ReactionLouisiana

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Friday, May 31, 2013

P.M. Headlines

Posted on 4:00 PM by Unknown

(MinnPost): "With Bachmann not running, Jim Graves pulls out of 6th District race"

(CBS News): "Naval Academy probing alleged sexual assault by 3 football players"

(TPM): "Why GOP scandal mongers can’t have nice things"

(New York Times): "GOP sizes up Obama as midterm target"

(Houston Chronicle): "Woman's jailing in Mexico highlights tourist risks"
Read More
Posted in P.M. Headlines | No comments

Vimeo of the Day: "Sarah DiNardo. Tape Artist."

Posted on 12:00 PM by Unknown
By Michael J.W. Stickings

I don't quite know what it is about Sarah DiNardo's strange and wonderful tape art -- yes, art that she makes from obsessively/serenely rolling masking tape of different sizes and placing the rolls in intricate designs in found objects -- but it's pretty amazing. And remarkably beautiful. (I can't really do it justice with a short explanation. See for yourself. I really must acquire some.)

This excellent video captures the essence of the artist and her work. Even watching it is hypnotic.

Sarah DiNardo. Tape Artist. from gnarly bay productions, Inc. on Vimeo.
Read More
Posted in art, Vimeo of the Day | No comments

Behind the Ad: Terry McAuliffe, king of the platitudes

Posted on 8:45 AM by Unknown
By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: Terry McAuliffe gubernatorial campaign.

Where: Virginia.

What's going on: Democratic candidate for governor in Virgina Terry McAuliffe says a divisive ideological agenda is bad and job creation is good. And he's a uniter, not a divider. Thanks for that, Terry.

By the way, Public Policy Polling just released a poll on the race indicating that neither candidate is much liked:


Terry McAuliffe is not popular, with 29% of voters holding a favorable opinion of him to 33% with a negative one. But we find that Ken Cuccinelli is even more unpopular, with 44% of voters rating him unfavorably to just 32% with a positive opinion. As a result we find McAuliffe leading Cuccinelli by a 5 point margin, 42/37. McAuliffe also led by 5 points on our January poll, but the share of voters who are undecided has spiked from 13% at the start of the year now up to 21%.

Last man standing!


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)
Read More
Posted in 2013 elections, Democrats, Ken Cuccinelli, polls, Republicans, Terry McAuliffe, Virginia | No comments

Michele Bachmann's influence: Credit where credit is due

Posted on 7:30 AM by Unknown
By Mustang Bobby 

Rachel Maddow thinks that Michele Bachmann was far more influential in shaping the agenda of the modern Republican party than people give her credit for:

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

She may have a valid point. Without Ms. Bachmann, would we now have people in the Senate like Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Mike Lee of Utah? (We will always have folks like Louie Gohmert, Virginia Foxx, and Steve King battering against the walls of Congress.) 

As Ms. Maddow noted in her piece, Matt Taibbi warned us in 2011 against making fun of Michele Bachmann: 

You will want to laugh, but don't, because the secret of Bachmann's success is that every time you laugh at her, she gets stronger. 

Fortunately, his prediction did not come true; Michele Bachmann's ride to national prominence was accompanied with the same laugh-track that followed Charlie Sheen's career path, and the Mel Brooks method — laughter as the best weapon — did not enable her. 

It was inevitable that we would have gotten the growth of the fringe-right even without the able assistance of Ms. Bachmann. That destiny was set long before she came on the scene in Congress. One can make the case that it started with the Republicans' reaction to the election of Bill Clinton, or even as far back as the presidency of Ronald Reagan where the damp and fetid undergrowth of religious bigotry and patriarchy grew and spread as a response to Roe v. Wade and the progress of LGBT rights. The emergence of Barack Obama — a man who encapsulates every boogedy-boogedy stereotype of the Other and Liberalism that the GOP has been mustering since the defeat of Herbert Hoover — broke open the floodgates, and Ms. Bachmann, ever the opportunist, took full advantage of it. 

As Edward R. Murrow once said about another prominent Republican, she did not create this situation, she merely exploited it — and rather successfully. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)
Read More
Posted in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Edward Murrow, Michele Bachmann, Rachel Maddow, Republicans, Ronald Reagan | No comments

Another Republican, Obama?

Posted on 6:15 AM by Unknown
By Frank Moraes 

I have had major problems with the nomination of James Comey to head the FBI. But now I'm not sure. You see, today Glenn Greewald wrote, "James Comey is far from the worst choice to lead the FBI." That's probably about equivalent to most people saying, "James Comey is the best person we could realistically get."

Of course, Greenwald wrote that after an article blasting Comey for two very troubling actions while working for George W. Bush. The biggest one is that Comey was the guy who signed off on the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. You probably remember that. It was big among liberals at the time. I was outraged. Of course, the Obama administration has been no better. In fact, the Obama administration followed the Bush lead by giving all of the phone companies immunity. Well, it was Comey who signed off on that, claiming that it was legal.

Also of concern: Comey signed off on the use of torture. Of course, he was against it and repeatedly said so. But in the end, he did it. That doesn't exactly speak to the mainstream narrative that he's a guy who stands up for principle. I'm sure you know the story of him fighting with Alberto Gonzales over something that was so illegal even Comey disagreed with it. If not, here is Rachel Maddow the other night gushing about it:

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

But my problem with James Comey doesn't have to do with any of this. I figure Comey probably isn't a bad choice for the job. But just like with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, "Is no Democrat good enough?" I understand that as often as not these days, Republican bureaucrats are more liberal than Democrats. But I don't like the optics. And I especially don't like them with regards to security and military positions. It makes it look like Republicans really are better at these things than Democrats. In a fundamental sense, this means that Obama really doesn't care about his party. And that's a bad thing at a time when Republican politicians care only about theirs. 

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)
Read More
Posted in Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, FBI, Glenn Greenwald, James Comey, Rachel Maddow | No comments

A.M. Headlines

Posted on 4:36 AM by Unknown

(The Hill): "McCain: 'Regrettable' if photo was taken with Syrian rebel kidnappers"

(Washington Post): "Hagel visits Asia to reassure allies"

(Politico): "Eric Holder to media: I get it"

(Washington Post): "Answers needed in death of Tamerlan Tsarnaev acquaintance"

(New York Times): "GOP sizes up Obama as midterm target"

Read More
Posted in A.M. Headlines | No comments

Thursday, May 30, 2013

P.M. Headlines

Posted on 4:00 PM by Unknown

(Daily Beast): "Comey: Principled or self-righteous?"

(The Hill): "Obama’s poll numbers hold up despite the storm of scandal"

(CNN): "Holder runs into roadblocks on off-the-records meeting on leaks"

(Bloomberg): "Scalia gives Obamacare a big boost"

(New York Times): "Unions press to end favoured trade status for Bangladesh"
Read More
Posted in P.M. Headlines | No comments

Because gun nuts are such level headed folks...

Posted on 2:00 PM by Unknown
By Carl

Hmmm.  Maybe we should start profiling gun owners, too.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the latest high-profile target of poison-tainted letters sent though the mail, police revealed yesterday.The leader of the nation's largest city was threatened anonymously in two letters sent to Bloomberg's offices in Manhattan and Washington, D.C., NYPD spokesperson Paul Browne said. An undisclosed number of New York cops who responded to one of the letters now "are being examined for minor symptoms of ricin exposure," but the potentially dangerous substance never reached the mayor.

"The writer, in the letters, threatened Mayor Bloomberg, with references to the debate on gun laws," Browne said.

Saying he has a "constitutional and God-given right and I will exercise that right 'til I die," the author warned that the government would have to kill him before he would relinquish his weapons, a source told ABC News.

If this had been an arm of Al Qaeda, we’d have raised the terrorist threat level one notch up whatever rainbow we’re using now, and have started locking down mail deliveries.

But because, you know, Christian and likely white, well, we can’t abrogate the freedoms of our citizenry!

Just ask the next swarthy kid you see with a backpack about that.

What is it with gun nuts and the urge to kill people? Why do they think their rights trump the rest of society’s privilege to live in peace and quiet, pursuing what little happiness life provides them in this miserable muck we call “America”? And do they realize that they ARE the muck, and that the rest of society is the boot trying to extricate itself and move forward?

Probably not. That was a self-answering question.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind)
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Behind the Ad: Tax fairness in the Mass. Senate election

Posted on 12:30 PM by Unknown
By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Ed Markey Senate campaign

Where: Massachusetts


What's going on: As we trundle towards Election Day in Massachusetts in the special Senate election (June 25) to replace John Kerry, the ads keep coming. In this one, Democratic candidate Ed Markey plays the tax fairness card against his Republican opponent Gabriel Gomez. 


The poll trend by Pollster has Markey ahead by a margin of 45.7 to 34.5 percent. They track 10 polls and the last update was 6 days ago. 


Markey's to lose, which I doubt he'll do.




(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)
Read More
Posted in Massachusetts, U.S. Senate | No comments

Lincoln Chafee becomes a Democrat

Posted on 10:30 AM by Unknown
By Frank Moraes


Have you heard the news? Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee will become a Democrat tomorrow. You probably don't care, but stick with me because this is interesting. He used to be a Republican. And then he became an independent. I'm still not sure what the hell that is. When a regular person is an independent, it normally means that they don't have a clue or any real interest in politics. You can generally depend upon them to think whatever the news is barking at them at the time. I figure these are the people who claimed to be Christians during Bush's first term but who decline to answer now. Confused people. I'm sure you know the type.

But in a politician, independent means something else. As far as I can tell, it normally means someone is a Democrat, but they don't like the label. Put in more general terms, it means they are socially liberal and economically conservative. And that pretty much means Democrat at this point. So Chafee is just admitting what's been clear for a while. It would be like Tobias onArrested Development announcing that he's gay. But you have to wonder about his first name: Lincoln. His parents have got to have been Republicans. And let's face it: the Republican Party is no longer the party of Lincoln. It's more the party of John C. Calhoun, if you know what I mean.

I find it disturbing that we only see Republicans become Democrats. It never works the other way around with established politicians. Now I know: much of that is just due to the fact that the Republicans have become a revolutionary party. And indeed, most of these politicians have just stood still and watched as the Republican Party moved in directions seemingly designed to signal that they will lead the fascist movement in the 21st century. But it isn't just that. A politician could leave the Republican party and remain an Independent for the rest of his career. That's especially true of a governor. Consider everyone's favorite metrosexual Charlie Crist who only last year completed the final leg of his journey from Republican to Democrat. What's up with that, Charlie?

What's going on, I think, is that the Democratic Party has made it far too easy for old school Republicans to become Democrats. Look: I want the Democratic Party to be a big tent. If it weren't, I wouldn't be in it. Just the same, the Democrats have made it a lot harder for people like me on the left to stay in the tent because they've moved the tent so far to the right. In general, on economic issues, the modern Democratic Party is about where Nixon's Republican Party was. Actually, it's probably even more conservative than that. The only place where the Democrats have moved left is on social issue. And the only people who really agree with the conservatives on social issues are people in the bigoted Republican base. There is no doubt in my mind that the Republican elite would liberalize those positions if they thought they could get away with it.

Don't get me wrong: I am glad to have Chafee and Crist in the Democratic Party. But is it asking so very much that it not be a trivial move for the more reasonable Republicans to fit into our supposedly liberal party? That's all I'm asking for.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)
Read More
Posted in Democrats, Rhode Islands | No comments

Behind the Ad: Republicans can't help going too far

Posted on 8:30 AM by Unknown
By Richard K. Barry

Who: Mitch McConnell Senate campaign


Where: Kentucky


What's going on: The GOP is going to make good use of the IRS "scandal" in the next election cycle. We can be sure of that. Democrats can talk about the political activities of Tea Party groups and how appropriate it might have been to target them. But, on the face of it, the IRS issue will play well as a campaign theme for Republicans. It just looks bad.


But Republicans always overreach as they did in this ad. 


MaddowBlog:

[I]t's the message in the closing seconds that arguably matters most: as the video ends, and viewers see the words "Intimidation. Retaliation. Secretive" on screen, we hear the president say, "We're going to punish our enemies and reward our friends."

The problem is that McConnell is taking President Obama's words completely out of context. 

Jamelle Bouie (The Plum Line):

But this is an out-of-context quote, pulled from a comment made more than two years ago in an interview with Univision radio. “If Latinos sit out the election instead of, ‘we’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’ – if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder,” Obama said in that interview. McConnell’s use of the quote is the dishonest capstone to an intensely dishonest piece of political rhetoric.

The ad is dishonest in the way that it uses this mini-scandal to paint Obama as a monster. They just can't help themselves, though, as they move from character assassination based on innuendo to a full out fabrication. 

They don't know how not to go too far.




(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)
Read More
Posted in Behind the Ad, Kentucky, U.S. Senate | No comments

Waiting in the wings

Posted on 6:30 AM by Unknown
By Mustang Bobby

Republican strategists are reportedly relieved that Michele Bachmann is leaving Congress so that she will no longer be a lightning rod for all the fringe-cringe talk.

Charlie Pierce notes that there are plenty of folks waiting to take her place.
With the announced departure of Michele Bachmann from the World’s Greatest Legislative Body today, we inaugurate a new semi-regular weekly feature in which we study the possible successor to la Bachmann as Queen Regent of the Crazy People. (Louie Gohmert is, of course, emperor for life). A Top Commenter from Missouri has suggested Vicky Hartzler, who represents the Fourth Congressional District of that state and, boy howdy, the Top Commenter is not kidding. Among other things, Ms. Hartzler apparently believes that the heathen Chinee are spying on us through our toasters.

And I am concerned. They are shipping all the, I’m concerned about the microchips. That they are in many, many of the things that we own. And some of those are embedded, I believe, with, with detection and, uh, capabilities or tracking capabilities.

She’d also rather the government not tolerate those “fringe religions” because the First Amendment says that Congress Shall Make No Law Unless Vicky Hartzler Thinks Your God Is Freaky.

Is she available for kids’ parties?

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)
Read More
Posted in | No comments

A.M. Headlines

Posted on 4:30 AM by Unknown


(The Washington Times): "Sen. John McCain accused of posing with kidnappers in Syria"

(CBS News): "2 letters addressed to Mayor Bloomberg found to contain ricin"

(New York Times): "Former Bush official said to be Obama pick to lead F.B.I."

(The Week): "Michele Bachmann's 19 greatest fibs, flubs, and head-scratchers"

(Jeffrey Toobin): "The abortion issue returns"
Read More
Posted in A.M. Headlines | No comments

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

P.M. Headlines

Posted on 4:00 PM by Unknown

(New York Times): "Bachmann won't seek reelection next year"

(Politico): "Michele Bachmann retiring under fire"

(Washington Post): "Nearly 40 percent of mothers are now family breadwinner, report says"

(NPR): "Obama to name former Justice official next FBI chief"

(The Week): "Is Obama trying to stack the courts with liberals"
Read More
Posted in P.M. Headlines | No comments

Special election in Alabama's 1st Congressional District

Posted on 11:30 AM by Unknown
By Richard K. Barry

Earlier in May, Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala) announced that he would resign from Congress to take a job at the University of Alabama. A date has not been set for the special election to replace him, but this is a very reliable red state, so Democrats shouldn't get excited. 

Word now is that Rick Santorum will endorse conservative columnist Quin Hillyer. As a safe Republican seat, this will draw a lot of competition in the primary so I suppose Santorum could help his candidate stand out. 


Roll Call: 

Aside from Hillyer, consultants say the most likely and viable candidates in the race include:

-- State Sen. Tripp Pittman, a wealthy owner of a tractor company in Baldwin County, a rural area in the 1st District.

-- First-term state Sen. Bill Hightower. 

-- Former state Sen. Bradley Byrne, a lawyer who lost a Republican gubernatorial primary bid in 2010. 

-- Mobile County Sheriff Sam Cochran, who consultants say is well-respected in the community and has strong name recognition.

If you want to know how red a district it is, Romney beat Obama by a margin of 62 to 37 percent last November. 

Will this one get national attention like the South Carolina 1st? Uh, no. 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)
Read More
Posted in 2013 elections, AL-1, Alabama, Jo Bonner, Republicans, Rick Santorum, U.S. House of Representatives | No comments

Obamacare polls a little positive

Posted on 8:45 AM by Unknown
By Frank Moraes 

Jonathan Bernstein has words of wisdom for us: Ignore Those Polls! Those being the recent CNN poll that show that over half of the people don't like Obamacare: 43-54. Apparently, Republicans are claiming that the poll proves them right: the people hate Obamacare! But then liberals have pushed back. Of the 54% who don't like Obamacare, 16 percentage points of them don't like it because it is not liberal enough. These are people like me who still want Medicare for all but who will take Obamacare over the Republican alternative, which is nothing at all. That means the numbers look more like this: 59-38. Liberals win, hooray!

But Bernstein points out that most people don't really know what they're talking about. It isn't until next year that Obamacare even begins its full implementation. So asking people about Obamacare now probably shows about as much as asking people who they will vote for in 2016. And he's right. The truth of the matter is after Obamacare is fully implemented, people will start to have real opinions on it -- opinions that are based upon their experiences and not the latest talking points they heard on the TV machine.

Still, I think Bernstein is wrong to pooh-pooh the poll all together. After all, a couple of years ago, Obamacare polled far worse. Two years ago, the numbers were 43-48. My guess is that the change is liberals moving from being against Obamacare to being for it. In the end, that 38% is just the Republican base. And they will be against it until they forget it was a Democratic program. We can look forward twenty years from now when Republicans carry signs that say, "Government Hands Off My Obamacare!"

So I wouldn't go as far as Jonathan Bernstein. The Republicans are kidding themselves if they think that this poll is good news for them. One thing about us liberals: we're so used to getting nothing that when we get a minor victory like Obamacare, we take it -- even if we grumble about it. Democrats do have a reason to be encouraged by this poll. However, Bernstein is right: in the final analysis, it doesn't matter. Obamacare will prove itself or it will not. But given it only has to complete with the Republican offer of nothing (not even the fee for the gaming license), it looks hopeful.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)
Read More
Posted in Affordable Care Act, Jonathan Bernstein, Obamacare, polls, Republicans | No comments

The new gun-control movement, post-Newtown

Posted on 7:30 AM by Unknown
By Michael J.W. Stickings

I wasn't terribly disappointed when the Manchin-Toomey gun bill was defeated in the Senate (even though it got well more than 50 votes, because of a Republican filibuster), because it was a bad bill. But it did include an expanded background checks provision, along with various pro-gun provisions, and so in the end it was probably better than nothing.

And yet in defeat that bill did more for the gun-control movement that it would have done had it ever become law, and in that sense a lot of good may come from what at the time seemed like a serious, embarrassing, and revealing setback.

Actually, though, it started not on April 17, 2013, but on December 14, 2012, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. There had been many other mass shootings previously in America, including recently at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, but Newtown was different. It was a brutal attack on a school, where parents leave their children and expect them to be safe, and the fact that so many children were killed in cold blood was simply too shocking, too powerful, too overwhelming, to ignore. (And there was a cultural/racial element to it as well. This wasn't inner-city Detroit. This was a part of America with which more Americans, including the political and media elites who shape public opinion, could identify. It's easy, sadly so, for many to ignore the plight of a city like Detroit. But if it could happen in Newtown, it could happen anywhere.)

This is not to say that the country was suddenly ready for significant gun control. That will take time. No, if not that, it was at least ready for something meaningful to be done to curb gun violence, to put a stop if at all possible to a mostly unregulated gun market that has resulted in guns, including weapons of mass destruction for which there is no reasonable justification for private ownership, falling into the wrong hands way too many times.

President Obama himself took the lead. In an incredibly moving vigil in Newtown a few days after the shooting, he said:

We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.

And this: 

Charlotte, Daniel, Olivia, Josephine, Ana, Dylan, Madeline, Catherine, Chase, Jesse, James, Grace, Emilie, Jack, Noah, Caroline, Jessica, Benjamin, Avielle, Allison, God has called them all home. 

For those of us who remain, let us find the strength to carry on and make our country worthy of their memory.

Yes, the country was finally ready, at least for expanded background checks, and perhaps for much more, and they overwhelmingly expressed that in poll after poll. 

And then, when Manchin-Toomey failed, despite a solid majority in the Senate and popular support in the 90s, enough was enough. It wasn't just that Washington was behaving like Washington, Congress behaving like Congress, the dysfunction laughable, the system embarrassing, it was that the country's leading representatives had directly failed the people who put them there.

It has often been that way, but this was too much even for a largely apathetic electorate. Washington, and specifically Republican senators most of whom are deeply in the pockets of the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby, had given the American people the finger.

And the American people pushed back.

As Alec MacGillis writes in a must-read piece at The New Republic: 

In the Senate, the backlash had an effect. Some Republicans who had opposed the bill, such as Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Jeff Flake of Arizona, signaled they might be open to changing their minds. Majority Leader Harry Reid, once a dependable NRA ally, spoke about taking the rare step of bringing the bill back for another vote. Senator Joe Manchin, the bill's Democratic co-sponsor, is still actively courting support from his colleagues. "It's not going away," he told me.

Why did these developments take so many elected officials and pundits by surprise? As New York Times columnist Tom Edsall has pointed out, political science research shows that politicians consistently overestimate the conservatism of their constituents. But in this case, there was something more debilitating at work. The political class often lets old assumptions blind it to shifting realities.And the absolute power of the NRA is one of the oldest and least-tested assumptions in Washington.

And so there's a sort of perfect storm emerging out of the horror of Newtown: A mass shooting took hold of the popular consciousness, building overwhelming support for reform (at least for background checks); leaders like President Obama and Vice President Biden realized that something meaningful had to be done; there has been greater awareness of the plague of gun violence as a result of social media; the mainstream news media are paying attention; and the gun-control movement has finally built up the strength, propelled by Newtown, to push back against the NRA and its influence in Washington, with the realization now that the NRA is an extremist group that opposes even the most reasonable, sensible gun-control efforts and concerns itself mostly with the profits of the gun industry.

As MacGillis writes:

[F]or some time now, the NRA's power has been more a matter of entrenched wisdom than actual fact. Gun ownership is declining -- from half of households in the 1970s to a third today. A slew of senators and governors have won campaigns in red or purple states despite NRA F ratings, including Tim Kaine (Virginia), Kay Hagan (North Carolina), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Claire McCaskill (Missouri), and Bill Nelson (Florida), who has campaigned on gun control but has won majorities even in deeply conservative Panhandle counties. Senator Chris Murphy, a rookie Connecticut Democrat who has taken a lead on the issue since the Newtown massacre, points out that, of the 16 Senate races the NRA participated in last year, 13 of its candidates lost. "The NRA is just all mythology," he says. "The NRA does not win elections anymore."

And so reality is finally taking over from false perception.

And then came Newtown. We are so resigned to seeing mass shootings come and go without any attempt to fix gun laws, but after Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook, something really did change. At long last and against all expectations, a viable movement for gun regulation is emerging. It is a development that not only bodes ill for the gun lobby and its Republican patrons, but will also complicate matters for elements of the Democratic Party who have been content to accede to the status quo. The narrow defeat of the background-check bill, it turns out, was not the end of hopes for gun reform, but the beginning.

And hopefully the beginning of great success in future, though of course a great deal remains to be done and there can be no rest in the long, hard fight for gun control.

Maybe, just maybe, the era of the NRA is over. And maybe, just maybe, America will have the serious gun laws it so desperately needs.
Read More
Posted in Barack Obama, Chris Murphy, Connecticut school shooting, Democrats, gun control, gun laws, guns, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, NRA, Pat Toomey, Republicans, U.S. Senate | No comments

Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D) is more than a little vulnerable

Posted on 6:15 AM by Unknown
By Richard K. Barry

We will be hearing a lot about how Republicans have a very good shot at taking back the Senate in 2014. One of the many reasons is Sen. Mark Begich in Alaska. You may know that Alaska is a very red state. It is a state in which President Obama managed only 43 percent of the vote last year.

In 2008, when Begich won the seat, he did it by a mere 47.8 to 46.5 percent margin. And his opponent was the profoundly ethically challenged Ted Stevens who, if reelected, would have been "the first convicted felon elected to the U.S. Senate." (Funny, I would have thought there were others.)

The issue for Begich in 2014 is the competition. Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell is likely going to run for the Republicans as is Joe Miller. You will recall that Miller, with the backing of Sarah Palin, won the GOP Senate nomination in 2010 only to lose in the general election to incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) who famously won as a write-in candidate.

Facing Miller again, who is likely to be as crazy in 2014 as he was in 2010, would be a good thing for Begich. Running against Treadwell would be a problem.

A hint of how tough it will be for Begich can be found on his website, which flashes the slogan:
"As Independent as Alaska."

And then there is the possibility that Palin could run, which I would doubt. You've got to love Sen. Murkowski's comments about that possibility:

I think there are a lot of outside interests that would like to see Sarah Palin in some form of elected office. Most in Alaska recognize our former governor is really not involved in or engaged in the state anymore, that she’s moved to other interests. In order for you to represent the state of Alaska, you’ve got to be in the state.

Brrrrrr. Is it cold in here?

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)
Read More
Posted in 2014 elections, Alaska, Democrats, Lisa Murkowski, Mark Begich, Republicans, Sarah Palin, U.S. Senate | No comments

A.M. Headlines

Posted on 4:28 AM by Unknown

(USA Today): "Rep. Bachmann won't seek reelection"

(Reuters): "Olympia Snowe: Bob Dole is right about GOP"

(Politico): "Joe Miller files papers for Senate"

(Las Vegas News): "Harry Reid says abuse of filibuster must end"

(New York Times): "Anti-West hard-liner gains in Iranian race"
Read More
Posted in A.M. Headlines | No comments

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

P.M. Headlines

Posted on 4:00 PM by Unknown

(Washington Post): "Obama back in New Jersey with friend Chris Christie to survey Hurricane Sandy recovery"

(Daily Beast): "Holder's regrets and repairs"

(Salon): "Anthony Weiner can actually win the NYC mayor race"

(The Hill): "Senate GOP feels jilted after being wined and dined by Obama on deficit talks"

(CBS News): "Russia says it will help Syria deter 'hot heads'"
Read More
Posted in P.M. Headlines | No comments

What's wrong with MSNBC? (hint: Joe)

Posted on 12:00 PM by Unknown
By Mustang Bobby


Why are MSNBC's ratings so low? Well, as Alex Parene at Salon suggests, it's not because of Rachel Maddow:

"Morning Joe" is the lowest rated of the big three cable news morning shows in both total viewers and the younger demographic. Fox News' Red Eye — a show Fox airs at 3 in the morning — had more total and 25-54-year-old viewers in April 2013 than "Morning Joe" did. "Morning Joe" in April 2013 was down, from its April 2012 numbers, in total and in young viewers by a greater percentage than the rest of the network as a whole.

I'm not harping on "Morning Joe" because I think the show is representative of everything wrong with contemporary political elite thinking, though it is, but because it illustrates MSNBC's larger problem: It's a political talk show. Every other TV morning show is mostly fluff and weather. "Morning Joe," instead of entertainment news updates, has a former member of Congress wave a newspaper at Mark Halperin for a while. MSNBC's target audience may just be much less interested in listening to people talk about politics in spring 2013 than they were during an election year.

What would you rather wake up to: a perky news anchor shitting rainbows about traffic, weather, and the latest on Justin Bieber, or Joe Scarborough ranting to Mark Halperin about Benghazi! and the socialism of Obamacare? Granted, the morning crew at Fox and Friends isn't exactly Mensa in the Morning, but at least they're sitting on a couch.

MSNBC's biggest problem is that their target audience — progressives or at least those who don't care for Fox's rabid partisanship — aren't a mass communication major market. They don't listen to talk radio unless it's interrupted by a pledge drive:

MSNBC is actually making some good decisions, lately, from the point of view of someone who'd like (talking head) cable news to be better. And anyone who says the network's failing because of liberalism should probably have to account for the fact that the channel's highest-rated show remains Rachel Maddow's. (Followed by O'Donnell, who really is the insufferable smug self-satisfied liberal caricature everyone thinks all of MSNBC is.)

But do you know who watches cable news all day? And at prime time? When there's not an election on, or a war, or some terrorism? Older conservative people. If MSNBC wants better ratings, it'll either have to train a generation to want to pay attention to political years all the time, or it'll have to produce a scripted show about zombies.

Maybe that's why they run "Caught on Tape" all weekend. Add in some undead and you've got a hit.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)
Read More
Posted in Fox News, Joe Scarborough, Lawrence O'Donnell, Morning Joe, MSNBC, news media, Rachel Maddow, television | No comments

Russia to protect Syria from "hot heads"

Posted on 10:44 AM by Unknown
By Carl 

In scanning the news this morning, I found this headline:

Russia says it will help Syria deter "hot heads"

Now whom could they possibly mean, I wonder...

All kidding (on the square) aside, this is a bit troubling, although part of the problem could be in translation (or not). "Hot heads" is a pretty demeaning term, and about the only action apart from McCain's apparently unreported and foolish venture into Syria taken this weekend was taken, or rather not taken, by the European Union when it allowed the arms embargo with Syria to expire, thus allowing weapons manufacturers in the EU to sell openly to the rebels.

Already, there's been some backlash against Russia swiping its paws at the EU.

I've discussed in the past some of the background between Syria and Russia, but let me sum it up quickly: Syria buys Russian arms, maintains the sole Russian naval base in the Mediterranean (at Tartus), has energy development deals with Russia in both oil and natural gas, and is closely allied with Iran, also a major Russian arms customer, and also a big customer for Russian natural gas.

There. Not too painful, right?


So there's a definite threat from Russia in the area, unlike China and the African continent that has a negotiable position as it is strictly economic/energy. This, above everything else, is why I suspect President Obama has tiptoed carefully in Syria whereas in Libya he felt free to commit resources to the region.

Of course, all bets are off if the French find what they think they'll find out of Syria. It will be interesting to see what Russia's response will be if there is definitive proof that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on its own people (supplied by Russia?).

This is turning into a bigger mess than I think anyone imagined it would be. Still, if Russia is willing to back down and twist Assad's arm a little, this could all end quietly.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
Read More
Posted in arms trade, Barack Obama, China, energy, European Union, Iran, John McCain, Middle East, Russia, Syria | No comments

So about those conservative groups supposedly being "targeted" by the IRS...

Posted on 9:00 AM by Unknown
By Michael J.W. Stickings

See, this is how it happens. Republicans create a faux scandal without any grasp, or even any regard for, the facts, the media, both smelling blood to caving in easily to Republican pressure (when they're not in the bag for Republicans already), play right along, enabling the Republicans and providing them credence and a platform, reporting on the faux scandal they themselves are helping create, without any grasp of the facts themselves, and then, much later, the facts come out, slowly, but by then no one's really paying attention anymore and the damage has largely been done.

So Republicans, with their willing media enablers, created a faux scandal out of a report that the IRS had investigated conservative groups with regard to their tax-exempt status, a report that suggested that the investigating of those groups had been somewhat inappropriately conducted, specifically that they had been targeted, that the IRS had tagged certain groups because of their names, and, well, hell broke loose, as you know. Republicans freaked out, whether they knew better or not, feigning outrage and suggesting, stupidly, that Obama wasn't in control, as if the president micro-manages every facet of the federal government, Democats had no clue what to do, and President Obama even got involved, calling what the IRS did "inexcusable" and scapegoating the acting director of the IRS, Steven Miller, who was forced to resign (i.e., fired) even though it's pretty clear this all happened well below him in the organization.

Yes, the faux scandal swept through Washington and the president's knees jerked right along with the Republican / media faux outrage.

But that was all so... two weeks ago.

Even at the time, it was pretty clear what had happened. IRS investigators in Cincinnati may have handled their investigation with less-than-stellar tact, but there was no pressure on them from the White House, or from any outside organization, and they did not act with partisan malice towards conservative groups.

Let me repeat that: There is no evidence conservative groups were targeted for political reasons.

And so really there is no scandal at all.

And, indeed, the more we learn, the clearer that becomes. As the Times reported:

When CVFC, a conservative veterans' group in California, applied for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, its biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress. 

The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the "defeat of President Barack Obama" while the I.R.S. was weighing its application.

And the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney's presidential campaign literature.

Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications.

But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review. 

Ah, the facts. Which show that the groups in question engaged in some obviously partisan political activity that would seem to run counter to the whole point of tax-exempt status.

Not that anyone's paying much attention anymore -- again, the damage has been done, the narrative mostly set, though the Times and others certainly deserve credit for looking beyond the Republican smears.

The scandal, you see, doesn't involve the IRS and the investigation of these groups, it involves the tax system generally, particularly post-Citizens United, although certainly the IRS should be criticized for not going after bigger fish in the sea, both political and corporate (e.g., the companies that pay little or no income tax, the larger partisan organizations that are allowed to have tax-exempt status). (Though I would note that the IRS, as we've learned from all this, is, like other government agencies, severely overworked, understaffed, and underfunded as a result of the long conservative assault on government over the past several decades.)

And if there's a problem here, it wasn't with lower-level officials in the IRS office in Cincinnati, it was with some conservative groups essentially lying about what they were doing, or at least appying for tax-exempt status when it was pretty clear they didn't, or shouldn't, qualify.

But here's the thing: While there may have been inappropriate delays along the way, no conservative group that applied for it was denied tax-exempt status. Indeed, the only group that was rejected was a Democratic one, Maine's Emerge America.

Honestly, if there were White House or other partisan interference, don't you think it would have been a bit more effective in actually preventing these groups from going about their business?

Anyway, here's the worst that happened:

A report issued this month by the Treasury Department's inspector general, J. Russell George, found that inappropriate criteria, including groups; policy positions, were used to flag some cases and that specialists in the I.R.S. office in Cincinnati, which reviews all tax-exemption requests, sometimes asked questions that were irrelevant to the application process.

And agency officials have acknowledged that specialists inappropriately used keywords like "Tea Party" and "Patriots" in searching through applications. 

And yet:

[S]ome former I.R.S. officials disputed several of Mr. George's conclusions, including his assertion that it was inappropriate to ask groups about their donors, or whether their leaders had plans to run for public office. While unusual, the former officials said, such questions are not prohibited if relevant to an application under consideration. 

"The I.G. was as careless with terminology as the Cincinnati office was," said Marcus S. Owens, who headed the I.R.S.'s exempt organizations division until 2000. "Half of those questions have been found to be germane in court decisions."

I am not saying the IRS did nothing wrong. Obviously, it should not have been so explicit in targeting certain groups by utilizing certain search terms and so forth. But that's it. There's no more to it. And certainly no scandal, nothing that would back up Republicans' allegations of political misconduct, let alone of a vacuum or crisis of leadership that leads to the Oval Office.

And while the focus has mostly been on the IRS, with the director getting fired, punishments being meted out, apologies and mea culpas coming from top to bottom, and President Obama targeting the IRS for blame, the spotlight really needs to be on the system as a whole along with the various groups -- across the spectrum, of all sizes -- that have been taking advantage of a tax code that needs drastic reform.

Thankfully, some of that is already happening, though of course it's unlikely to get much attention. Faux scandals, after all, are so much more entertaining.
Read More
Posted in Barack Obama, Citizens United, IRS, news media, Republicans, scandals, Tea Party, U.S. tax code | No comments

Bush 2.0

Posted on 7:45 AM by Unknown
By Frank Moraes 

(Ed. note: For my take on Obama's "end of the war on terror" speech, see here. I thought it was, in general, a thoughtful, intelligent speech that addressed, without entirely disregarding, my progressive concerns, and I applaud him for presenting a serious understanding of the complexities of the world and America's place in it, as well as for encouraging a broad discussion of national security, but he's got an awful lot to prove after more than four years of continuing, and in some cases worsening, the Bush-Cheney national security state. The rhetoric was there, but, then, the rhetoric's often there with him. The question is where he actually goes from here and whether there will actually be meaningful change, and of course whether that change actually puts an end to endless war and largely unlimited executive power. -- MJWS)

In general, I like caveats. The world is not a simple place. But that can be taken to extremes, especially by supposedly liberal politicians. The best description I've ever heard of Obama is by Roger Hodge in The Mendacity of Hope, "Obama presents a dizzying series of hands -- on the one and then the other, repeatedly, like some hyper-discursive blue-skinned Hindu deity -- in which he discusses the Bill Clinton wing of the Democratic Party (the wing to which he belongs, but he doesn't really come out and tell us that), which embraces the new economy of advancing pools, even though 'a sizable chuck' of the Democratic base resists the agenda." In other words, Obama is a conservative Democrat but he respects the rest of us who aren't.

After President Obama's speech last week, I didn't know what to make of it. As usual, it sounded very nice. He got all the stuff that I didn't like out of the way at first so he could provide me with a soft landing. But I've been hearing pretty words from Obama for five years and I've been disappointed in his actions for four. On economics, I feel more qualified to cut through his bullshit, but I'm none too clear on the War on Terror, regardless of what the current administration wants to call it. So I have to depend upon more knowledgeable people like Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald to clarify what the truth actually is. So I was very eager to hear what Greenwald had to say, especially given his tardiness in weighing in. Finally, yesterday morning he published "Obama's Terrorism Speech: Seeing What You Want to See."

He started out saying what I've long known, although in this case specific to Obama's speech on Thursday:

If one longed to hear that the end of the "war on terror" is imminent, there are several good passages that will be quite satisfactory. If one wanted to hear that the war will continue indefinitely, perhaps even in expanded form, one could easily have found that. And if one wanted to know that the president who has spent almost five years killing people in multiple countries around the world feels personal "anguish" and moral conflict as he does it, because these issues are so very complicated, this speech will be like a gourmet meal.

He then went on to point out the fundamental purpose of the speech was to calm progressives.

I'm a little more positive than Greenwald. I think it is progress that Obama cares enough to shore up his left flank. Most of his presidency was marked by a total disregard (Or worse!) for his base. Remember Rahm Emanuel calling us "fucking retarded"? That was Obama's chief of staff telling us we were evil and stupid.

But that's a small advance. There is a fundamental problem with all the plaudits Obama got for claiming the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) should be scaled back and eventually repealed. I don't read this as, "Obama wants to repeal the AUMF." I read it as, "Obama wants to tinker with the AUMF while he's in office and then he'll be for repeal after it isn't his to use." He also said, "Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states." As far as I can tell, he's the one with that power and he's the one who chose to use it so intensely.

And let me be very clear: the attempt to mollify liberals with the speech was offensive. To begin with, it was fundamentally the usual (very successful) appeal that, unlike George W. Bush, we can trust Obama. He only kills innocents all over the world after thinking about all of the complexities. What's more, he said, "For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live." That's pure horseshit. Unlike Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini, I do not believe that this or any other president loses a moment of sleep over all the killing they do. What's more, as Norman Solomon writes in War Made Easy, presidents always claim to be very concerned about going to war; it is the last thing they ever want to do. The fact that they don't end up killing themselves is either a miracle or an indication that they are lying. Which do you think it is?

Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and Michael Hastings all agree on one thing: Obama's speech put nice sounding words on top of what is George W. Bush 2.0. And so do I.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)
Read More
Posted in Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Rahm Emanuel, U.S. foreign policy, war on terror | No comments

(Not President) McCain goes to Syria (and undermines U.S. policy)

Posted on 6:15 AM by Unknown
By Michael J.W. Stickings

Obviously, the situation in Syria is awful. According to French newspaper Le Monde, a "merciless war" is being waged on the outskirts of Damascus, with the Assad regime using chemical weapons against the rebels.

And, in general, I'm with the rebels. I'd love to see the Assad regime fall and for the Syrian people to be freed from the shackles of that brutal tyranny.

But the question isn't really which side you're on, because obviously most good and decent people want Assad to go, it's how you most appopriately respond to the current situation with the intent of supporting the rebels' goals.

The first question is easy. The second, not so much.

For warmongering conservatives like John McCain, however, it's always all so simple: Where there's a problem, as in Syria, war is the solution, and when some war isn't enough, more, ever more, is always the answer.

When they're in power, war is what we get. And when they're not, like now, they just won't shut up about it.

Yes, McCain has been leading the charge, directed with vengeful venom against the man who beat him for the presidency in 2008, for the U.S. to step up its support for the Syrian rebels as well as to get more directly involved in the conflict. He even made his way to Syria yesterday, meeting with General Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, as well as with other rebel leaders.

On the ground yesterday, he was the United States. Or least he and others wanted it to appear that way. "The visit of Senator McCain to Syria is very important and very useful especially at this time," said Idris. "We need American help to have change on the ground; we are now in a very critical situation."

Yes, of course you are, but here's the thing. John McCain is not the president of the United States. And while you may be upset with what you see as lack of support from President Obama, McCain's self-aggrandizing globe-strutting isn't going to help.

In the end, the rebels may get most of what they want from Obama -- heavy weaponry, a no-fly zone, maybe some strategic airstrikes on Assad's forces, And it may be most of what McCain wants as well, though of course he'll continue to criticize the president no matter what -- you know, because of 2008, and because he thinks he knows better than everyone else.

But the situation in Syria isn't just awful, not least in humanitarian terms, it's incredibly difficult from the perspective of U.S. foreign policy circa 2013, and there's a lot that the president needs to weigh, not least the risk of the U.S. getting embroiled in yet another prolonged conflict in the Middle East.

Obama is the president, after all. He has certain responsibilities. What he does matters. Not so much with McCain, who can go and stand with the rebels and make it seem as if it's all so easy, if only he were president.

And is it not irresponsible, to the say the least, for someone like McCain, a leading opposition figure, to go to Syria instead of, say, Secretary of State John Kerry or Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel? Does it not undermine the U.S. government, with Obama at its head, as well as its policies and objectives, at a time when it is obviously trying to work out the most appropriate response, for McCain to meet with the Syrian rebels?

I'm not saying McCain should not be free to speak his mind, or even to travel internationally. But he does not speak for the U.S. government, and everyone, presumably including the rebels, knows he's one of loudest critics of the Obama Administration's Syria policy. To me, he should keep his criticism to the homefront. If he wants to go on Meet the Press and criticize the president, fine. But taking his criticism on the road to Turkey and Syria? How is that supposed to play internationally? And especially in Syria itself? How are the rebels supposed to take that? Do they think he speaks for the U.S.? If not, do they expect him go back and fight for their interests against Obama, or to sit down with Obama to work things out? Has his visit raised their expectations? Has it lowered their opinion of Obama? Going forward, has he weakened the Obama Administration's position either internationally (say, at the U.N.) or with the rebels?

These are fair questions.

Simply put, John McCain should not have gone to Syria. It's bad enough to be a pompous windbag on the Sunday morning talk shows, quite another to challenge the leadership of the president of the United States, and therefore of the United States itself, in the middle of a crisis beyond America's borders.
Read More
Posted in Barack Obama, John McCain, Middle East, Obama Administration, Syria, U.S. foreign policy | No comments
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Reid backs down from compromise of compromise
    By Frank Moraes This is how Democrats work. First they compromise. Then they back off. Then they come back with more compromises. Then they ...
  • Behind the Ad: Mitch and Rand go fishing for votes
    By Richard K. Barry (Another installment in our extensive " Behind the Ad " series.)   Who : The Mitch McConnell Senate campaign...
  • Anathema: Universal (coming soon)
    By Michael J.W. Stickings On September 23, the great post-prog label Kscope is releasing Anathema's Universal , a four-disc set (2 CD,...
  • The stupid party rolls on
    By Mustang Bobby Last winter Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told his fellow Republicans that the GOP has to “stop being the stupid party.” Ap...
  • The mythical political center
    By Frank Moraes Yesterday on the cover of the New York Times , Jonathan Martin wrote one of those stupid Villager articles we all know and d...
  • Echoes of Nam
    By Carl Lemme see….lengthy war, delicate negotiations , frustrated allies …yup! Sounds like Nam all over again! WASHINGTON -- President Obam...
  • Barack Obama, Surveillor-in-Chief
    By Michael J.W. Stickings Barack Obama has done a lot of really good things as president, and I have remained for the most part enthusiastic...
  • Plan B for Plan B
    By Mustang Bobby After several court battles, the Obama administration and the Department of Health and Human Services has dropped their opp...
  • Why poverty happens to good people
    By Carl Lesson to learn -- it’s usually not their fault. Case in point: Donald Cardin became a firefighter at age 20 in Central Falls, R.I.,...
  • Vladimir Putin gives America the finger by giving Edward Snowden a free pass
    By Michael J.W. Stickings Let's not make too much of this. Snowden may very well be in a transit zone at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airp...

Categories

  • 1984 election (1)
  • 2008 Democratic presidential nomination (1)
  • 2008 election (2)
  • 2012 election (1)
  • 2012 vice-presidential debate (1)
  • 2013 elections (6)
  • 2014 elections (10)
  • 2016 election (2)
  • 2016 elections (1)
  • 2016 Presidential election (1)
  • 2016 Republican presidential nomination (1)
  • 2018 elections (1)
  • 9/11 (1)
  • A..M. Headlines (1)
  • A.M Headlines (4)
  • A.M. Headlines (11)
  • A.M. Headlines (65)
  • A/M. Headlines (1)
  • ABC News (1)
  • abortion (4)
  • ACORN (1)
  • Affordable Care Act (5)
  • Afghan War (1)
  • Afghanistan (2)
  • Al Sharpton (1)
  • AL-1 (1)
  • Alabama (2)
  • Alaska (3)
  • Alison Lundergan Grimes (1)
  • Amazon (1)
  • Andrew Cuomo (1)
  • Andrew Ross Sorkin (1)
  • Andrew Sullivan (1)
  • Anthony Bourdain (1)
  • Anthony Kennedy (2)
  • Anthony Weiner (4)
  • anti-gay bigotry (10)
  • anti-immigrant bigotry (2)
  • anti-Muslim bigotry (4)
  • Antonin Scalia (1)
  • Anwar al-Awlaki (1)
  • archaeology (1)
  • Arkansas (1)
  • arms trade (1)
  • art (1)
  • Associated Press (2)
  • astronomy (2)
  • bankruptcy (1)
  • Barack Obama (38)
  • Barbara Boxer (1)
  • Barbara Buono (1)
  • Behind the Ad (13)
  • Ben Bernanke (1)
  • Benghazi attack (6)
  • Bernie Sanders (1)
  • bigotry (5)
  • biirtherism (1)
  • Bill Clinton (5)
  • Bill Kristol (1)
  • Bill Maher (1)
  • Bill O'Reilly (1)
  • blogging news (1)
  • Bob Dole (1)
  • Bob McDonnell (2)
  • Bob Schieffer (1)
  • Bobby Jindal (1)
  • Bolivia (1)
  • Boston (1)
  • Boston Marathon bombing (3)
  • Bradley Manning (4)
  • Brazil (1)
  • Brit Hume (1)
  • British Monarchy (2)
  • California (5)
  • campaign songs (1)
  • Canada (2)
  • CBS News (1)
  • censorship (1)
  • centrism (1)
  • Charles Pierce (1)
  • childbirth (1)
  • China (1)
  • Chris Christie (2)
  • Chris Hayes (1)
  • Chris Murphy (1)
  • Christianity (5)
  • Christine Quinn (1)
  • Chuck Grassley (1)
  • Chuck Hagel (2)
  • Chuck Schumer (1)
  • CIA (2)
  • Citizens United (1)
  • citizenship (1)
  • civil rights (1)
  • climate change (1)
  • CNN (2)
  • companies (4)
  • comptroller (1)
  • Connecticut school shooting (2)
  • Conor Friedersdorf (2)
  • conservatism (2)
  • conservative media (1)
  • conservatives (12)
  • Cory Booker (1)
  • Craziest Republican of all time (1)
  • Craziest Republican of the Day (2)
  • crime (1)
  • criminal justice (1)
  • criminal law (3)
  • Dan Snyder (1)
  • David Brooks (1)
  • David Cameron (1)
  • DEA (1)
  • Dean Baker (2)
  • Debra Milke (1)
  • debt ceiling (1)
  • Democratic Party (3)
  • Democrats (24)
  • Detroit (1)
  • Deval Patrick (1)
  • Dianne Feinstein (1)
  • Dick Cheney (1)
  • documentaries (1)
  • DOMA (7)
  • domestic surveillance (11)
  • domestic terrorism (1)
  • DREAM Act (2)
  • drone war (3)
  • Dwight Eisenhower (1)
  • Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (2)
  • E.W. Jackson (3)
  • Earth (1)
  • East Germany (1)
  • Ecuador (1)
  • education (1)
  • Edward Murrow (1)
  • Edward Snowden (15)
  • Eliot Spitzer (1)
  • employment (1)
  • energy (2)
  • Enron (1)
  • entitlement programs (1)
  • environmentalism (1)
  • Eric Cantor (2)
  • Eric Garcetti (1)
  • Eric Holder (3)
  • espionage (1)
  • Europe (1)
  • European Union (2)
  • Evo Morales (1)
  • ExxonMobil (1)
  • Face the Nation (1)
  • Family Research Council (1)
  • farming (1)
  • FBI (1)
  • FEMA (1)
  • Fifth Amendment (1)
  • filibuster (3)
  • first amendment (1)
  • FISA (2)
  • fiscal policy (1)
  • Florida (5)
  • food (4)
  • food industry (1)
  • Food Stamps (2)
  • Football (4)
  • foreign aid (1)
  • Fourth Amendment (1)
  • Fourth of July (2)
  • Fox News (7)
  • France (2)
  • Francois Hollande (1)
  • Frank Wolf (1)
  • gay marriage (1)
  • gay rights (3)
  • George W. Bush (2)
  • George Zimmerman (4)
  • Georgia (3)
  • Germany (1)
  • Glenn Beck (1)
  • Glenn Greenwald (8)
  • global warming (1)
  • government shutdown (1)
  • government spending (2)
  • governor (2)
  • Greg Sargent (1)
  • gun control (2)
  • gun laws (1)
  • gun violence (2)
  • guns (1)
  • Harry Reid (5)
  • Harry Truman (1)
  • Hawaii (1)
  • health care (1)
  • health-care reform (1)
  • Henry Kissinger (1)
  • Hillary Clinton (3)
  • Hispanics (1)
  • history (1)
  • hockey (1)
  • holidays (4)
  • homelessness (1)
  • homosexuality (1)
  • House GOP (1)
  • Hurricane Sandy (1)
  • illness (1)
  • immigration (2)
  • immigration reform (1)
  • income inequality (1)
  • inflation (1)
  • Internet (1)
  • Iran (1)
  • Iraq (1)
  • Iraq War (1)
  • Irish Republican Army (1)
  • IRS (4)
  • IRS scandal (1)
  • Israel (3)
  • Israeli-Palestinian conflict (1)
  • Italy (1)
  • James Comey (1)
  • James Inhofe (1)
  • James Risen (1)
  • Janet Yellen (1)
  • Japan (1)
  • Jazz (1)
  • Jeb Bush (1)
  • Jeff Bezos (1)
  • Jeffrey Bezos (1)
  • Jeffrey Toobin (1)
  • Jenny McCarthy (1)
  • Jesus (1)
  • Jim Graves (1)
  • Jo Bonner (1)
  • Joe Biden (3)
  • Joe Lieberman (2)
  • Joe Manchin (1)
  • Joe Scarborough (1)
  • John Boehner (6)
  • John Cornyn (1)
  • John Dean (1)
  • John Kerry (3)
  • John McCain (5)
  • John Roberts (1)
  • Jonathan Bernstein (2)
  • Jonathan Chait (2)
  • Jonathan Karl (1)
  • journalism (2)
  • justice (2)
  • Karl Rove (2)
  • Ken Cuccinelli (5)
  • Kentucky (4)
  • Kurds (1)
  • labor issues (2)
  • Larry Summers (1)
  • Lawrence O'Donnell (1)
  • Liberals (1)
  • Libertarianism (3)
  • libertarians (2)
  • Libya (2)
  • Lisa Murkowski (1)
  • Listening to Now (6)
  • Los Angeles (1)
  • Louie Gohmert (1)
  • magazines (2)
  • Marco Rubio (2)
  • Mark Begich (1)
  • Mark Udall (1)
  • marriage eqaulity (1)
  • marriage equality (2)
  • Mars (1)
  • Martin Luther King Jr. (2)
  • Maryland (1)
  • Massachusetts (6)
  • Matt Taibbi (1)
  • mayoralty (1)
  • McDonald's (1)
  • media (4)
  • Medicare (1)
  • medicine (1)
  • Memorial Day (1)
  • Mexico (1)
  • Michael Bloomberg (1)
  • Michael Hayden (1)
  • Michele Bachmann (3)
  • Michigan (1)
  • Microsoft (1)
  • Middle East (6)
  • Mike Konczal (1)
  • Minnesota (2)
  • Mississippi (1)
  • Missouri (1)
  • Mitch McConnell (5)
  • Mitt Romney (4)
  • Montreal (1)
  • Montreal Canadiens (1)
  • Morning Joe (1)
  • movies (4)
  • MSNBC (3)
  • music (10)
  • Nancy Pelosi (1)
  • NASA (1)
  • natural disasters (2)
  • Nelson Mandela (1)
  • neocons (1)
  • New Hampshire (2)
  • New Jersey (5)
  • New York (2)
  • New York City (6)
  • news media (7)
  • newspapers (2)
  • NFL (1)
  • Nobel Peace Prize (1)
  • North Carolina (1)
  • NRA (1)
  • NSA (17)
  • nuclear power (1)
  • Obama Administration (2)
  • Obama Derangement Syndrome (1)
  • Obama White House (3)
  • Obamacare (7)
  • obiturary (1)
  • Oklahoma (3)
  • On the Hustings (10)
  • Ontario (1)
  • Osama bin Laden (1)
  • P.M. Headlines (7)
  • P.M. Headlines (54)
  • P.M.Headlines (1)
  • Palestine (1)
  • Pat Toomey (1)
  • Patriot Act (1)
  • patriotism (1)
  • Paul Krugman (1)
  • Paul Ryan (1)
  • personal (1)
  • Peter King (2)
  • Photo of the Day (1)
  • Piers Morgan (1)
  • Planned Parenthood (1)
  • poetry (1)
  • police (1)
  • political ads (3)
  • Politico (1)
  • polling (1)
  • polls (6)
  • polygamy (1)
  • Pope Francis (1)
  • Porcupine Tree (1)
  • pornography (1)
  • Portugal (1)
  • Potsdam (1)
  • poverty (3)
  • President Barack Obama (4)
  • President Obama (1)
  • Presidential Campaign Songs (1)
  • privacy (5)
  • Progressive Music Classics (1)
  • Prop 8 (1)
  • race (3)
  • Rachel Maddow (4)
  • racism (8)
  • Rahm Emanuel (1)
  • Ramesh Ponnuru (2)
  • Rand Paul (6)
  • Ray Kelly (1)
  • redistricting (1)
  • Reince Priebus (1)
  • religion (3)
  • reproductive rights (1)
  • Republican hypocrisy (1)
  • Republican Party (9)
  • Republicans (59)
  • Retro Political Ads (1)
  • Reza Aslan (2)
  • Rhode Islands (1)
  • Richard Nixon (3)
  • Rick Santorum (2)
  • Rick Scott (1)
  • Rick Snyder (1)
  • right-wing extremism (1)
  • Robert Reich (1)
  • Robert Rubin (1)
  • Rolling Stone (1)
  • Ron Paul (3)
  • Ronald Reagan (2)
  • Royal Family (1)
  • Rush Limbaugh (1)
  • Russia (7)
  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1)
  • same-sex marriage (8)
  • Sarah Palin (3)
  • scandals (7)
  • schools (1)
  • science (4)
  • Scott Walker (1)
  • Sean Hannity (3)
  • Sen. Ted Cruz (1)
  • seniors (1)
  • separation of church and state (1)
  • Sesame Street (1)
  • sex (1)
  • sex scandals (1)
  • sexism (1)
  • Skype (1)
  • slavery (1)
  • soccer (1)
  • Sochi Olympics (1)
  • South Africa (1)
  • Southern Baptist Convention (1)
  • space (1)
  • sports (3)
  • Stand your ground (1)
  • Steve Benen (3)
  • Steve King (3)
  • Steven Wilson (1)
  • Stuart Stevens (1)
  • stupid Republicans (1)
  • Supreme Court (1)
  • surveillance state (5)
  • Susan Rice (1)
  • Syria (10)
  • talk radio (1)
  • Tamerlan Tsarnaev (1)
  • tax policy (1)
  • Tayyip Erdogan (2)
  • Tea Party (5)
  • technology (1)
  • Ted Cruz (2)
  • television (4)
  • Tennessee (3)
  • terrorism (3)
  • Terry McAuliffe (1)
  • Texas (6)
  • The Bible (1)
  • The Doors (1)
  • the economy (2)
  • The New York Times (1)
  • The Reaction (1)
  • The Republican Party (1)
  • The Supreme Court (1)
  • The US Senate (2)
  • The Wall Street Journal (1)
  • The Washington Post (1)
  • theocracy (1)
  • Thomas Menino (1)
  • Tim Geithner (1)
  • Tom Coburn (2)
  • torture (1)
  • Trayvon Martin (4)
  • Treyvon Martin (1)
  • Tucker Carlson (1)
  • Turkey (2)
  • U.S. budget (1)
  • U.S. Congress (3)
  • U.S. Constitution (5)
  • U.S. courts (1)
  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security (1)
  • U.S. economy (1)
  • U.S. federal government (3)
  • U.S. Federal Reserve (2)
  • U.S. foreign policy (5)
  • U.S. House of Representatives (8)
  • U.S. legal system (2)
  • U.S. Marines (1)
  • U.S. military (6)
  • U.S. national security (3)
  • U.S. Postal Service (1)
  • U.S. Senate (19)
  • U.S. Supreme Court (10)
  • U.S. tax code (1)
  • undocumented immigration (2)
  • unemployment (1)
  • United Kingdom (3)
  • United States (1)
  • US House of Representatives (3)
  • US Senate (5)
  • vaccination (1)
  • Vienna Teng (1)
  • Vimeo of the Day (5)
  • Virginia (8)
  • Vladimir Putin (5)
  • voter fraud (1)
  • voter suppression (1)
  • voting rights (3)
  • Wall Street (2)
  • war (1)
  • war on Christmas (1)
  • war on drugs (1)
  • war on terror (5)
  • war on women (1)
  • Watergate (1)
  • weather (1)
  • welfare (1)
  • West Virginia (2)
  • Westboro Baptist Church (1)
  • Winston Churchill (1)
  • women's health (1)
  • World War I (1)
  • Zimmerman trial (3)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (500)
    • ►  September (53)
    • ►  August (79)
    • ►  July (158)
    • ►  June (128)
    • ▼  May (82)
      • P.M. Headlines
      • Vimeo of the Day: "Sarah DiNardo. Tape Artist."
      • Behind the Ad: Terry McAuliffe, king of the platit...
      • Michele Bachmann's influence: Credit where credit ...
      • Another Republican, Obama?
      • A.M. Headlines
      • P.M. Headlines
      • Because gun nuts are such level headed folks...
      • Behind the Ad: Tax fairness in the Mass. Senate el...
      • Lincoln Chafee becomes a Democrat
      • Behind the Ad: Republicans can't help going too far
      • Waiting in the wings
      • A.M. Headlines
      • P.M. Headlines
      • Special election in Alabama's 1st Congressional Di...
      • Obamacare polls a little positive
      • The new gun-control movement, post-Newtown
      • Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D) is more than a little ...
      • A.M. Headlines
      • P.M. Headlines
      • What's wrong with MSNBC? (hint: Joe)
      • Russia to protect Syria from "hot heads"
      • So about those conservative groups supposedly bein...
      • Bush 2.0
      • (Not President) McCain goes to Syria (and undermin...
      • A.M. Headlines
      • P.M. Headlines
      • Memorial Day 2013
      • A.M. Headlines
      • P.M. Headlines
      • Listening to Now: Dave Douglas Quintet - "Be Still...
      • "Making it" in today's GOP
      • Bernie Sanders on labor markets
      • A.M. Headlines
      • P.M. Headlines
      • The war must be over
      • Michelle Nunn gets ready in Georgia
      • A.M. Headlines
      • Patty Griffin: "Ohio" (feat. Robert Plant)
      • P.M. Headlines
      • Behind the Ad: Building McAuliffe's narrative in V...
      • Progressive Music Classics: "Corner Soul" by The C...
      • Chuck Grassley on court packing
      • Barack Obama and the end of the War on Terror
      • A.M. Headlines
      • P.M. Headlines
      • Anthony Weiner's rise
      • Tea Partier: Louder-shouting Republican
      • Fed might as well have single mandate
      • Behind the Ad: Gabriel Gomez shows how "dirty" is ...
      • Bernanke to Congress: It's your fault
      • A.M. Headlines
      • P.M. Headlines
      • What can Republicans talk about besides scandals?
      • Behind the Ad: Dreaming of a House without Michele...
      • Church/State
      • Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Vi...
      • Just do it!
      • Behind the Ad: Mitch and Rand go fishing for votes
      • In wake of tornado tragedy, both of Oklahoma's sen...
      • A.M. Headlines
      • Texas uses "Merry Christmas Bill" to push theocrat...
      • Your daily dose of rage-making capitalism
      • P.M. Headlines
      • Los Angeles mayoral election is today
      • Karl Marks: Who is the real Jonathan Karl?
      • Behind the Ad: Fun with names in New Jersey
      • What IRS scandal?
      • A.M. Headlines
      • Tornado tragedy in Moore, Oklahoma
      • Ray Manzarek of the Doors (1939-2013)
      • P.M. Headlines
      • Happy Victoria Day!
      • GIN!
      • Styx: "The Best of Times" (from the great Paradise...
      • Loan Harry Reid your testicles
      • Craziest Republican of the Day: E.W. Jackson
      • Relentless Republican outrage and the fake scandal...
      • Anathema: "A Natural Disaster"
      • Vive la France! Down with Texas!
      • Affinity bias and the White House scandals
      • Death, Teapot Dome, and Benghazi, Cuba
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile