P.M. Headlines

(The Guardian): "John Kerry gives Syria week to hand over chemical weapons or face attack"

(USA Today): "Strike to degrade Syrian forces would still be limited"

(Politico): "The party of hawks turns dovish on Syria"

(CBC News): "George Zimmerman's wife won't press charges despite 911 call"

(CNN): "The president and the pipeline"

Read More

Thoughts on Syria

By Carl

A couple of ruminations came up in my head over the weekend when I contemplated the latest from Syria:

1) Do you think that the corporatists are screaming bloody murder that their chosen  party, Republicans, are not falling in line like the sheeple they are?

2) Is part of the reason Teabaggers aren’t falling in line to get a pound of flesh out of Assad because they’d finally have to acknowledge that global warming is a real threat to the world and by extension, us? Assad has been diverting water from the rural communities (and farms) to the cities to help ease the thirst of not only the permanent urban citizenry, but also the massive influx of refugees from those self-same rural communities ravaged by drought. As he’s moved closer to the city to divert water – notably, the suburbs – the civil unrest has gotten worse.

3) Would this conflict even be discussed if some bonehead President hadn’t gotten us engulfed (pun intended) in a war of choice that last more than a decade? After all, President Clinton managed to gather a coalition of NATO and other allies, including Russia, to get on board to seek first diplomatic means and then military solutions to the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. One presumes that had we not become a truly evil nation in the past twenty years, we’d have the moral authority now to ask again.

4) I’m not sure Assad understands the Iraq war, however. Is he trying to rally his allies by playing the martyr card? Is it possible he’s telling the truth, as Hussein did?

5) Loren Thompson has a point: If Obama fails to garner the votes to authorize retaliation, he actually wins in the long run, domestically. And I think the US gains a measure of credibility back, too. For 213 of our 236+ years of existence, the United States has been at war with somebody. It’s really long past time to call us “warmongers”. The last time we were not at war? Dec. 6, 1941 (if you include the Cold War. If not, you need only look to Jimmy Carter’s administration.)

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Read More

Reining them in

By Mustang Bobby

Putting aside the pros and cons of attacking Syria, a lot of people — and by that I mean the various and sun-dried pundits inside the Beltway — seem to be worried about what it will mean for the future of the presidency of Barack Obama and anyone else who should come after.

Frankly, it’s a silly argument to make, especially if you think that political considerations have always been in the mix when an administration decides to go to war, and this administration is no different. More’s the pity; there’s not a lot of attention paid to the actual consequences of unloading the 82nd Airborne on a country or the aftereffects on the soldiers and the families. But that’s usually left to the next guy.

At any rate, there’s a lot of faux hand-wringing over what a No vote will do for the image of President Obama. E.J. Dionne has gone so far as to say it will “incapacitate the president for three long years.” But if history is any guide, presidents who have lost votes on key issues in Congress have lived to fight another day and done pretty well after. Bill Clinton survived impeachment, and even George W. Bush managed to eke out a second term after his attempt to turn Social Security over to Wall Street died a quick and merciless death. And those guys had it easy compared to what President Obama has faced from a Republican Party that has objected to everything he’s done and threatened impeachment over his choice of breakfast cereal.

But what about on the international stage? What kind of leadership will we show the world if Congress says No? Well, it may surprise you to know that we’re not the only country in the world that has both the moral standing to condemn Syria’s government for its actions, nor are we the only country with the capability to do something about it. It can’t and it shouldn’t always be us.

This is not meant as giving Assad a free pass to go ahead and commit genocide because the United States is reluctant to launch a Cruise missile. But a lot of our allies remain to be convinced; they’ve been down this road with us before and they know what perils it brings. Kevin Drum sums it up well:

As for America’s ability to act in the world, I really doubt that this vote will be taken as much of a precedent. But if it were, the precedent it sets would be simple: the United States won’t undertake military action unless it’s so plainly justified that both parties are willing to support it. That would frankly be no bad thing. Unfortunately, once they get in office American presidents of both parties seem to find no end of wars to fight overseas. Reining them in a bit would be commendable.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Read More

On the Hustings

(Public Policy Polling): "de Blasio on verge of avoiding runoff"

(The Hill): "Senate primary challengers target GOP incumbents on Syria strikes"

(Fox News): "Early turnout strong in Colorado recall effort on gun-control legislation"

(Real Clear Politics): "Senate election polls"

(Washington Post): "Is Berger hinting at U.S. Senate bid?"

Read More

Two-state solution unlikely anytime soon

By Frank Moraes

I'm very interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it is such a mess that I rarely hazard an opinion about it. So I was very interested to see an article this morning in Al Jazeera America, Analysis: Israelis Not Ready for Two-State Solution. It is by an Israeli journalist, Dimi Reider, and it is calm—and sad.

His analysis is that the Israeli people are not ready for a two state solution to the conflict. They claim to be for one, but this is mostly just theoretical well wishing. When asked about things like land swaps, which would be necessary for any deal, they disagree. What's more, public opinion goes down the more an actual plan comes into focus. So it really comes down to the fact that the Israeli people would like peace, but they really aren't willing sacrifice anything to get it.

Even worse, Palestinian attacks on Israelis end up hurting the poor almost exclusively, "those who would use public transport and shop in outdoor markets." Thus, the power elite have no reason to want a settlement to the crisis and the poor are angry about the bombings and so become more nationalistic.

The situation on the Palestinian side is far worse. They have largely learned that violence only makes their lives harder. So Palestinian nonviolent protest—never a minor form of political involvement (not that you would know it fromwestern press coverage)—has greatly expanded in recent years. But this puts them in a Catch-22 situation. If they engage in violence, it will make things worse and will not lead to a negotiated settlement. But if they do not engage in violence, there will be no pressure on the Israeli government to do anything and so it will not lead to a negotiated settlement.

The status quo is generally all right with the Israeli people. And so the Israeli government can stand by and allow more and more illegal settlements in Palestinian land—each one of which only makes a final settlement harder. Historically, conflicts like that between Israel and Palestine would have been resolved with a genocide. But with the eyes of the world watching, Israel can't do that. (I'm not suggesting that Israel is especially bad here; they are the more powerful group; I don't think the Palestinians would be any different if theywere the more powerful group.) But it is hard to see the constant trickle of illegal settlements as anything but a slow motion genocide.

Given all the problems, I think a solution to this situation will take outside help. This is one of the great tragedies of the Bush Jr administration. We gave up a great opportunity to push for an end to this conflict. Instead, we invaded Iraq. So in addition to all of the bad consequences of that war, the opportunity costs were probably even worse. I see the Israel-Palestine conflict as a local infection that poisons the politics of the rest of the region. It seemed like Kerry was interested in addressing the problem. But he's shown far more gusto for bombing Syria. I have very little hope for the future when it comes to the whole region, and this Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

A.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "Bashar Assad tells Charlie Rose U.S. should "expect every action" in response to Syria strikes"

(Reuters): "Kerry: Syrian handover of all chemical arms could prevent attack"

(Washington Post): "Kerry says Saudi Arabia has agreed to support military strike against Syria"

(CNN): "Poll: Public against Syria strike resolution"

(Politico): "Clinton will speak on Syria"

(The Hill): "Fears of wounding Obama weigh heavily on Democrats ahead of vote"

Read More

Listening to Now: Bruno Mars, your Super Bowl 2014 entertainment

By Richard K. Barry

Keeping with today's football theme here at The Reaction, I'm pleased to pass on, courtesy of the Hollywood Reporter, that Bruno Mars will play the Pepsi Super Bowl XLVIII Halftime Show on Feb. 2, 2014. (Hooray!!!)

And, as you may know, it's a big deal:

The Super Bowl is traditionally the most-watched U.S. television event every year, but the Halftime Show often scores higher ratings than the game itself. Madonna's 2012 performance currently ranks as the most-watched event in U.S. television history, with over 114 million viewers tuning in. Beyonce's 2013 performance, the first Halftime sponsored by Pepsi, attracted 110.5 million.

The first time I heard this tune I thought it was The Police, or a tribute band. Anyway, I like Bruno. 

Read More

P.M. Headlines

(Sydney Morning Herald): "Kerry: Arab League agrees Syria crossed 'global red line'"

(Washington Post): "Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011"

(Spiegel Online): "NSA can spy on smart phone data"

(CNN): "Rand Paul lays out demands ahead of potential Syria filibuster"

(USA Today): "NAACP chief Ben Jealous to resign, cites family reasons"

Read More

Gov. Christie doesn't understand loyalty

By Richard K. Barry

The NFL Network interviewed New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie this week on a range of topics. One was the frequently heard complaint that both the Giants and the Jets play at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey but are still identified as New York teams. There was also talk about Super Bowl XLVIII that will take place at MetLife Stadium on Feb. 2, 2014. Everyone is treating it like it is taking place in New York. I even see that the organizers call themselves the NY/NJ Host Committee. This all seems to annoy Christie.

Yes, I remember when the Giants made the move to the Garden State, but no head of marketing was ever going to call them the New Jersey Giants. It wasn't going to happen. As a New Yorker, I was good with that.

But the thing that pissed me off about the interview with Christie was his proud declaration as a Dallas Cowboys' fan.

He explains himself this way:

"I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan," the governor told NFL Network in a segment that aired Sunday morning. "I saw Roger Staubach play for the first time, and this was 1971, and I became a huge Staubach fan. And as a result, a Cowboys fan, and I've been one ever since."

How do Christie's constituents feel about that development? Exactly as you might expect.

"Oh, they hate it," Christie said. "Giants fans, obviously, are more hateful of my rooting interests, but, you know, I told them right from the beginning when I was running in 2009. You get asked those kind of questions and I didn't try to hide it. I'm a Cowboys fan, I'm proud of it, and you got to be true to the team you've been rooting for your whole life."

And he said more. He talked about why he wasn't a Giants' fan in the 60s and 70s. The answer: Because the Giants sucked back then, and boy did they ever (who could forget the 1966 1-12-1 season?). 

I'm a few years older then Gov. Christie so I became a Giants' fan just in time to completely miss their championship runs in the 50's and early 60s. Still, I suffered through the later 60s, all of the 70s, and the early 80s because I'm a New Yorker and that's what you do when you're from a place.

Chris Christie turned his back on his home town team to root for their arch rival because the enemy had a better team.

No wonder Republicans question his loyalty. I would to. 

Read More

On the Hustings

(National Journal): "Why this New York mayoral election is unlike any in decades"

(The Hill): "Weiner not ready to call it quits"

(Arkansas Business): "Syria role unclear in Arkansas Senate race between Pryor and Cotton"

(Washington Post): "Legislative session will matter in race for Hagan’s Senate seat"

(Courier-Journal): "Mitch McConnell, Alison Lundergan Grimes have gender gaps to cross"

Read More

President Pete King?

By Richard K. Barry

No, not this one.

Looks like Rep. Pete King (R-NY) is going to be running for the GOP nomination for the presidency in 2016, or so he says. According to the New York Daily News, commenting on his recent trip to New Hampshire:

King, making his second of four scheduled visits to the state in the summer and fall, told a New Hampshire radio station Friday that he’s there “because right now I'm running for President.”

Well, that's a pretty clear statement, and although King is by no means the best known of potential Republican contenders, he is, as of now, the first.

The Daily News also notes that King's lack of name recognition could be a problem as one local in New Hampshire commented that the only Pete King he knew was a football analyst. 

Read More

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Obama’s battle for Syria votes, taut and uphill"

(CNN): "WH chief of staff: 'This is not Iraq or Afghanistan"

(Washington Post): "Syria resolution could stall Congress’s work on divisive domestic issues"

(Washington Post): "Alan Grayson: ‘They have no smoking gun that the attack was ordered by Assad’"

(TPM): "McConnell’s anti-Obamacare juggernaut turns against him"

Read More

Listening to Now: Spyro Gyra - "Morning Dance"

By Richard K. Barry

A lot of music fans claim to dislike what is known as smooth jazz, sometimes likening it to elevator music. I don't know. I'm okay with some of it, like Spyro Gyra's 1979 album Morning Dance. I particularly like the title track.

The one thing I will say about the cut, having worked in radio briefly in the late 1970s, is that the song seemed to be everyone's idea of segueway music into or out of a segment of some kind. You know, music played just before "News at Noon."

Read More

P.M. Headlines

(NBC News): "Grisly footage attempts to make case for Syrian strike"

(BBC News): "Kerry says support for action against Syria is growing"

(Gallup Poll): "Obama's fourth year in office ties as most polarized ever"

(New York Times): "Soft jobs data not expected to deter Fed"

(Capitol Report): "G-20 communique focuses on trade and economies, ignores Syria"

Read More

GOP's continued debt ceiling demands

By Frank Moraes

I've begun to think about trillion dollar platinum coins again. In particular, I've been wondering if President Obama is thinking about them. This is the idea that rather than raise the Debt Ceiling, the government can just mint platinum coins of arbitrary value. It is just an accounting trick, but then so is the Debt Ceiling. Basically, it is either the platinum coin (or a similar device to ignore the Debt Ceiling) or the government defaults on its debt, which will cause a crisis and hopefully that would cause the Republicans to finally raise or even repeal the Debt Ceiling.

At this point, I don't have much confidence in the Republican Party. Too much of the party just believes that through Pure Force of Will they will be able to get what they want. By this thinking, any complaints that reaching the Debt Ceiling will be bad are just negotiating tactics of the Democratic Party. And many of those who do understand the danger think it is a good thing. One of the main issues with hitting the Debt Ceiling is that it will greatly increase the borrowing costs of the United States government. What does that matter to Republicans who want to cut spending for the sake of cutting spending? I doubt it occurs to them that doing such a thing would pretty much require raising taxes—but again, that's where the Pure Force of Will comes in.

Yesterday, Peter Schroeder at The Hill reported, House GOP Says it Will Raise Debt Ceiling by Mid-October. That's a deceptive title. All the article says is that Eric Cantor has sent a memo to GOP lawmakers saying that the House will vote to raise the Debt Ceiling but only if they get "fiscal reforms and pro-growth policies," which is defined as balancing the federal budget in 10 years.


There are a few things to bear in mind about balancing the budget in 10 years. First, it is a stupid idea. There is no reason to balance the budget ever. As long as the debt level as a fraction of GDP is going down, all is well. That's how we reduced the debt year after year until Reagan got into power. Second, cutting spending during an economic downturn like the one we are in is catastrophic. Can you say, "Bad jobs report"? Third, the Republicans are big on coming up with grand announcements about cutting the budget, but they never, never, never give specifics. When it comes to actual spending cuts, they can't agree on anything. Here is the proposed 2013 discretionary spending:

See the problem? This takes me back to my childhood when it seemed that every politician everywhere was going to fix all of our funding problems by eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse." We still hear it today. The problem is that most government programs are really quite efficient. It turns out that "waste, fraud, and abuse" only gets you about 2% if you are lucky. Then you have to start hurting actual people—most of the time, rich people who will not only tell you but make you feel it during your next election.

So the question is whether Obama is going to do the right thing and use some loophole or technicality to avoid government default. The other option is to allow us to hit the Debt Ceiling and thus do grievous harm to the economy and also effectively destroy the Republican Party. At this point I'd love to see the Republican Party go away. As I've noted before, the Democratic Party really needs to be broken up into two parties: conservative and liberal. The United States is not served well by a revolutionary party. But I think that would not be sufficient consolation for the terrible effects on our economy. So I hope that Obama goes with the platinum coin. Or the Republicans may just kick the can down the road a few months again. And again. And again. But the problem with that is that they will eventually screw up. Republicans are not particularly good at governing.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

On the Hustings

(The Hill): "Bloomberg: NY hopeful for mayor running 'racist' campaign"

(Roll Call): "Grimm fundraises off Syria vote | #NY11"

(Rasmussen): Election 2013: Virginia Governor - McAuliffe (D) 45%, Cuccinelli (R) 38%"

(The Daily Beast): "Nine women remaking the right"

(Politico): "Cory Booker reveals 15 years of tax returns"

Read More

Same old pattern on the right

By Richard K. Barry

West Virginia Rep. Shelley Capito is running for the Senate in 2014. But, as in other races across the country, she is being attacked from the right for not being conservative enough. On a local conservative group's Facebook page they says she is “pro-abortion, pro-bailout and pro-debt: Shelley Moore Capito is just too liberal for WV.”

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va) is stepping down next year and this state is considered by most a significant opportunity for a Republican pick-up. Secretary of State Natalie Tennant may be the Democratic candidate and recent polling says Capito would receive 45 percent support and Tennant would get 40 percent.

According to The Hill:

In July, the National Republican Liberty Caucus, which has endorsed Tea Party candidates in the past, endorsed another Republican challenger in the race. It backed Pat McGeehan over Moore Capito.

In an interview with the Daily Caller back in April, McGeehan had this to say:

Well, I respect Shelley Capito for her years of service in the House of Representatives; however, I just believe that West Virginians deserve a true conservative in this race, someone who’s pro-gun, pro-coal, pro-life, and, most importantly, pro-Constitution.

I know it's the same old story, but the radical right continues to be hell-bent on defeating candidates in their own party who have the best chance to win in the general election.

Many of us keep expecting that the failed candidacies of people like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle will stop the Tea Party madness, but it doesn't appear to even be slowing them down. Maybe movement conservatism is never going to go away, and that's not a bad thing for Democrats.

Read More

Have to believe it was magic

By Mustang Bobby

Far be it from me to knock someone else’s religion as long as it doesn’t interfere with someone else’sfaith and freedom. As John Lennon said, “whatever gets you through the night.” In other words, feel free to do whatever you like as long as it doesn’t harm innocent bystanders or force itself on them. If you want to make a deity out of a ’57 Chevy, go for it. But skate over the edge into running other people’s lives, and we have a problem.

That’s what bothers me about the fundamentalist Christians. Not content to wallow in their own

particular brand of worship, they feel compelled to share it with the rest of us. And by “share” I mean force it on the rest of the world by shame, lung power, and legislation.

People who do stuff like that have some sort of inferiority complex; they have to prove themselves better than the schlemiel who doesn’t think of Jesus as their personal savior, and they can’t sleep at night because of their obsession about the gay couple down the street doing unspeakable things in their bedroom. (If my experience is any guide, the most unspeakable thing that goes on in a gay couple’s bedroom is one of them hogging the blanket on a cold night.)

This leads to the paranoia that the world is out to get them, and the fact that only 80% of Americans identify as nominally Christian in some form or another is just not good enough. If someone tells them that no, you really can’t force a biology class to include the pleasant poetry of Genesis or that it is a misdemeanor to block access to a medical clinic, they are being denied their religious freedom. It never occurs to them that banning marriage equality might violate the religious freedom of those Christians who believe that God blesses all unions regardless of genitalia. No, the world is out to get them, and the only way to free themselves from this horrible oppression is to do unto others before they do unto you.

That has led to some pretty wild conspiracy theories on behalf of the Religious Reich. Amanda Marcotte at Salon has compiled a list of the Top Ten, ranging from same-sex marriage being a plot by lesbians to entrap men (which kind of flies in the face of a basic understanding of lesbianism) to the efficacy of birth control pills. My favorite, though, is the hatred of Harry Potter.

JK Rowling is trying to lure your children into Satanism with her Harry Potter books. Hardline Christian conservatives have always been afraid pop culture is a conspiracy of Satan’s to attract impressionable young people, so it’s unsurprising that Rowling’s Harry Potter series, with its portrayal of fantasy magic, made the top of the list of products to be feared. The hysteria hit a peak in 2001, with fundamentalist activists accusing the books of trying to “desensitize readers and introduce them to the occult” and “trafficking in evil spirits.” Things were made worse when the Onion published a satirical article Christian conservatives didn’t realize was satire, causing them to literally believe young kids told the Onion things like, “But the Harry Potter books showed me that magic is real, something I can learn and use right now, and that the Bible is nothing but boring lies.” The furor has died down somewhat, but plenty of evangelical leaders still routinely claim demons can possess your body if you read Harry Potter.

That’s ironic on several levels, the first being that people who base their faith and practice on the literal interpretation of a book filled with magic and talking snakes are carrying on about a book filled with magic and talking snakes.

It sounds to me as if they have a problem with envy: J.K. Rowling became a multimillionaire, and the Harry Potter books are a much better read, at least for the kids.

Right-wing Christians want to spread joy and good news throughout the world, but they really can’t be happy doing it unless they make the rest of us miserable.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Read More

A.M. Headlines

(Fox News): "EU agrees that all indications regarding Syria chemical attack points to Assad"

(New York Times): "Obama falls short on wider backing for Syria attack"

(Yahoo News): "Obama to make case for Syria strikes in prime-time speech Tuesday, won't say if he'll act without Congress' OK"

(Bob Woodward):  "Bob Woodward: The inside story of how Obama and Boehner negotiate"

(BBC News): "Australia election: Rudd concedes as Abbott wins victory"

Read More

Syria is an entry to war with Iran

By Frank Moraes

It is clear that John McCain wants a full out war in Syria with ground troops and the like because he wants a war with Iran. He is not alone in this. I believe that this is largely why most conservatives favor the war. And it is most certainly why all the neocons are on board with this. All of the Americans who claim to be such supporters of Israel are always for attacking Iran because the current conservative Israeli government wants that. But I think this goes deeper than just "protection of Israel." For one thing, it is not at all clear that attacking Iran is good for Israel.

I think this all goes back to 4 November 1979: the Iranian hostage crisis. Conservatives in America hold remarkably long grudges. We haven't had official relations with Cuba for over 50 years. Why? I really don't know. Certainly, we didn't have any more of a problem with them than we had with the Soviet Union. What is the big deal? Well, I suppose I know what the big deal is. Cuba is a small enough country that we could get away with our childish behavior. The Soviet Union was not.

The same thing is going on with Iran. As "evil" governments go, Iran is quite good. It has created great stability in the region. And if we want the country to liberalize, we ought to, you know, open up the lines of communication. Word is that the people of Iran are quite positive towards us. I am well aware that liberals as well as conservatives use the same trilogy of terror ("axis of evil") rhetoric. But I really think that if the conservatives like John McCain could just get over their ego hits about the embassy attack, we might be able to have a reasonable relationship with that country and do actual good for its people.

This is all speculation, of course. But we really seem to be focused on Syria. And I understand why liberals are focused on it: Obama blew it. He backed himself into a corner with his talk of "red lines." Advice to the president: never talk about red lines. The conservatives, however, are interested in Syria in a larger sense. It is part of the bigger reshaping of the Middle East. That Iraq War went so well, maybe they think they can install a Syrian government that is even more allied with Iran. Just kidding. War with Syria is just one step away from war with Iran. And if these conservatives are really lucky, maybe they can get a third world war with Russia!

The real question now is whether or not we are going to go to war with Syria for silly reasons. Are we going to attack them because the president can't admit to a mistake? Are we going to because conservatives hope to start a regional war? Because that's the coalition. Once again, the American people are too smart to buy any of it. Like most people the world over, we just want to get on with our lives. We may be horrified about what's happening in Syria. (I certainly hope so!) But we know starting a new war isn't the way to help. And those who are for war have different agendas entirely.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

On the Hustings

(New York Times): New inquiry for Bachmann on her presidential race"

(Associated Press): "Henry: 2014 governor bid unlikely, not impossible [Oklahoma]"

(National Journal): "Bad bet: Why Republicans can't win with whites alone"

(The Hill): "Scott Brown to make second trip to Iowa"

(Roll Call): "Ami Bera draws third GOP challenger #CA07"

Read More

It's only money

By Mustang Bobby

So how much is this foray into Syria going to cost?

A limited United States intervention in Syria would not require a supplemental appropriations bill from Congress, an Obama administration official told The Huffington Post on Wednesday.

The official’s assessment that a narrowly tailored operation could be paid for with “existing Department of Defense resources” was seconded by two high-ranking aides on Capitol Hill.

However, another Hill staffer argued that without a greater understanding of the operation, it would be impossible to settle on an exact price tag or means of payment.

“Who the f— knows what it will cost? It depends entirely on what happens,” said the staffer.

I’d write more, but I have to go to work and see how much more they’re cutting out of Head Start, IDEA, and Title II this year.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Read More

Behind the Ad: Tea Party group attacks Mitch McConnell for not being anti-Obamacare enough

Who: Senate Conservatives Fund (a leading Tea Party group)

Where: Kentucky

What's going on: Tea Partiers are really on to this idea that it's not enough to oppose Obamacare. One has to agree completely with the idea of "defunding" it, which, in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused to do.

National Journal:

The Senate Conservatives Fund, which was founded by former Sen. Jim DeMint but is now independent of him, has not endorsed McConnell's Republican primary opponent, Matt Bevin. The group, however, is openly considering doing so and its executive director, Matt Hoskins, said in July that McConnell "needs to consider whether it might be time to hang it up." The fight to defund President Obama's health care law faces a key Oct. 1 deadline, and the ad says, "Tell Mitch McConnell to join the fight to stop Obamacare, before it's too late."

The point, if you haven't been paying attention, is that some Republican Senators are threatening to force a government shutdown unless Democrats agree to give up on the Affordable Care Act. These people are pledging to block a bill to fund government operations unless Obamacare is defunded.

Tea Party favorites such as Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and McConnell’s fellow Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) have been trying to convince their party to stop funding the government in order to block the health reform law.

Earlier in the summer, McConnell told an audience at a Kentucky health care forum that “shutting down the government will not stop Obamacare.” Other Republicans have simply called shutting down the government a stupid idea which, in any case, seems to be an unpopular concept with voters.

Yes, if you're not willing to hold your breath and stamp your feet, even if it's counterproductive to your cause, you're not conservative enough.

Here's the Senate Conservative Fund's ad implying that McConnell simply won't sign on for the one simple thing that will make Obamacare go away. Mitch the Red, they call him.

Lucky for McConnell he has company among other GOP senators who are also being attacked by the group like Richard Burr, R-N.C., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

That is one weird party.

Read More

A.M. Headlines

(BBC News): "G20 'divided' on Syria as Power criticises Russia"

(The Hill): 'Obama needs game-changer to win House vote on Syria"

(Washington Post): "Obama, from Russia, urges U.S. lawmakers to back strike on Syria"

(CNN): "Reports: NSA has cracked much online encryption"

(CBS News): "Making a push to get people to join Obamacare"

Read More

Happy NFL season!

By Richard K. Barry

From those of us here at The Reaction who live and die with their respective teams, we hope those of you who feel the same way enjoy tonight's kick-off. 

Prediction: 36-24 Broncos. 

Read More

P.M. Headlines

(Toronto Star): "G20 summit: Obama, Putin meet at St. Petersburg gathering"

(New York Times): "Brutality of Syrian rebels posing dilemma in West"

(Reuters): "Kerry portrait of Syria rebels at odds with intelligence reports"

(Fareed Zakaria): "On Syria, words have consequences"

(Roll Call): "Bill Clinton explains Obamacare"

Read More

While denialists double down...

By Carl

The insurance industry is already worrying about how to handle Global Warming:

“The debate on climate change and global warming has been intensely polarized. A great deal of this noise has clouded the very real and emerging issues that we as an industry and society need to address,” said Johnny Chan, PhD, director of the Guy Carpenter Asia-Pacific Climate Impact Centre. “In order to adapt to climate change and the changing risk landscape, it is necessary to cut through this noise and focus on objective decisions to mitigate both the financial and social risks associated with climate change.”

The evidence of global warming is undeniable and includes increasing air temperatures, increasing ocean water temperatures, tree ring characteristics, ice core characteristics and the retreat of ice caps, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific body that reviews and assesses scientific evidence pertaining to the physics and impacts of climate change. While climate change has been documented with supporting evidence in past centuries, the rate of warming is believed to be unprecedented, IPCC added.

“Based on consistent and mounting scientific evidence, the IPCC has assessed that it is highly unlikely that recent warming trends can be explained away by natural variability alone,” said James Waller, PhD, research meteorologist for GC Analytics. “Estimates show that the mean temperature of the Earth could rise an additional two to four degrees Celsius by the end of the century. This may seem like a relatively small increase, but the impact of rising temperatures, even by a few degrees, could cause a shift in weather patterns, with considerable impact worldwide.”

The impact of weather-related hazards are dependent on the frequency and severity of CAT [ed.note: catastrophic] events, but also on vulnerability, population density, local infrastructure and the property values of affected areas, the report said, and so factors including per-capita gross domestic product, total insured value, population density and annualized property value must be accounted for, according to the report.

So the insurance industry is clearly alarmed at global warming and is convinced that this is not a natural phenomenon but a manmade crisis.

The analysis goes on to point out that sea level rise is the biggest threat to life and property to come out of global warming, which makes sense: higher winds, more frequent storms, and higher temperatures can all be killers but none can kill on the massive scale that floodwaters can – just look at Katrina – and adding water volume can only make things even worse.

And yet, there are still paid derpers prattling…

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Read More

On the Hustings

(The Salt Lake Tribune): "Huntsman PAC raises $100k, spends half starting up"

(Sabato's Crystal Ball): "Omen or not?: What off-off year elections tell us about the future"

(TPM): "NRSC spokesman calls McConnell opponent Grimes an ‘empty dress’ who ‘babbles incoherently’"

(Roll Call): "Montana Senate field now cleared for Daines | #MTSEN"

(USA Today): "Syria vote will ripple through 2014 campaigns"

Read More

Purple haze

By Capt. Fogg

I like to read books by theoretical physicists who are good at presenting mind-bending material to the general public. I should say that I like reading about these things in English because I can't, quite frankly, even imagine being able to follow the math involved in portraying multidimensional universes, Calabi-Yau manifolds, P-branes and loop quantum physics, just to scratch the surface.

The idea of other universes, possibly an infinite number of them with every point therein stretched out on holographic membranes only a tiny distance apart yet forever isolated, fascinates me far more than any science fiction written these days. There was one school of thought not long ago.  I'm not sure it gets any credit or ever did, but it attempts to explain the relative weakness of the gravitational force by postulating that force particles, or gravitons are able to leak into neighboring planes where they perhaps show up as 'dark' matter, but I'm so far from being able to talk about such things intelligently that I might as well be in another universe. Another universe perhaps identical but perhaps subtly different. I have sometimes nonetheless to wonder if somehow, by some random quantum fluctuation, we don't on occasion just take that tiny jump to the left, that little step to the right, and do the time-warp again.

 I'll bet that you've occasionally asked yourself if you've just woken up in another universe, almost exactly like the one you were in yesterday -- almost.  Silly sci-fi scenarios involving worm holes and time warps are just that: silly -- and we've all read or watched the cheesy movies. The pilot loses contact briefly only to reappear in another time and place. The guy wakes up on groundhog day every day.  You've seen that movie I'm sure.

And yet.


Over the weekend I was motoring south down the Indian River Lagoon as a thunderstorm engulfed us.  The radar reflecting off the rain made the radar screen a sea of purple superimposed over the GPS chart.  I couldn't see ten feet in any direction, reflections  from my nav lights in red and green made an eerie glow in the downpour..

It passed in time for me to be able to find my intended port and eventually to arrive safely home -- but still -- did I return to the same place I set out from? I was gone only a couple of days, but how and when and why, if  this is still the same reality, did all the yogurt in all the supermarkets and groceries in the world suddenly become Greek?  A small thing, but small things add up. And when did the hipsters stop calling each other "bro" and unanimously begin saying "brah?"  Just what did happen in that purple downpour just at the edge of the Bermuda Triangle?

Before that mysterious, disorienting moment,  president Obama should have been impeached for any involvement in Libya and now his delay in  bombing Syria is "shameful" according to one Krauthammer I won't mention by name.  No, I don't believe in space aliens flying around at night with their lights on or in ancient aliens, prophecies and apocalypses, but something is happening here and I don't know what it is. There's a purple haze all in my brain. Lately things just don't seem the same.

(Cross posted at Human Voices)

Read More

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Questions of policy leadership dog Obama before meeting in Russia"

(Politico): "Obama's political capital spread thin"

(Real Clear Politics): "Obama: 'My credibility is not on the line'"

(New York Times): "Paul expected to fillibuster Syria resolution"

(Huffington Post): "Former Boehner aides, GOP sources expect House Speaker will step down after 2014 election"

Read More

P.M. Headlines

(Washington Post):  "Senate committee approves resolution authorizing US strike on Syria"

(Time): "Putin sets uncompromising tone ahead of G-20 summit"

(Bloomberg): "Widening trade gap signals improving US demand: Economy"

(BuzzFeed): "Al Gore's incredible shrinking climate change footprint"

(New York Times): "Business losing clout in a GOP moving right"

Read More

Bad choices

By Mustang Bobby

I watched a bit of the Senate hearings on the resolution on Syria yesterday afternoon, tuning in just in time to see Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) grilling Secretary of State John Kerry on whether or not President Obama would conduct a strike in Syria even if Congress voted against it.

Mr. Paul was at his Tea Party best, carrying on about how the president will violate the Constitution by going to war without the permission of Congress, hinting that Mr. Obama violates the Constitution without breaking a sweat, and visibly annoying Mr. Kerry, who seemed to be more interested in jotting down notes than actually listening to the senator, and when he did respond it was like he was talking to a ten-year-old. (Mr. Paul does bring that out in people.) He assured the gentleman from Kentucky that the Obama administration was not planning on a “classic declaration of war” but a limited capability to teach the Syrian government a lesson. But Sen. Paul kept insisting on getting an assurance from the Secretary that we weren’t going to go to war without Congressional approval.

The maddening thing about the whole discussion is that I and a lot of people agree with Mr. Paul’s view: one foot in the door with “limited action” is still a war, and that over the last sixty years or so we’ve seen presidents of both parties put forces in harm’s way — with or without boots on the ground — without the say-so of Congress, and this does not sound much different.

I just wish that Mr. Paul didn’t sound like such a crackpot when he makes our case for us.

Paul Waldman at The American Prospect sums it up well.

I’m paid to have opinions, and I can’t figure out what my opinion is. On one hand, Bashar Assad is a mass murderer who, it seems plain, would be happy to kill half the population of his country if it would keep him in power. On the other hand, if he was taken out in a strike tomorrow the result would probably be a whole new civil war, this time not between the government and rebels but among competing rebel groups. On one hand, there’s value in enforcing international norms against certain kinds of despicable war crimes; on the other hand, Assad killed 100,000 Syrians quite adequately with guns and bombs before everybody got really mad about the 1,400 he killed with poison gas. On one hand, a round of missile strikes isn’t going to have much beyond a symbolic effect without changing the outcome of the civil war; on the other hand, the last thing we want is to get into another protracted engagement like Iraq.

In short, we’re confronted with nothing but bad options, and anyone who thinks there’s an unambiguously right course of action is a fool.

Josh Marshall has a look at the War Powers Act and how presidents have used and abused their power as Commander in Chief since the day the Constitution was enacted. Sen. Paul and the rest of us can discuss it at length and in terms of history, but the bottom line is that if this or any president wants war, they’ll find a way to get it.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Read More

On the Hustings

(ABC News): "RI Gov. Lincoln Chafee won't run for 2nd term"

(Roll Call): "3 local races that could affect the fight for the House"

(Boston Globe): "GOP's Baker to declare 2014 run for Mass. governor"

(New York Times): "With little time left, mayoral candidates pounce on de Balsio"

(The Hill): "Dems’ Kentucky ‘closer’ jabs in early rounds of fight with McConnell"

Read More

Cats and dogs, sleeping together!

By Carl

The NAACP and the Ku Klan Klan hold meetings:

A meeting between the Wyoming chapter of the NAACP and an organizer for the Ku Klux Klan over the weekend is believed to be the first of its kind.

The meeting between Jimmy Simmons, president of the Casper NAACP, and John Abarr, a KKK organizer from Great Falls, Mont., took place at a hotel in Casper, Wyo., under tight security, the Casper Star-Tribune reported.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the United Klans of America said Tuesday that the meeting is a first.

Abarr told The Associated Press that he met with Simmons Saturday and ended up filling out an NAACP membership form so he can get the group’s newsletters and some insight into its views. He said he paid the $30 fee to join, plus a $20 donation.

Say what, now?

The NAACP requested the meeting after there were reports that hate literature was being distributed in Gillette, WY, about 130 miles north of Casper, and that black men were being beaten when seen out with white women. The police chief of Gillette has denied any beatings of black men have been reported, altho he admitted the beatings could have taken place just outside of town and therefore out of his jurisdiction.

Y’know, there are some tunes from the Fifties that really, I’m not nostalgic for. This is one of them.

Simmons called the meeting to suss out what the Klan was up to in Wyoming. Abarr denied any violence, and his attendance was sanctioned by the national Klan.

Abarr is part of a separatist movement that wants to carve out the northern tier of the US as a whites-only territory, from Wyoming to the Washington coast.

This has been Your Day in the Bizarre.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Read More

A.M. Headlines

(Voice of America): "Putin does not rule out UN-backed Syria strike with evidence"

(Politico): "Senators craft Syria compromise"

(New York Times): "Bushes focus on immigration debate to reclaim their influence"

(Houston Chronicle): "Japan's radioactive water leaks: How dangerous?"

(CBS News): "Ariel Castro found hanging in prison cell"

Read More

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Officials make case for strike before Senate panel"

(BBC News): "Syria crisis: Obama wins backing for military strike"

(Pew Research Center): "Public opinion runs against Syrian airstrikes"

(Politico): "Hillary Clinton backs Obama on Syria"

(Washington Post): "Jeffrey Bezos, Washington Post’s next owner, aims for a new ‘golden era’ at the newspaper"

(Bloomberg): "Manufacturing in the U.S. expands at a faster pace than forecast"

Read More

OK, so you know how you know Syria is probably a mistake to get involved in?

By Carl

John “Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran” McCain AND Lindsey Graham have signed on:

WASHINGTON — The White House’s aggressive push for Congressional approval of an attack on Syria appeared to have won the tentative support of one of President Obama’s most hawkish critics, Senator John McCain, who said Monday that he would back a limited strike if the president did more to arm the Syrian rebels and the attack was punishing enough to weaken the Syrian military.

In an hourlong meeting at the White House, said Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, Mr. Obama gave general support to doing more for the Syrian rebels, although no specifics were agreed upon. Officials said that in the same conversation, which included Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, Mr. Obama indicated that a covert effort by the United States to arm and train Syrian rebels was beginning to yield results: the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria.

There appeared to be broad agreement with the president, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham said, that any attack on Syria should be to “degrade” the Syrian government’s delivery systems. Such a strike could include aircraft, artillery and the kind of rockets that the Obama administration says the forces of President Bashar al-Assad used to carry out an Aug. 21 sarin attack in the Damascus suburbs that killed more than 1,400 people.

Now, to be sure, if Assad – and that’s the nub of the matter, the word “if” – if Assad is gassing his people, then there’s a moral obligation on the part of the world community to step in. We do have a selective attention span, to be sure, and to be sure, it would put us in the embarrassing position of aiding Al Qaeda (among others) in their attempts to topple a dictator.

It wouldn’t be the first time America has stood shoulder to shoulder with an avowed enemy in the name of world “peace”, but that’s a digression for another history lesson. And I say that as an avowed pacifist who, while I would prefer a different method of ending the crisis and ending Assasd’s regime, can understand the world’s impatience and intolerance for that sort of behavior. It historically never ends well for the rest of us if we allow a dictator to commit genocide.

But it would be nice if the US government would lay out an actual case that Assad has clearly gassed his people with Sarin. You know the saying from a few years ago, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…errrrr, won’t get fooled again.”

Now, the administration is holding classified briefings on the matter to Congress this week (so is Putin, apparently), but that’s small beer. Americans are tired of endless war, even if it has been carefully packaged and gift wrapped to be hidden from view.

There is one troubling development, however, that should alarm anyone who supports an attack on Syria or not: Russia’s paranoia and Israel’s…paranoia? Recklessness? You decide:

Amid heightened tension in the region, Israel carried out a missile test Tuesday morning in the Mediterranean -- a launch detected by a Russian early warning system before it was confirmed by 

Israeli authorities.

Israel's Ministry of Defense said it and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency "completed a successful flight test (of the) new version of the Sparrow target missile."

The trial was carried out from an Israeli test range over the Mediterranean Sea, it said. The Arrow defense system successfully detected and tracked the system, it added.

World War III may be a lot closer than we think.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Read More