier in his political career when he was running for U.S. Senate and Massachusetts governor. “Then he was a pro choice, pro gay rights, pro environmental candidate for office. Then he decided to run for president. Did a 180 on all of that.

“So time and time and time again he shifts – and you get the feeling that there is no principle too large for him to throw over in pursuit of political office.”

Axelrod has specifically targeted Romney recently.

“If I were Governor Romney I’d be worried about all these changes in position and what kind of message that sends to voters,” Axelrod told “This Week” anchor Christiane Amanpour.

Round-table-style GOP debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. Photo: Associated Press

Tuesday’s Bloomberg/Washington Post Republican debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire earned further momentum for ex-pizza CEO Herman Cain, who has been gaining attention in the past few weeks with his “9-9-9 plan.” The tax plan would mandate a flat 9% rate on income, corporations, and the national sales tax. What initially seemed like a rhetorical gimmick for the previously mocked presidential hopeful actually seemed to hold water under scrutiny from Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, the other two major players at this juncture.

With voting in the state likely to start in the new few weeks, the session went relatively smoothly. Charlie Rose moderated, keeping the tone more business-like and less of a melee than past debates, and the candidates sat a table, allowing for a discussion atmosphere without as much outright campaigning. The subdued tone was also partially due to Rick Perry’s calmness throughout the evening: his typical fire was noticeably absent, and he was somehow able to turn almost every question he was asked into an argument for energy independence. Perhaps after criticism about his often-fumbling debate style, his advisors believed that silence was golden. This tactic didn’t necessarily make him look like the smartest guy in the room, but it didn’t make him look like the dumbest (a key factor in this crowd). Plus, his promise of putting 1.2 million Americans to work in the energy industry didn’t sound half bad, if he can swing it.

Romney remained comfortable and smooth in the economic debate, taking flak for his 160-page economic plan from Cain (who once notoriously touted the evils of having to read too much) and turning the question into one of his shining moments of the evening.    When Cain asked Romney whether his 59-point plan was “simple, transparent, efficient, fair and neutral,” Romney actually summed it up in under a minute.  The plan focused on “trade policies that open up new markets to American goods” and implementing policies that get Americans back to work.

Romney sat on his lead. He held strong and came out looking like the sharpest of the group. The clear focus of the debate’s attention though, was the presumed new second place candidate. A noteworthy chunk of the entire chat was spent either listening to Cain talking about his plan, or listening to the other candidates try to poke holes in it. Herman Cain, the candidate who seemed to get written-off early in the race, had the evening’s attention, and therefore, the evening itself.

Still, GOP voters have proven fickle thus far. If the Cain praising turns out to be just his fifteen minutes of Republican fame as it was for Perry and Bachman in the very recent past, last night’s debate won’t end up hurting Romney’s chances for the nomination.

During last week’s Democratic debate, when questioned how she put herself through school, Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren responded: “I didn’t take my clothes off” (referring, of course, to Scott Brown’s salacious 1982 Cosmopolitan pictorial, the proceeds of which apparently helped him pay for his education at Tufts University). Everyone laughed and all was merry. A couple days later, when asked during an interview by a WZLX disc jockey for a response to Warren’s jab, Brown responded: “Thank God.” Cue the insanity.

Now, Brown’s response could have been taken two ways. He could have meant that it would have been tragic for her to feel the need to pay for her education by offering her body in exchange for money, as many college women seem to be doing nowadays. (On a side note: Watch me grill the CEO of seekingarrangements.com, the “elite sugar daddy site of those seeking mutually beneficial relationships,” in this video (below). I’m the one on the left.)

Or, Brown meant that seeing Elizabeth Warren in the buff would be about as pleasurable as a root canal.

Of course, we all know that he meant the latter, which is why a bunch of women (and men, too, although let’s face it: more women) out there have their panties in a bunch. That sexist pig! Or, in the words of Terry O’Neill, president of National Organization for Women,  as told to Politico: “This is the kind of sexist misogynistic attack that we have very sadly come to expect from politicians whenever there is a strong woman who is capable and really dedicated to the betterment of all the people.”

To which I say: Get your panties out of your ass, unless it’s a thong, which would be physically impossible but you get my drift, and get a sense of humor. Have we as a nation become so unfunny and so beholden to pussyfooting (no pun intended) that we’ve lost our collective sense of humor?

Why do women need to be treated like such delicate flowers, anyway? If the fairer sex can dish it out, shouldn’t we be able to take it? Women have scrutinized and made fun of Governor Chris Christie’s weight, former Senator and all-around deuche John Edwards’ hair, and Senator John Kerry’s (alleged) Botox treatments, to name a few, yet we are incapable of handling a little joke about not wanting to see a 62-year-old woman naked? Frankly, who would?

Actually, me. I would. It would be awesome. If Hef or that guy from Hustler were smart they would capitalize on the hubbub and offer Warren a spread (again, no pun intended), or some enterprising genius should sell a calendar for charity called Babes of the Senate, featuring Warren (should she win the general election) and some of the other ladies currently in office. It would look sort of like this or this, except more awesome.

Besides, women don’t have all that much to complain about nowadays in the area of liberation. We’ve largely achieved equality (although a wage gap still exists, it isn’t as wide as typically reported and may never go away fully — read Kay Hymowitz’s piece); in fact, women have begun to surpass men in a number of areas.

Didn’t we fight tooth and nail all these years for women to be able to celebrate acts like this and this with wild abandon and without stigma attached? And now we’re going to kick up our stilettos over an innocent little barb? One more thing: Not to sound like a 10-year-old, but, like, she started it.

Let’s leave the sexist card out of this one, ladies. Frankly, it’s time for us all to man up a little.

Source: White House Press Office

Our first question is from LinkedIn member Chuck Painter. And, Chuck we’re going to get you a mic –

Q Good morning, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning.

Q I’m from Austin, Texas. I’ve been in sales in the plastics industry for 20 years. I lost my job in 2009 and fortunate enough to have found another position, become reemployed. My question is what can we do as American citizens to unite ourselves and help the economy?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, are you a native of Austin? Because that’s one of my favorite cities in the country.

Q Actually, I’m a native of Charlotte, North Carolina, but just relocated to Austin, and I love it there.

THE PRESIDENT: Austin is great. Charlotte is not bad. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you, thank you, thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s the reason why I’m having my convention in Charlotte, because I love North Carolina as well. But how long did it take you to find a new job after you had gotten laid off?

Q It took nine months.

THE PRESIDENT: It took nine months?

Q Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: And that’s one of the challenges that a lot of folks are seeing out there. You’ve got skilled people with experience in an industry. That industry changes, and you were fortunate enough to be able to move. Some folks, because of the decline in the housing industry, are having trouble with mobility in finding new jobs and relocating in pursuit of opportunity.

Q Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: The most important thing that we can do right now is to help jumpstart the economy, which has stalled, by putting people back to work. And so, not surprisingly, I think the most important thing we can do right now is pass this jobs bill.

Think about it. Independent economists have estimated that, if we pass the entire package, the American Jobs Act, we would increase GDP by close to 2 percent; we would increase employment by 1.9 million persons. And that is the kind of big, significant move in the economy that can have ripple effects and help a recovery take off.

There’s been a lot of dispute about the kind of impact that we had right after the financial crisis hit. But the fact is, the vast majority of economists who looked at it have said that the Recovery Act, by starting infrastructure projects around the country, by making sure that states had help on their budgets so they didn’t have to lay off teachers and firefighters and others, by providing tax cuts to small businesses — and by the way, we’ve cut taxes about 16 times since I’ve been in office for small businesses to give them more capital to work with and more incentives to hire — all those things made a big difference.

The American Jobs Act is specifically tailored to putting more of those folks back to work. It’s not going to solve all our problems. We’ve still got a housing situation in which too many homes are underwater. And one of the things that we’ve proposed as part of the American Jobs Act is, is that we’re going to help reduce the barriers to refinancing so that folks can get record-low rates. That will put more money into people’s pockets. It will provide tax cuts to not only small businesses, but almost every middle-class family. That means they’ve got more money in their pockets, and that means that they’re going to be able to spend it on products and services, which provide additional incentives for business to hire folks like you.

So it’s the right step to take right now. Long term, we’re going to have to pull together around making sure our education system is the best in the world, making sure our infrastructure is the best in the world, continuing to invest in science and technology. We’ve got to stabilize our finances, and we’ve got to continue to drive down health care costs, which are a drag on our whole economy. And we’ve got to continue to promote trade, but make sure that that trade is fair and that intellectual property protection, for example, is available when we’re doing business in other countries, like China.

So there are a lot of long-term agendas that we’ve got to pursue. Right now, though, the most important thing I can do for you, even if you already have a job, is to make sure that your neighbors and your friends also have jobs, because those are ultimately the customers for your products.

Hurricane Irene, the powerful storm that ripped the American East Coast and has left 45 people dead so far, was a message from God, if you believe Republican and Tea Party presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann, the fundamentalist religious, often controversial, quick to words candidate, had an interesting remark quoted in the St. Petersburg Times.

“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians,” the newspaper reported she told voters during a rally in Sarasota, Fla. “We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending.”

Bachmann’s campaign denied she meant the comments as a serious religious attack on the East Coast. “Obviously she was saying it in jest,” campaign spokesperson Alice Stewart told TalkingPointsMemo in a statement.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee raised $100,000 to support Elizabeth Warren’s bid for congress, to give Republican Senator Scott Brown a run for his money.

PCCC is a liberal grass-roots group who got more that 53,000 people to join its online project to draft Warren, who has not yet made an official announcement that she will run for office.

$75,000 of the raised money will go directly to Warren’s campaign, while the remainder will pay for online ads in Massachusetts.

The Harvard Law professor will decide after Labor Day whether or not she will try to win back the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s seat for Democrats.

Minnesota Republican Michele Bachmann won the 2011 Iowa straw poll, a test vote for Iowa’s 2012 presidential caucuses.

The straw poll tests the waters for Republicans five months before the primary season kicks off.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul came in second, a strong mainstream showing for Paul, who tends to carry libertarian votes.

Things were shaken on the Republican side when Texas Governor Rick Perry stepped in the ring saying “it’s time to get America working again.”

But Perry could not match Bachmann’s thunder in Iowa.

Former Massachusetts governor and businessman Mitt Romney, who remains the GOP front-runner, was also on the ballot, as was former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, though they did not actively compete for straw poll votes.

Sarah Palin, who visited the Iowa State Fair on Friday, was not on the ballot.

The straw poll can show an emerging trend or it could show nothing. In 2008 Romney won the poll, but his victory was overshadowed by surprising second-place finisher Mike Huckabee. John McCain did not compete in the Iowa straw poll in 2007.

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Congress has now approved a compromise to reduce the deficit and avert a default that would have devastated our economy. It was a long and contentious debate. And I want to thank the American people for keeping up the pressure on their elected officials to put politics aside and work together for the good of the country.

This compromise guarantees more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction. It’s an important first step to ensuring that as a nation we live within our means. Yet it also allows us to keep making key investments in things like education and research that lead to new jobs, and assures that we’re not cutting too abruptly while the economy is still fragile.

This is, however, just the first step. This compromise requires that both parties work together on a larger plan to cut the deficit, which is important for the long-term health of our economy. And since you can’t close the deficit with just spending cuts, we’ll need a balanced approach where everything is on the table. Yes, that means making some adjustments to protect health care programs like Medicare so they’re there for future generations. It also means reforming our tax code so that the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share. And it means getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies, and tax loopholes that help billionaires pay a lower tax rate than teachers and nurses.

I’ve said it before; I will say it again: We can’t balance the budget on the backs of the very people who have borne the biggest brunt of this recession. We can’t make it tougher for young people to go to college, or ask seniors to pay more for health care, or ask scientists to give up on promising medical research because we couldn’t close a tax shelter for the most fortunate among us. Everyone is going to have to chip in. It’s only fair. That’s the principle I’ll be fighting for during the next phase of this process.

And in the coming months, I’ll continue also to fight for what the American people care most about: new jobs, higher wages and faster economic growth. While Washington has been absorbed in this debate about deficits, people across the country are asking what we can do to help the father looking for work. What are we going to do for the single mom who’s seen her hours cut back at the hospital? What are we going to do to make it easier for businesses to put up that “now hiring” sign?

That’s part of the reason that people are so frustrated with what’s been going on in this town. In the last few months, the economy has already had to absorb an earthquake in Japan, the economic headwinds coming from Europe, the Arab Spring and the [rise] in oil prices — all of which have been very challenging for the recovery. But these are things we couldn’t control. Our economy didn’t need Washington to come along with a manufactured crisis to make things worse. That was in our hands. It’s pretty likely that the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling — for both businesses and consumers — has been unsettling, and just one more impediment to the full recovery that we need. And it was something that we could have avoided entirely.

So, voters may have chosen divided government, but they sure didn’t vote for dysfunctional government. They want us to solve problems. They want us to get this economy growing and adding jobs. And while deficit reduction is part of that agenda, it is not the whole agenda. Growing the economy isn’t just about cutting spending; it’s not about rolling back regulations that protect our air and our water and keep our people safe. That’s not how we’re going to get past this recession. We’re going to have to do more than that.

And that’s why, when Congress gets back from recess, I will urge them to immediately take some steps — bipartisan, common-sense steps — that will make a difference; that will create a climate where businesses can hire, where folks have more money in their pockets to spend, where people who are out of work can find good jobs.

We need to begin by extending tax cuts for middle-class families so that you have more money in your paychecks next year. If you’ve got more money in your paycheck, you’re more likely to spend it. And that means small businesses and medium-sized businesses and large businesses will all have more customers. That means they’ll be in a better position to hire.

And while we’re at it, we need to make sure that millions of workers who are still pounding the pavement looking for jobs to support their families are not denied needed unemployment benefits.

Through patent reform, we can cut the red tape that stops too many inventors and entrepreneurs from quickly turning new ideas into thriving businesses — which holds our whole economy back. And I want Congress to pass a set of trade deals — deals we’ve already negotiated — that would help displaced workers looking for new jobs and would allow our businesses to sell more products in countries in Asia and South America, products that are stamped with the words “Made in America.”

We also need to give more opportunities to all those construction workers out there who lost their jobs when the housing boom went bust. We could put them to work right now, by giving loans to private companies that want to repair our roads and our bridges and our airports, rebuilding our infrastructure. We have workers who need jobs and a country that needs rebuilding; an infrastructure bank would help us put them together.

And while we’re on the topic of infrastructure, there’s another stalemate in Congress right now involving our aviation industry which has stalled airport construction projects all around the country and put the jobs of tens of thousands of construction workers and others at risk -– because of politics. It’s another Washington-inflicted wound on America, and Congress needs to break that impasse now –- hopefully before the Senate adjourns -– so these folks can get back to work.

So these are some things that we could be doing right now. There’s no reason for Congress not to send me those bills so I can sign them into law right away as soon as they get back from recess. Both parties share power in Washington, and both parties need to take responsibility for improving this economy. It’s not a Democratic responsibility or a Republican responsibility; it is our collective responsibility as Americans. And I’ll be discussing additional ideas in the weeks ahead to help companies hire, invest and expand.

So, we’ve seen in the past few days that Washington has the ability to focus when there’s a timer ticking down, and when there’s a looming disaster. It shouldn’t take the risk of default -– the risk of economic catastrophe -– to get folks in this town to work together and do their jobs. Because there’s already a quiet crisis going on in the lives of a lot of families, in a lot of communities, all across the country. They’re looking for work, and they have been for a while; or they’re making do with fewer hours or fewer customers; or they’re just trying to make ends meet. That ought to compel Washington to cooperate. That ought to compel Washington to compromise, and it ought to compel Washington to act. That ought to be enough to get all of us in this town to do the jobs we were sent here to do. We’ve got to do everything in our power to grow this economy and put America back to work. That’s what I intend to do, and I’m looking forward to working with Congress to make it happen.

Thanks very much, everybody.

Source: White House Press Office

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. I wanted to give folks a quick update on the progress that we’re making on the debt ceiling discussions.

I was in contact with all the leadership over the course of the weekend and continued to urge both Democrats and Republicans to come together around an approach that not only lifts the debt ceiling but also solves the underlying challenges that we face when it comes to debt and deficits.

Some progress was made in some of the discussions, some narrowing of the issues. Speaker Boehner and the Republican House caucus felt it necessary to put forward the plan that they’re going to be voting on today. I think everyone’s estimation is, is that that is not an approach that could pass both chambers, it’s not an approach that I would sign and it’s not balanced. But I understand the need for them to test that proposition.

The problem we have now is we’re in the 11th hour and we don’t have a lot more time left. The good news is that today a group of senators, the Gang of Six, Democrats and Republicans — I guess now Gang of Seven, because one additional Republican senator added on — put forward a proposal that is broadly consistent with the approach that I’ve urged. What it says is we’ve got to be serious about reducing discretionary spending both in domestic spending and defense; we’ve got to be serious about tackling health care spending and entitlements in a serious way; and we’ve got to have some additional revenue so that we have an approach in which there is shared sacrifice and everybody is giving up something.

And so, for us to see Democratic senators acknowledge that we’ve got to deal with our long-term debt problems that arise out of our various entitlement programs, and for Republican senators to acknowledge that revenues will have to be part of a balanced package that makes sure that nobody is disproportionately hurt from us making progress on the debt and deficits I think is a very significant step. And as I said, the framework that they put forward is broadly consistent with what we’ve been working on here in the White House and with the presentations that I’ve made to the leadership when they’ve come over here.

So here’s where we stand. We have a Democratic President and administration that is prepared to sign a tough package that includes both spending cuts, modifications to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare that would strengthen those systems and allow them to move forward, and would include a revenue component. We now have a bipartisan group of senators who agree with that balanced approach. And we’ve got the American people who agree with that balanced approach.

My hope, and what I will be urging Speaker Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, as well as Leader Reid and Mitch McConnell, is that they, tomorrow, are prepared to start talking turkey and actually getting down to the hard business of crafting a plan that can move this forward in time for the August 2nd deadline that we’ve set forward.

Just a couple of other points I will make. Some of you may ask, what does it mean for the plan that Senator McConnell and Senator Reid had been working on? Our attitude is, is that that continues to be a necessary approach to put forward. In the event that we don’t get an agreement, at minimum, we’ve got to raise the debt ceiling. So that’s the bare minimum that has to be achieved, but we continue to believe that we can achieve more.

And so I want to congratulate the Gang of Six for coming up with a plan that I think is balanced. We just received it, so we haven’t reviewed all the details of it. It would not match perfectly with some of the approaches that we’ve taken, but I think that we’re in the same playing field. And my hope is, is that we can start gathering everybody over the next couple of days to choose a clear direction and to get this issue resolved.
So far, at least, the markets have shown confidence that leadership here in Washington are not going to send the economy over a cliff. But if we continue to go through a lot of political posturing, if both sides continue to be dug in, if we don’t have a basic spirit of cooperation that allows us to rise above immediate election-year politics and actually solve problems, then I think markets here, the American people, and the international community are going to start reacting adversely fairly quickly.

So I think it’s very important for in these next couple of days to understand we don’t have any more time to engage in symbolic gestures; we don’t have any more time to posture. It’s time to get down to the business of actually solving this problem. And I think we now are seeing the potential for a bipartisan consensus around what that would take.

It will be hard. It will be tough. There are still going to be a lot of difficult negotiations that have to take place in order for us to actually get something done. And as I said, we have to have that failsafe that Senator McConnell and Senator Reid are working on. But the hope is, is that everybody seizes this opportunity.

All right? Okay, guys, I’m going to let Jay answer questions today. I think I’ve been pretty good to you guys. (Laughter.) But after the votes today in the House, I’ll call up Speaker Boehner and the other leadership and we’ll arrange for times where we bring folks back here, and hopefully we’ll be able to report on some additional progress over the next few days.

All right? Thank you very much, guys.

Q When will you announce whether you will be supporting the Gang of Six plan? Would that be in the next day?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I said, I think what you’re going to be seeing is an evaluation of that plan versus the things that we’ve been looking at. I think what you’re going to see is some significant overlap. But obviously just because we might agree in principle with a range of issues with six senators or seven senators, that doesn’t get us out of the House of Representatives; that doesn’t get us out of the Senate. There’s going to have to be a broader agreement on the part of all the leadership that we’re going to get this done in a serious way, and we’ve got a tight deadline to do it.

All right? Thanks, guys.

END 1:38 P.M. EDT

Musician Tom Petty has told newly announced Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann to immediately stop using one his songs to promote his campaign.

“Petty isn’t pleased,” reported NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell,.

Rolling Stone confirmed that Petty’s lawyers sent the Minnesota Tea Party favorite congresswoman the cease and desist order.

During the end of Bachmann’s presidential announcement press conference, she played Petty’s “American Girl” to walk off with. Petty’s people sent the letter within 24 hours.

That’s two days and two screw-ups for Bachmann who started her campaign by confusing the birthplace (her hometown) of John Wayne with that of serial killed John Wayne Gacy.

Tea Party favorite and gaffe machine Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) started her presidential campaign with … surprise surprise … a gaffe.

As the Washington Post reported:

On “Fox News Sunday,” Michele Bachmann told Chris Wallace, “Of course a person has to be careful with statements that they make. I think that’s true.” Two days later, she may have wished she had followed her own advice a bit more closely. After her presidential campaign kickoff, Bachmann stepped into a cultural joke mindfield by comparing herself to John Wayne of Waterloo, Iowa. The only John Wayne that ever lived in Waterloo was the serial killer John Wayne Gacy.

Of course, the real astonishing thing is that a person from Waterloo, Iowa, a city of 68,000 people (and falling) did not know that John “Duke” Wayne, the actor, was not born in her hometown, but Gacy, who dressed as a clown and killed 33 people, was.

President Jimmy Carter was at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum Tuesday afternoon to promote his new book, “White House Diary,” a daily account of his 1977-1980 time in the Oval Office. He described the journals that went into the book as “personal diaries” that he never meant to publish, although he did acknowledge he was always aware they would be of interest to posterity.

Carter, 86, also spoke about Middle East peacemaking efforts during his presidency. He said while not wanting “to get too personal” when discussing the Reagan administration, “hardly a word was said about Middle East peace for the next eight years. Those things hurt.” Talking about the 21st century, Carter said there are “chances now to see peace in the Middle East that were dormant last year.”

He was critical of certain US policies in past eras, noting that the Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas was not deemed a terrorist organization until after its candidates prevailed in lawful elections. He added, “It’s not a very popular thing in our country to say anything that criticizes the incumbent government of Israel.”

Describing US foreign policy during the Cold War, Carter asserted that “presidents were in bed with dictators, particularly in the Latin American world…corporations would gain great benefits from us getting cozy with dictators.” He went so far as to describe how the US would help dictators crush free speech and legitimate efforts at reform under the pretext of fighting Communism.

Asked about the unique role of Roslynn Carter during his presidency, the former president said “Roslynn could speak more accurately for me than the Secretary of State or the National Security Advisor.” He described the surprise of foreign leaders when Roslynn would confront them face-to-face about corruption in their governments or civil injustice in their nations. Flashing his wide, often-caricatured smile Carter added, “She was very willing to do it, to put in mildly.”

Carter described eventually inviting his wife to sit in on cabinet meetings so he “didn’t have to spent half the week” bringing her up to date on what was going on. Not withstanding the First Lady’s involvement with so many important issues, Carter said that one of the proudest moments of his presidency was when someone identified Roslynn as being one of ten women who had the most beautiful legs on Earth.

Reflecting on the time between leaving office and the present day, Carter said, “I think I’m basically still the same person with the same commitment…as I was at my inauguration speech.” But he added that his awareness has increased, particularly regarding the “poverty stricken, neglected and forgotten people of the world.” Talking about many in such circumstances, Carter said “they’re just as intelligent as I am, and just as ambitious. Their family values are just as good as mine.” The difference, he said, was the level of opportunity available to them.

Carter compared the success of the recent mission to get Osama bin Laden with Operation Eagle Claw, his administration’s failed 1980 attempt to rescue the hostages held captive in Iran. “When people ask me what I would change from when I was in the White House” said Carter ruefully, “I always say I would send one more helicopter…if I knew then what I know now, I would have sent one more helicopter.”

Carter’s appearance, part of the Kennedy Library Forums series, was moderated by Ray Suarez, senior correspondent for PBS NewsHour. Jimmy and Roslynn Carter have a long and seemingly close relationship with the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. While president, Jimmy Carter spoke at the library’s October 20, 1979 dedication ceremony. The two have been back there, alone and together, on many occasion since – most recently in November of last year when the 83-year old Roslynn Carter spoke about “Within Our Reach: Ending the Mental Health Crisis,” a new book she published with Susan K. Golant and Kathryn E. Cade.

Happy now?

Seriously. Wow.

In a probable attempt to silence the “birther” movement, the White House has actually released a copy of President Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate from Honolulu. What remains to be seen, however, is whether this unexpected and unanticipated move will silence the Tea Party and other conservative critics or just give credence to their arguments.

According to the Associated Press, large numbers of Republicans continue to say that they doubt whether Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be president. Donald Trump, engaged in his own campaign for the office, has used the controversial issue as he tests the waters.

Speaking Wednesday, Obama said that the country can focus on solving its problems only if it moves on and is not distracted from issues like this.

So he put it on the front page of every newspaper and blog in America.

The document lists Barack Hussein Obama II born at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, in Honolulu.

There you go.

As Prepared for Delivery—

Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.

I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans.

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

Last month, Gaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”

Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.

Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.

In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.

To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.

Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.

So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.

That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.

Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.

Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves.

In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.

It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government.

Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.”

This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.

The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership.

My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.

But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

###

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann visited New Hampshire and clutched a teabag during a speech in Nashua, but at an earlier speech in Manchester, she Republican confused one of the basic facts of the Revolutionary War.

“What I love about New Hampshire and what we have in common is our extreme love for liberty,” the potential presidential candidate said. “You’re the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord. And you put a marker in the ground and paid with the blood of your ancestors the very first price that had to be paid to make this the most magnificent nation that has ever arisen in the annals of man in 5,000 years of recorded history.”

Of course, the opening battles of the Revolution were actually fought in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts.

The gaffe is likely to go down as one of the larger blunders of the upcoming 2012 presidential primary season.

The remark also illustrates a lack of basic knowledge of New England geography and of grade school-level American history — the same history that her Tea Party backers drew from in forming the movement.

The story was first reported by RealClearPolitics.

THE PRESIDENT: Hey! (Applause.) Hello, TechBoston! (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, everybody. Everybody please have a seat. Everybody please have a seat.

We are thrilled to see especially the students here today. (Applause.) I am grateful for the presence of a few other outstanding leaders. First of all, the great mayor of Boston Tom Menino is in the house. There he is over there. (Applause.) Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray is here. Where’s Tim? (Applause.) Tim, good to see you. The outstanding Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is in the house. (Applause.)

To all of you who are contributing to the outstanding education of these young people, I could not be prouder to be here. It is wonderful to be back in Massachusetts. Some of you may know I spent some time in school here myself. I was much younger. I had no gray hair. (Laughter.) There were definitely no SmartBoards back then. (Laughter.) The most exciting new technology was an electric pencil sharpener. (Laughter.) So times have changed. You remember those? (Laughter.) Do you know what pencils are? Do you guys use pencils?

I am so grateful to have Melinda Gates joining us here today. Of course, we all know Melinda’s husband Bill, who couldn’t hack it at school here, dropped out. (Laughter.) Then he started a modest — modestly successful computer company. That was a joke, guys. (Laughter.) Bill Gates actually created a really big company. (Laughter.) But Melinda is a force in her own right — she is one of the world’s most generous but also effective philanthropists, successful businesswoman, and most important for today, she has been an extraordinary leader when it comes to education reform. Microsoft and the Gates Foundation have been partners with TechBoston since it got started, and we are very grateful for their support. Proud of them. (Applause.)

Melinda is absolutely right, by the way. One of the things that I’ve benefited from in this effort to make sure our schools are working for every young person is my Secretary of Education. Some of you might have known that Arne used to play professional basketball in Australia. He was on the Harvard basketball team; was a star there. Just the other week, he was in a celebrity basketball tournament where he was outscored by Justin Bieber. (Laughter.) I’m just saying. (Laughter.) Justin is, like, about 5’2” — (laughter) — so please give him a hard time for that if you get a chance.

Now, we’re in the middle of what we’re calling Education Month at the White House, and I wanted to come to TechBoston so that the rest of America can see how it’s done. You guys are a model for what’s happening all across the country. (Applause.) And obviously at the helm is Mary Skipper, who is doing unbelievable work. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Skip!

THE PRESIDENT: Love you, Skip! (Laughter.) But also the extraordinarily talented teaching staff that is working here. I had a chance to meet a couple of the teachers, and you could just tell that they are passionate about the work that they do. So they deserve a huge round of applause. (Applause.)

Every day, TechBoston is proving that no matter who you are, or what you look like, or where you come from, every child can learn. Every child can succeed. And every child deserves that chance.

Getting the best possible education has never been more important than it is right now. And that’s because in today’s world, a good job requires a good education. I travel all across the country, I go into factories, I go into companies. And it doesn’t matter where you are working — if you do not have a good education you are not going to be able to succeed. And that includes being on the factory floor these days, because most of the equipment is highly technical.

Over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require a level of education beyond a high school degree. Which means, obviously, first of all, you can’t drop out of TechBoston. That’s not allowed. All right? You can’t even think about dropping out. (Applause.) But — can’t even think about it. But even after you graduate, you’re going to need some additional education. And I know that TechBoston is doing an outstanding job of making sure that every student is prepared to go to college.

Unfortunately, the reality is too many students are not prepared across our country. Too many leave school without the skills they need to get a job that pays. Today, as many as a quarter of American students are not finishing high school — a quarter. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. And America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree. We used to be number one, and we’re now number nine. That’s not acceptable.

The most effective way to create jobs in this country is to change those statistics. There’s no better economic policy than one that produces more graduates with the skills they need to succeed — to start their own businesses, to create their own Microsoft, to create new industries. And that’s why reforming education is the responsibility of every single American -– every parent, every teacher, every business leader, every public official, and yes, every student.

Now, it used to be that we weren’t sure how to turn around failing schools. We weren’t sure what worked to help struggling students. There were some folks in Washington who said all it took was more money, and if we just poured more money into the school everything would better. Then there were others who said, no, you just got to blow up these schools, they can’t work. A lot of people thought we should just give up on places like Dorchester, and they assume that some kids just can’t learn, or they’ve got too many disadvantages. There are always some excuses for why our young people couldn’t succeed.

But after awhile, parents and teachers and education reformers started to realize that maybe Washington didn’t have all the answers. And I can promise you after being there for a few years, they’re on to something there. (Laughter.) People started realizing that what’s needed is not either/or, it’s not either more money or more reform, it’s both/and — both more money and more reform. That’s what’s needed. (Applause.)

What’s needed is higher standards and higher expectations; more time in the classroom and greater focus on subjects like math and science. What’s needed are outstanding teachers and leaders like Skip who get more flexibility. I just like that name. I’m going call you Skip now. (Laughter and applause.) But education leaders who get more flexibility in exchange for more accountability.

And all those ingredients are present here at TechBoston. The students here, they get their own laptop when they walk through the door. That costs money, but it opens up a window for learning. You’re required to take four years of math, science and technology classes — classes like web development and entrepreneurship and even forensic science. I didn’t even know what forensic science was in high school. (Laughter.) I’m not sure I do now. (Laughter.) But that’s part of the requirement that makes this school outstanding.

The school days are longer. Classes are 60 minutes so that young people have time to actually focus and absorb the information that’s being provided. And many students go to school in July and August. I usually don’t get much applause from students when I point that out. (Laughter.) Because this is a pilot school, Mary had the ability to hire her own staff, and the teachers here are offered training and constant support.

So those are the ingredients, and the results have been powerful. The students here come from some tough neighborhoods — am I right? Yes. And yet the graduation rate is almost 20 points higher than the rest of the city — 20 points higher. (Applause.) Ninety-four percent of the most recent graduating class went to college. Eighty-five percent of those students were the first in their family to do so. (Applause.) Your math and science scores are consistently higher than other Boston schools, and the attendance rate here is 94 percent.

So it’s working. What’s happening here is working. We know what works. What’s required, then, to get results from any school is no longer a mystery. And that means there can’t be any more excuses — from anybody. As a nation, we have a moral and economic imperative to give every child the chance to succeed. And that’s why I set a goal when I took office, that by the end of the decade, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. We will be number one again. (Applause.)

Now, to achieve this goal, everybody is going to need to do their part. We need the help of philanthropists like Melinda Gates. We’ll need the help of the businesses that are partnering with TechBoston. We need citizens and parents to get involved, because nothing we do in school with make much of a difference unless we instill in our kids the self-confidence and the self-discipline and the work ethic that are at the heart of success not just in school but in life.

So some of you may have come from a tough neighborhood, but you’ve got some parents at home, you’ve got somebody at home who’s nagging you and staying on top of you and saying you can succeed. And I’m assuming somebody who’s also turning off the TV set once in a while and saying, put away the video games and do your homework. That has to be a critical ingredient in success.

We need to recognize that the true path to reform has to involve partnerships between teachers and school administrators and communities. And we’ll need a national education policy that tries to figure out how do we replicate success stories like TechBoston all across the country.

So that’s what Arne Duncan’s job is, and that’s what he’s been doing so well over the last few years. Instead of pouring money into a broken system, under Arne’s leadership, what we’ve done is we’ve launched a competition. We call it Race to the Top. (Applause.) We call it Race to the Top, and it’s basically a challenge to states and school districts, prove to us that you’re serious about reform. We’ve said to all 50 states, if you show us the most innovative plans for improving teacher quality and improving student achievement, then we’ll show you the money. And for less than 1 percent of what America spends on education each year, Race to the Top has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning — standards, by the way, that were developed not in Washington but by Republican and Democratic governors all across the country.

So at the grassroots level, at the state level, standards were developed. And we said, show us how you’re going to meet these standards. The more innovative you are, the more money you can get for your schools. And that’s the kind of bottom-up approach that we need to follow. This year we’re going to have to work with Congress to fix No Child Left Behind, and we’re going to have to replace it with a law that does a better job focusing on responsibility and reform and, most of all, results. (Applause.)

We’re also trying to give school districts more flexibility to open charter schools and pilot schools like TechBoston, so that they have the flexibility, the autonomy, to do what’s best for students. We’re working to make sure every school has a 21st-century curriculum like you do. And in the same way that we invested in the science and research that led to the breakthroughs like the Internet, I’m calling for investments in educational technology that will help create digital tutors that are as effective as personal tutors, and educational software that’s as compelling as the best video game. I want you guys to be stuck on a video game that’s teaching you something other than just blowing something up. (Applause.)

And because we know that the single most important factor in a student’s success after their parent is the person standing at the front of the classroom, we are looking to make teaching one of the most honored professions in our society. (Applause.) In South Korea, teachers are known as “nation builders.” That’s what they’re — that’s how they’re described. Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. (Applause.) We’ve got to lift up teachers. We’ve got to reward good teachers. First, we also have to stop making excuses for bad teachers. We’re also working to give educators the support and the preparation that they need, and I know that some of the teachers here have benefited from our investment in these programs, such as the teacher preparation partnership you have with the Boston Teachers Residency and with UMass Boston.

And with so many baby boomers retiring from teaching over the next few years, we intend to recruit and prepare a new generation of teachers, including 100,000 new math and science teachers over the next decade. And I hope that some of you will end up going into the teaching profession and pass on all the knowledge that you’ve gotten here at TechBoston. (Applause.)

Now, I’ve talked about how much we can improve student achievement through various reforms — setting higher standards, higher expectations; giving schools and teachers more flexibility in exchange for greater accountability. But it’s also true that fixing our schools will cost some money. Recruiting and rewarding the best teachers costs money. Making it possible for families to send their kids to college costs money. Making sure that some of the state-of-the-art equipment that all of you are working on when I walked into Mr. Louis’s classroom today, that costs money.

Making these investments in education is going to be absolutely critical, but it’s tough to do after decades of deficits. I understand that. For too long, the government has been spending more money than it’s been taking in. So we’re going to have to get serious about cutting whatever spending we don’t need, which means I’ve already called for a five-year freeze in our annual domestic budget. That’s a freeze that would cut the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and it would bring such spending to a lower share of our economy than it’s been in 50 years. And I’ve proposed cutting or eliminating more than 200 federal programs that aren’t working as well as they should. We’re freezing the salaries of hardworking civil servants for two years. And I’m willing to do more to get our deficits under control. And that’s why the White House is leading bipartisan meetings with members of Congress, because we need to come up with a budget that forces government to live within its means.

But — and I want everybody to pay attention — even as we find ways to cut spending, we cannot cut back on job-creating investments like education. We cannot cut back on the very investments that will help our economy grow and our nation compete and make sure that these young people succeed. (Applause.) There’s nothing responsible about that. There’s nothing responsible about cutting back on our investment in these young people.

I mean, think about what happens in your own family. If you have a family member that loses a job or you have an illness in the family and you’ve got to cut back, where do you start? You maybe give up a vacation. You go out to eat less often. Maybe you don’t buy that new coat you thought was sharp, or the new car that you thought you needed. But the last thing you do is give up saving on your child’s education, because you know that’s the key to that child’s success in life.

Well, what’s true for a family has to be true for the larger American family. A budget that sacrifices our commitment to education is a budget that sacrifices our country’s future. It is a budget that sacrifices our children’s future, and I will not let it happen. (Applause.) I will not let it happen. We’re not going to give up on any school in America or any child in America.

We can’t forget that every year, schools like TechBoston have to hold a lottery, because there just aren’t enough spaces for all the students who want to go here. The reason they want to go here is because they know that if they go to some of the other schools in the area, they won’t do as well. They know that they might drop out. They might not get the same reinforcement that they need. There might not be that same culture of excellence and performance. That means they may not go to college, and they know they may not succeed.

All of that shouldn’t depend on a lottery. That can’t be the system of education we settle for in America. No child’s chance in life should be determined by the luck of a lottery. Not in this country. This is a place where everyone gets the chance to succeed, where everybody should have a chance to make it. The motto of this school is, “We rise and fall together.” Well, that is true for America as well. (Applause.) That’s true for America as well.

If we want to prosper in the 21st century, and if we want to keep the American Dream alive in our time, then we’re going to rise together. We’ve all got to come together. We’ve got to give our children the same world-class education that you are getting right here at TechBoston. And as long as I am President, that’s what I’m going to be fighting for right alongside you.

Thank you so much, everybody. (Applause.) God bless you. God bless the United States of America.

Source: White House Media Affairs Office.

The Massachusetts freshman senator told CBS News that he was sexually abused as a child by a camp counselor.

In an interview airing Sunday on “60 Minutes,” Republican Scott Brown said he was abused several times and that he was physically abused by his stepfathers over the years.

Brown told CBS’s Lesley Stahl that his mother didn’t even know about the abuse.

“That’s what happens when you’re a victim. You’re embarrassed. You’re hurt,” he said.

Brown told “60 Minutes” that the counselor touched him inappropriately and then forced him to do the same, threatening to kill him if he spoke of it.

The interview comes on the heels of his memoir, “Against All Odds,” coming next week.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, good morning, everybody. I am here at Parkville Middle School and Center of Technology outside of Baltimore with Secretary Arne Duncan and Budget Director Jack Lew. And I just came to Parkville on a day where we are unveiling our budget, and I’m doing so for a reason. But before I do that I just want to thank Principal Buddy Parker, who is showing us around, as well as Susan Yoder, the eighth grade science teacher who we just visited with in her classroom.

Over the last few weeks I’ve traveled the country, talking about what we need to do to win the future; talked about the need to invest in innovation, so that the next big idea is discovered here in the United States of America. I’ve talked about the need to invest in high-speed rail and high-speed Internet, so that companies can move goods and information faster than ever. And this week, I’ll be talking about the need to invest in education -– in places like Parkville -– so that every American is equipped to compete with any worker, anywhere in the world.

These investments are an essential part of the budget my administration is sending to Congress. Because I’m convinced that if we out-build and out-innovate and out-educate, as well as out-hustle the rest of the world, the jobs and industries of our time will take root here in the United States. Our people will prosper and our country will succeed.

But I’m also convinced that the only way we can make these investments in our future is if our government starts living within its means, if we start taking responsibility for our deficits. That’s why, when I was sworn in as President, I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term. The budget I’m proposing today meets that pledge -– and puts us on a path to pay for what we spend by the middle of the decade. We do this in part by eliminating waste and cutting whatever spending we can do without.

As I start — as a start, I’ve called for a freeze on annual domestic spending over the next five years. This freeze would cut the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, bringing this kind of spending — domestic discretionary spending — to its lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let me repeat that. Because of our budget, this share of spending will be at its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President. That level of spending is lower than it was under the last three administrations, and it will be lower than it was under Ronald Reagan.

Now, some of the savings will come through less waste and more efficiency. To take just one example, by getting rid of 14,000 office buildings, lots and government-owned properties we no longer need, we can save taxpayers billions of dollars. And when it comes to programs we do need, we’re making them work better by demanding accountability. Instead of spending first, and asking questions later, we’re rewarding folks inside and outside government who deliver results. And to make sure that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects, I’ve pledged to veto any bill that contains earmarks.

Still, even as we cut waste and inefficiency, this budget freeze will require some tough choices. It will mean cutting things that I care deeply about — for example, community action programs in low-income neighborhoods and towns, and community development block grants that so many of our cities and states rely on. But if we’re going to walk the walk when it comes to fiscal discipline, these kinds of cuts will be necessary.

I’m also looking forward to working with members of both parties to take steps beyond this budget freeze -– because cutting annual domestic spending won’t be enough to meet our long-term fiscal challenges. As the bipartisan fiscal commission concluded, the only way to truly tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it -– in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes. So what we’ve done here is make a down payment, but there’s going to be more work that needs to be done, and it’s going to require Democrats and Republicans coming together to make it happen.

We’ve begun to do some of this with $78 billion in cuts in the Defense Department’s budget plan, by ending tax breaks for oil and gas companies, and through billions of dollars in savings from wasteful health spending -– savings we’ll use to make sure doctors don’t see their reimbursements slashed and that they stay in the system seeing patients.

But here’s the thing. While it’s absolutely essential to live within our means, while we are absolutely committed to working with Democrats and Republicans to find further savings and to look at the whole range of budget issues, we can’t sacrifice our future in the process. Even as we cut out things that we can afford to do without, we have a responsibility to invest in those areas that will have the biggest impact in our future -– and that’s especially true when it comes to education.

Right now, this school, Parkville, is preparing our kids for the jobs and careers of the 21st century. It’s a school that nurtures what students are passionate about and prepares them for success. Students in the magnet program here start out by taking courses in each of four subjects –- from applied engineering to environmental science -– gradually focusing their studies on one subject over the next couple of years.

I’m told the most popular subject at this school is engineering. And that’s important, because today the most common educational background for America’s top business leaders isn’t economics. It’s not finance. It’s not even business. It’s engineering.

Engineering and math, critical thinking, problem solving –- these are the kinds of subjects and skills that our kids need to achieve success in the 21st century. That’s why we’re spearheading a drive to prepare more than 10,000 new math and science teachers over the next five years, and train 100,000 more current teachers in those fields. That’s why we’re pushing forward on a Race to the Top in our schools that has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning for less than 1 percent of what we spend on education each year. That’s why we’re protecting the more than $800 increase that we added to the most widely used federal scholarships, and making the tough choices to put them on a firm footing for years to come. And that’s why we’re on track to meet the goal that I set when I took office: By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

I know the American people understand why this is so important. And I think that those of us who are working in Washington need to understand why these investments in the future are so important as well.

I mentioned in my weekly radio address a letter that I recently got from a woman named Brenda Breece. Brenda is a mom. She’s a special ed teacher in Missouri, and her husband, David, lost his job when the local Chrysler plant shut down. So money has been tight for the family, and they’ve had to sacrifice the little things that they can do without. One thing that Brenda knows she can’t afford to sacrifice is her daughter Rachel’s education. And that’s why she’s looking, as we speak, for a second job to help put Rachel through college, and ensure, as she told me, that “the money is there to help Rachel with her future.”

What’s true for Brenda’s family is true for the larger American family: Education is an investment that we need to win the future — just like innovation is an investment that we need to win the future; just like infrastructure is an investment that we need to win the future. And to make sure that we can afford these investments, we’re going to have to get serious about cutting back on those things that would be nice to have but we can do without.

That’s what families across the country do every day –- they live within their means and they invest in their family’s futures. And it’s time we did the same thing as a country. That’s how we’re going to get our fiscal house in order. That’s how we’ll grow our economy and attract new jobs to our shores. And that’s how America we will win the future in the 21st century.

Thanks very much, everybody.

9:12 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Tonight I want to begin by congratulating the men and women of the 112th Congress, as well as your new Speaker, John Boehner. (Applause.) And as we mark this occasion, we’re also mindful of the empty chair in this chamber, and we pray for the health of our colleague — and our friend -– Gabby Giffords. (Applause.)

It’s no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that’s a good thing. That’s what a robust democracy demands. That’s what helps set us apart as a nation.

But there’s a reason the tragedy in Tucson gave us pause. Amid all the noise and passion and rancor of our public debate, Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater -– something more consequential than party or political preference.

We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.

That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation. (Applause.)

Now, by itself, this simple recognition won’t usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow. (Applause.)

I believe we can. And I believe we must. That’s what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they’ve determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all -– for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.

At stake right now is not who wins the next election -– after all, we just had an election. At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It’s whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It’s whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but the light to the world.

We are poised for progress. Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.

But we have never measured progress by these yardsticks alone. We measure progress by the success of our people. By the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer. By the prospects of a small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise. By the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children.

That’s the project the American people want us to work on. Together. (Applause.)

We did that in December. Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans’ paychecks are a little bigger today. Every business can write off the full cost of new investments that they make this year. And these steps, taken by Democrats and Republicans, will grow the economy and add to the more than one million private sector jobs created last year.

But we have to do more. These steps we’ve taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession, but to win the future, we’ll need to take on challenges that have been decades in the making.

Many people watching tonight can probably remember a time when finding a good job meant showing up at a nearby factory or a business downtown. You didn’t always need a degree, and your competition was pretty much limited to your neighbors. If you worked hard, chances are you’d have a job for life, with a decent paycheck and good benefits and the occasional promotion. Maybe you’d even have the pride of seeing your kids work at the same company.

That world has changed. And for many, the change has been painful. I’ve seen it in the shuttered windows of once booming factories, and the vacant storefronts on once busy Main Streets. I’ve heard it in the frustrations of Americans who’ve seen their paychecks dwindle or their jobs disappear -– proud men and women who feel like the rules have been changed in the middle of the game.

They’re right. The rules have changed. In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there’s an Internet connection.

Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They’re investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world’s largest private solar research facility, and the world’s fastest computer.

So, yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. (Applause.) No workers — no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.

What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That’s why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”

The future is ours to win. But to get there, we can’t just stand still. As Robert Kennedy told us, “The future is not a gift. It is an achievement.” Sustaining the American Dream has never been about standing pat. It has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age.

And now it’s our turn. We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. (Applause.) We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit and reform our government. That’s how our people will prosper. That’s how we’ll win the future. (Applause.) And tonight, I’d like to talk about how we get there.

The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation. None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do — what America does better than anyone else — is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We’re the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn’t just change our lives. It is how we make our living. (Applause.)

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That’s what planted the seeds for the Internet. That’s what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS. Just think of all the good jobs — from manufacturing to retail — that have come from these breakthroughs.

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we would beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t even there yet. NASA didn’t exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.

Robert Sargent Shriver, brother-in-law to John F. Kennedy, has died at age 95.

“Our dad, Robert Sargent Shriver, Jr., lovingly known as “Sarge,” today went to heaven to join the love of his life, our mother, Eunice Kennedy Shriver,” the Shriver family said in a statement.

Shriver was George McGovern’s running mate in the 1972, founded the Peace Corps and served on a number of federal agencies in the 60s.

He was the father of Maria Shriver.

“He was a man of giant love, energy, enthusiasm, and commitment. He lived to make the world a more joyful, faithful, and compassionate place. He centered everything on his faith and his family. He worked on stages both large and small but in the end, he will be best known for his love of others. No one ever came into his presence without feeling his passion and his enthusiasm for them. He loved God, he loved Eunice, he loved us, he loved anyone who was a servant of peace, justice or joy. He loved life,” the family statement said. “We pray that his spirit and example will guide us as we accept the challenge of living as he did. We will miss him forever. May the angels and saints and all his family receive him with a party beyond all imagining.”

Shriver suffered from Alzheimer’s disease for several years.

“Few Americans have touched as many lives as Sargent Shriver,” said Massachusetts Senator John Kerry in a statement. “As the first director of the Peace Corps, the head of the War on Poverty, and as president of the Special Olympics, he helped millions of Americans seize a sense of almost infinite possibilities and he brought the promise of America into countless corners around the globe. Sarge often said that ‘freedom is a crusade,’ and for him it was that and much more. He was an extraordinary man and an extraordinary public servant who never lost the idealism that grand achievements were a question of willpower, not capacity.”

A protest sign held by a member of the WBC (left) and Elizabeth Edwards. (Media Credit/www.Huffingtonpost.com)

The Westboro Baptist Church announced in a memo on its Web site, www.godhatesfags.com, that it plans to picket at Elizabeth Edwards’ funeral Saturday, to be held in Raleigh, N.C.

The group, based in Kansas, frequently protests soldiers’ funerals and is famous for its many hateful–and distasteful–picket signs, including “God Hates Fags,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Thank God for Breast Cancer” and “Thank God for 9/11.”

Edwards, the estranged wife of former presidential candidate John Edwards, died of breast cancer earlier this week at the age of 61. The WBC’s memo claims that “God hates” Edwards and that she is a “resident of hell, where her rebellion and rage will take full flower.” The group’s anger towards her seems to be rooted in her statements to the media regarding she and John’s 16-year-old son Wade, who died in a car crash in 1996. The WBC deemed her statements “blasphemy.”

The WBC’s memo can be read in its entirety below.

Elizabeth Edwards arrives at Stand Up To Cancer held at Sony Pictures Studios on September 10 in Culver City, Calif. (WireImage)

Elizabeth Edwards, the estranged wife of disgraced former vice presidential candidate John Edwards, has ceased her treatment for cancer after being told by doctors that further efforts to treat here would have no effect.

She is said to be resting with her family and friends at her side.

Edwards sent the following message to well-wishers via Facebook:

“You all know that I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces – my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope. These graces have carried me through difficult times and they have brought more joy to the good times than I ever could have imagined. The days of our lives, for all of us, are numbered. We know that. And, yes, there are certainly times when we aren’t able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. It’s called being human.

“But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful. It isn’t possible to put into words the love and gratitude I feel to everyone who has and continues to support and inspire me every day. To you I simply say: you know.”

President Barack Obama gave the following address in Washington today regarding a new US-Korean free trade agreement:

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Today I want to speak briefly about two issues that matter most to me and matter most to the American people — creating jobs and economic growth on which our country’s prosperity depends.

Yesterday’s job report showed that despite 11 consecutive months of private sector job growth, despite creating more than 1 million private sector jobs this year, it’s not enough. We have to do more to accelerate the economic recovery and create jobs for the millions of Americans who are still looking for work.

And essential to that effort is opening new markets around the world to products that are “Made in America.” Because we don’t simply want to be an economy that consumes other countries’ goods. We want to be building and exporting the goods that create jobs here in America and that keeps the United States competitive in the 21st century.

That’s why today I am very pleased that the United States and South Korea have reached agreement on a landmark trade deal between our two countries. I’m joined this morning by my outstanding U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk, as well as Michael Froman, who was one of our lead negotiators. As you’ll remember, we did not finalize this agreement on my recent visit to South Korea. And I didn’t agree to it then for a very simple reason: The deal wasn’t good enough. It wasn’t good enough for the American economy, and it wasn’t good enough for American workers.

As I said in Seoul, I’m not interested in signing trade agreements for the sake of signing trade agreements. I’m interested in agreements that increase jobs and exports for the American people and that also help our partners grow their economies. So I told Ron and our team to take the time to get this right and get the best deal for America. And that is what they have done. The agreement we’re announcing today includes several important improvements and achieves what I believe trade deals must do — it’s a win-win for both our countries.

This deal is a win for American workers. For our farmers and ranchers, it will increase exports of American agricultural products. From aerospace to electronics, it will increase our manufacturing exports to Korea, which already support some 200,000 American jobs and many small businesses. In particular, manufacturers of American cars and trucks will have much more access to the Korean market, we’ll encourage the development of electric cars and green technology in the United States, and we’ll continue to ensure a level playing field for American automakers here at home.

In short, the tariff reductions in this agreement alone are expected to boost annual exports of American goods by up to $11 billion. And all told, this agreement — including the opening of the Korean services market — will support at least 70,000 American jobs. It will contribute significantly to achieving my goal of doubling U.S. exports over the next five years. In fact, it’s estimated that today’s deal alone will increase American economic output by more than our last nine free trade agreements combined.

This deal is also a win for our ally and friend South Korea. They will gain greater access to our markets and make American products more affordable for Korean households and
businesses — resulting in more choices for Korean consumers and more jobs for Americans.

I would add that today is also a win for the strong alliance between the United States and South Korea, which for decades has ensured that the security that has maintained stability on the peninsula continues. And it’s also allowed South Korea its extraordinary rise from poverty to prosperity. At a time in which there are increasing tensions on the Korean Peninsula, following the North’s unprovoked attack on the South Korean people, today we are showing that the defense alliance and partnership of the United States and South Korea is stronger than ever.

I’m especially pleased that this agreement includes groundbreaking protections for workers’ rights and for the environment. In this sense, it’s an example of the kind of fair trade agreement that I will continue to work for as President, in Asia and around the world.

This agreement also shows that the United States of America is determined to lead and compete in our global economy. We’re going to stand up for American companies and American workers, who are among the most productive and innovative in the world. And we’re going to compete aggressively for the jobs and markets of the 21st century.

Reaching this agreement was not easy. But I want to give special thanks to my partner, South Korean President Lee, for his commitment to a successful outcome. And, again, I want to thank Ron and Mike for their outstanding work, and their entire team for their tireless efforts. They were up late a lot of nights over the last several months.

We’re going to continue to work with our Korean partners to fully implement this agreement and build on our progress in other areas, such as ensuring full access for U.S. beef to the Korean market.

And I look forward to working with Congress and leaders in both parties to approve this pact. Because if there’s one thing Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on, it should be creating jobs and opportunity for our people.

Which brings me to the other issue I want to address. Earlier today, the Senate voted on two provisions to extend tax cuts for the middle class. And I’ll admit, I am very disappointed that the Senate did not pass legislation that had already passed the House of Representatives to make middle-class tax cuts permanent. Those provisions should have passed. I continue to believe that it makes no sense to hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage to permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans — especially when those high-income tax cuts would cost an additional $700 billion that we don’t have and would add to our deficit.

But with so much at stake, today’s votes cannot be the end of the discussion. It is absolutely essential — to our hardworking middle-class families and to our economy — to make sure that their taxes don’t go up on January 1st.

I’ve spoken with the Democratic leadership in Congress, and I look forward to speaking with the Republican leadership as well. And my message to them is going to be the same: We need to redouble our efforts to resolve this impasse — in the next few days — to give the American people the peace of mind that their taxes will not go up on January 1st. It will require some compromise, but I’m confident that we can get it done. And the American people should expect no less.

As we work our way through this issue, we must not forget that last week some 2 million Americans who have lost their jobs also saw their unemployment insurance expire — right in the middle of the holiday season. And that’s not how we should do business here in America. I believe it is simply wrong to even consider giving permanent tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while denying relief to so many Americans who desperately need it and have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

So we are going to continue to work on this issue through the weekend, into early next week. And I’m going to be rolling up my sleeves, with the leaders of both parties in Congress. We need to get this resolved, and I’m confident we can do it.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Wikileaks. I know, I know, you’re probably sick of hearing about cables and embassies and what diplomat said what nasty thing about what leader. But, it’s only day four of nine in the latest Wikileaks saga, and there’s more to come next year regarding U.S. banks.

 There’s been a lot of chatter about whether what Wikileaks is doing is right, if it’s necessary, if it serves the public’s interest or just the public’s interest in gossip. I’ll leave that up to the readers to decide.

We’ve already heard one Canadian official call for the assassination of Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, and Mike Huckabee call for the death penalty for whomever leaked the documents.

But it isn’t all gossip. There are some key revelations in these leaks, like the Saudi King pressuring the U.S. to bomb Iran, the concerns over Pakistan’s nuclear program (the worst-kept secret, but the details are interesting) and China’s acceptance of a reunified Korea with Seoul as the main power.

Oh, and there’s the Iranian-American who flew into Tehran without problems, but had to sneak out of the country on horseback through Turkey.

In a leaked cable that sounded more like a leaked movie script, the story of 75-year-old Hossein Ghanbarzadeh Vahedi’s perilous journey through the north-western Iranian mountains is told.

Vahedi flew to Iran from Los Angeles in May of 2008. Seven months later, his passport was confiscated and he was barred from leaving the country. After his appeals to the courts were turned down, Vahedi got a horse, hired two guides, and trekked 14 hours through the ice cold mountains bordering Iran and Turkey.

In early January of 2009, Vahedi showed up at the U.S. embassy in Ankara, where diplomats were, obviously, surprised to hear what he had endured.

Vahedi, who left Iran during the 1979 revolution, told U.S. authorities that Iranian officials had made it clear that a payment of $150,000 would have seen his passport returned. He opted, instead, to trek through the mountains, where his escorts had to periodically hug him to keep him warm.

Vahedi, according to the cable, was an inexperienced rider and, at one point not too long into the climb, fell off his horse and into the woods. He told authorities he believed he would die in the mountains.

After dealing with Turkish officials who wanted to deport Vahedi back to Iran as an illegal immigrant, American authorities ensured his safe return back to the United States.

Veteran advocate Tammy Duckworth served in Iraq as an Army helicopter pilot and received combat injuries that cost her both legs. She ran for an Illinois congressional seat in 2006, spoke at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, and was appointed last year as Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

She answered questions Tuesday about Veterans Affairs via podcast from the White House.

Blast asked: “How will the VA handle the mental health needs of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan?”

She responded:

“Mental health needs of veterans is a really important issue and one of the things that I mentioned earlier that we’re doing at VA is we’re screening 100% of our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans when they come through the doors of VA. Even if you come in for a sprained ankle, your first time through a VA facility you will get screened for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress. That’s really critical because many people don’t even know that they’re suffering from post traumatic stress.

We’re also expanding services across the country. I talked about the mental health hotline. We also have a chat room. We developed the chat room because we realized that a lot of our vets are still in the service. They’re still deployed. They need to be able to talk to a counselor even while they’re down range in Iraq or Afghanistan. So we have the chatroom. It’s “suicide prevention.lifeline.org.” And they can actually access that. We made both available to family members because a lot of times the vets themselves are in denial, and they’re not asking for help, but it’s mom or dad or wife or husband or child that actually sees the symptoms and needs help, so they can call in as well.”

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), over 100,000 combat veterans sought help for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental health problems between 2001 and 2007. They also say that the youngest veterans–those aged 18 to 24 years–have the greatest risk of mental health diagnoses.

According to a study this year in the American Journal of Public Health, nearly 40 percent of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans receiving health care from VA hospitals suffer from mental illness.

1. Earlier this week, when asked how ordinary people can participate in Veterans Day, Tammy Duckworth of the Department of Veterans Affairs said “Number one, you can thank a vet for their service.”
2. Officially, it’s “Veterans Day,” no apostrophe. The government — not retail stores — has the last word in this matter.
3. Veterans Day was created by Dwight Eisenhower in 1954 due in part to the efforts of Alfred King, a shoe salesman from Emporia, Kansas.
4. Veterans Day replaced “Armistice Day,” a commemoration proclaimed by Woodrow Wilson in 1919 and made an annual holiday by Calvin Coolidge in 1938.
5. Armistice Day was “dedicated to the cause of world peace” but was more popularly about commemorating the heroes of World War One.
6. Veterans Day is November 11 because the armistice between the Allies and Germany took effect at eleven o’clock in the morning on the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918.
7. The “Uniform Monday Holiday Act” of 1971 moved Veterans Day to the fourth Monday of October everywhere but Mississippi and South Dakota.
8. In response to popular sentiment, Veterans Day was moved back to November 11 in 1978.
9. Veterans Day honors all who have served in the armed services, living and dead, in wartime and in peace. It’s distinct from Memorial Day which was specifically created to commemorate Americans who have died in military service.
10. Veterans Day especially shouldn’t be confused with Patriots’ Day (note the apostrophe) as the latter celebrates just those involved with the Battles of Lexington and Concord. It’s only recognized in Massachusetts (where it is becoming better know as “Marathon Monday”), Maine (once part of Massachusetts), and, for some reason, Wisconsin.

LAVAL, France — Former French President Jacques Chirac now faces two sets of corruption charges after a French judge signed an ordinance Monday summoning him to appear before a criminal court in Paris.

Many French people, when asked their opinion on the matter, said they were not surprised by the charges.

“If he did something bad, it’s normal that he be punished,” said Thérèse Belloche, 73, of Laval.

Belloche, who said she follows politics only a bit, said it’s unfortunate the wealthy often get away with corruption when those with less resources are forced to pay.

“It’s a question of lots of money, it’s an injustice,” she said.

According to the French Associated Press, Chirac, 77, is charged with using public funds to pay the salaries of his political allies between 1992 and 1995, when he was mayor of Paris.

The right-wing politician was president from 1995 to 2007.

Chirac, who served as mayor from 1977 to 1995, was originally charged with corruption in 2009, but yesterday more charges were laid upon him, which he will likely answer to in April 2011, when he is already scheduled to appear in court.

Most people, when asked Tuesday afternoon what they thought about Chirac and the charges, said they were not surprised.

“They are all liars,” said one Frenchman of politicians, while he was waiting for the bus in downtown Laval Tuesday afternoon.

The man, who refused to give his name, said he has never voted and called the recent strikes useless because he said they will not change anything the government has already done.

“We talk about only the rich…The government is the mafia,” he said.

Most people interviewed said they do not follow politics and were unaware of the corruption charges. Others said they had no opinion of the situation.

But for French polticos, Chirac is remembered for his wide-reaching reforms in France. He is known as the man who defeated socialist leader Jean-Marie Le Pen in 2002, reduced the presidential term to five years from seven, implemented many tax reductions and argued for business privatization.

He has also been suspected of corruption for over 10 years. His luxurious habits, including frequent holidays and lavish meals, have been long suspected to have been financed with the city’s money.

“They confused their wallets with the wallet of the French people,” said Robert Mazurais, 67, of Laval.

Mazurais, who said he is a member of France’s Green Party, said he worked in the public housing sector before he retired. He acknowledged that Chirac did much to help set up the system of low-income housing in France.

“He wasn’t a bad guy,” Mazurais said, but added that at the same time, Chirac took advantage of his status of wealth and power.

“It’s not normal that it’s the French who pay,” he said, adding that it was inevitable that Chirac be brought to terms with his decisions at one point or another.

According to the French Associated Press, an agreement was signed in 2010 between the city of Paris and Chirac’s political party, the UMP, where the UMP paid the city 2.2 million euros in exchange for not bringing civil charges against Chirac.

Still, Chirac is said to have denied all corruption charges since the investigation began in 1999.

According to the French newspaper Le Progrès, Chirac could face five years in prison and 75,000 euros in fees.

Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann has been ridiculed for alleging that President Obama’s trip to India, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan is costing $200 million a day or roughly the same cost of waging war in Afghanistan. It has long been the White House’s official policy not to talk about what it costs for a president to travel, but Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications, participated in a podcast from the White House to address some other questions about President Obama’s trip to Asia.

Blast asked him to describe the “logistical challenges of the President spending a few days on the other side of the globe” and here’s how he answered:

Well, it’s an interesting question. There’s an extraordinary amount of work that goes into planning and executing any presidential trip. You have the advance teams that go out and look at the different sites that the president will be visiting. You have the embassy or your consulate on the ground that is coordinating those stops. And you, of course, have our staff here at the White House and the State Department working to plan the president’s trip.

That’s the balance we try to strike. A good and successful trip is one that allows us to do a lot of official business, but also to reach out beyond the halls of government to again engage with peoples from different countries.

The response was edited for length.

A resounding “no” sounded over The Ocean State tonight as voters overwhelmingly shot down a ballot measure that would change the state’s name.

Rhode Island’s official name is The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. The name goes back to the 1640s when Roger Williams coined the term.

Proponents of the measure argued that the name was rooted in the slave trade, but voters clearly wanted to leave well enough alone.

Nearly 80 percent of the state voted against the measure, which would have amended the state’s constitution to change the name to simply “Rhode Island.”

Is this the end of Christine O’Donnell? Who knows, but here’s her concession speech:

I cannot thank you enough. We worked hard. We had an incredible victory. Be encouraged. We have won. The Delaware political system will never be the same. Well, you know what I mean by—my joking big brother goes: ‘We won? Did we miss something?’ You know what I meant. We were victorious because the Delaware political system will never be the same. That’s a great thing. The Republican Party will never be the same. And that’s a good thing.

Our voices were heard and we’re not gonna be quiet now. This is just the beginning. We’ve got a lot of work to do. I just got off the phone with my opponent and I reminded him that he is now in a position to help the people of Delaware who are suffering. I reminded him of Victor Rodriguez and Donald and his family and the many small business owners who are very concerned about these tax hikes. And if he does raise them on the top 2%, they’ll be forced to close their doors.

I asked him to watch that 30 minute commercial that we did so he can see what’s going on in Delaware the way I have. And I asked him if he would talk to you and if he would take up my promise to in this lame duck session fight the death tax from being reinstated this January 1st.

So hopefully he will.

And he’s gonna be up against his party leadership, but I asked him if he would sit down with some of the families who are very concerned about that and realize the difference he can make. So, we can only hope and pray that he chooses to go against his party leadership and do what’s right for the people of Delaware.

But we’re not gonna stop fighting either—cause there’s a lot of work to be done—a lot of work to be done. As I’ve said this whole campaign is about putting the political process back into your hands. And that is where it is now. The leadership of our party is going to be drastically different—this next year. The leadership in Delaware will be drastically different from now on. Our elected officials will be held accountable to—by their constituents—like it or not.

So, although the outcome isn’t what we all worked so hard for, our voice was heard—will continue to be heard. So I hope and pray that you are as encouraged as I am. We’ve got a lot of food. We’ve got the room all night. So, God Bless You. So, let’s party!

SAN DIEGO — Proposition 19 has failed. It’s a done deal, and marijuana will not be legal in California.

But the poll numbers are looking a lot closer than many in the War on Drugs may have expected.

With 93 percent of precincts reporting, Prop. 19 received 54 percent opposition and 46 percent support.

Not bad for a measure that was universally opposed by law enforcement, elected officials in the Republican and Democratic parties, not to mention the entire federal government, which threatened to enforce anti-drug laws on Californians anyway, even if voters approved the measure.

Prop. 19′s place on the ballot did not bring people to the polls. Some people felt there would be a surge in young voters looking to legalize marijuana. Exit polls showed that only 1 in 10 voters came out to vote because of Proposition 19. The governor’s race was by far the top issue, followed by the senate race.

The measure would have allowed people possess an ounce of marijuana and grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana in their backyards.

SAN DIEGO — Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana in California and subjected it to a state tax, has failed.

Prop. 19 made national headlines, but the idea had almost no backing from organizations with the funding to mount a statewide campaign.

Law enforcement groups, politicians from both major parties, and the federal government had come down hard on the idea of legalizing marijuana.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration would overtly enforce federal drug laws in California, even if the measure passed.

Actor Zach Galifianakis famously smoked a joint on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday night to show support for the bill.

Proposition 19 would have made it legal for adults age 21 and over to possess an ounce of marijuana and to grow a small amount of it. Local governments would also be allowed to tax it and permit commercial cultivation.

Supporters claimed victory last Tuesday night on Massachusetts Question One, which exempts alcohol from state sales tax.

“We are grateful to our customers, who supported us in this repeal of the double tax on alcohol,” said the Yes on One Committee in a statement. “The voters supported Question One because it’s unfair to double tax one product and because it was putting too many local businesses at a competitive disadvantage.”

Opponents argued that the sales tax helped fun alcohol treatment programs. Massachusetts added a sales tax on alcohol last year. It had already been subject to a special excise tax.

“We certainly support the continued funding of substance abuse programs, which have been funded by the state for years and were funded at the same level this past year. We will work to make sure they maintain at least the same level of funding,” The Yes on One Committee said.