On the Hustings

(WMUR): "Bradley rules out running for statewide office next year"

(The Tennessean): "Kevin Kookogey says he's 'unannounced candidate' for Lamar Alexander's seat"

(New York Times): "National gun debate hits close to home in Colorado recall vote"

(KDLG): "New polling: Senator Begich has a lead over Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell"

(The Hill): "Christie chooses to celebrate wife's birthday instead of rally with Rand Paul"

Read More

Sis-boom-bomb

By Mustang Bobby

ThinkProgress notes: Media Cheerleads For Another War: Blasts Obama For Not Rushing Into Syria.

The hosts of the nation’s leading political talk shows pressed Secretary of State John Kerry on the administration’s decision to seek Congressional authorization for a military strike against Syria, arguing that delaying military action undermined America’s resolve and weakened President Obama.

Though Kerry, who appeared on all five political programs, insisted that Obama’s decision would allow for the proper constitutional process and permit the administration “time to reach out to allies, friends around the world, build support on an international basis,” the hosts appeared to dismiss any need for Congressional deliberations or public debate about the administration’s evidence or the potential consequences of a military attack. NBC’s David Gregory, Fox’s Chris Wallace, CBS’s Major Garrett, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, and CNN’s Gloria Borger went beyond inquiring about the political timing of Obama’s decision to consult with Congress on Saturday. They repeatedly claimed that Obama’s decision to hold off on immediate military action emboldened America’s adversaries and undermined the nation’s “credibility.”

So why would the media talking heads be all rah-rah for war, death and destruction? Because, as William Randolph Hearst knew back in 1898, it sells papers. In this case, it sells ads on cable TV. It’s the action, not the debate in Congress that gets people watching, and people watching sells boner pills and car insurance.

Now am I so cynical as to think that David Gregory, Chris Wallace, Major Garrett, George Stephanopoulos, and Gloria Borger are all cold-hearted bloodthirsty schemers who want American soldiers fighting and dying in Syria purely for the sake of ratings and profits at their corporate headquarters? Of course not. But they also know that the American audience has the attention span of a fruit fly, and if all they see when they turn on the tube is Harry Reid and John Boehner gasping into a microphone, they’re going to off to another rerun of Ice Road Truckers or Real Wives of Leelanau County before you can get out of the La-Z-Boy.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Read More

We should negotiate to end the Syrian civil war

By Frank Moraes

I came upon an amazing article this weekend. It was from McClatchy back on 3 June 2013, Assad

Backers Reportedly Make Up 43 Percent of Dead in Syria. It is based upon work by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) which is based in London. The article claims that, "The observatory... is considered the most authoritative source for reports on the daily violence in Syria, and it's the only group that routinely attempts to categorize deaths according to whether the victims were civilians, rebels or government fighters."

The results are exactly what you would expect if you don't have an ax to grind. War is hell, and civil war is especially so. According to SOHR, 43.2% (41,648 total) of the deaths are Asaad forces and aligned militias; 36.8% (35,479 total) are civilians; and 17.3% (16,699) are anti-Asaad forces. We can't say who is responsible for the civilian deaths, but even if we assume that Asaad is responsible for all the civilian casualties, the deaths are pretty equally shared.

Of course, these numbers are not without doubt. The Syrian Network for Human Rights counts only rebel and civilian deaths, but their numbers are quite different: 75,992 civilians and 7,606 rebel deaths. I don't think that this changes the picture much, even if these numbers are correct. It is clear that there are massive casualties on both sides and among the civilians.

Yesterday, Straits Times reported that SOHR now estimates that 110,371 people have been killed in Syria since the March 2011 uprising. For these, at least 40,146 are civilians. A common liberal complaint about all this talk of war with Syria is in the context of all the people who have died while we've stood by. The argument for war is something about national credibility.

So the question to me is why our focus is not on ending the conflict. What we are doing is further indicating that we really don't care about Syria at all. We don't even care about the chemical weapons attack. We just want an excuse to attack Assad. The situation is terrible for everyone. We have a great opportunity to work with Russia to put an end to the Syrian civil war. So why aren't we doing that?

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "President gains McCain’s backing on Syria attack"

(TPM): "Assad: If West attacks, 'risk of regional war exists'"

(BuzzFeed): "Obama to meet with LGBT activists while in Russia"

(Washington Post): "Top-secret U.S. intelligence files show new levels of distrust of Pakistan"

(Associated Press): "Rodman in North Korea to visit authoritarian leader; won't say if jailed American on agenda"

Read More

Retro Political Ads: Nixon Now (1972)

By Richard K. Barry

Maybe because I'm reading Rick Perlstein's fabulous book Nixonland, but I've got the old trickster on the brain. Knocking around the internet this evening I came across this gem.  It's a 2 minute and 15 second campaign ad from 1972 called "Nixon Now." Wonder what it cost in 1972 to air a spot that long?

And what a catchy little ditty it is, sort of. At least in an Up With People kind of way. Then again, in an evil Bob Roberts kind of way, it actually scares the crap out of me. 

CBS News says this about the ad:

The 1972 "Nixon Now" advertisement is memorable for its uncharacteristic nature. Not many would associate Nixon, a firm Cold Warrior who excelled at fierce anti-liberal attack ads, with a spot that scrolls from stills of young people frolicking in the sun to clips of a smiling Nixon shaking hands with constituents. All the while, a festive song hails Nixon for "reaching out to find a way to make tomorrow a brighter day, making dreams reality. More than ever - Nixon now for you and me."

   

Read More

P.M. Headlines

(BBC News): "Syria crisis: Obama's gamble on Congress"

(USA Today): "Obama Syria decision adds a twist to G-20 summit"

(National Post): "NSA leaks reveal that U.S. was reading Brazil and Mexico leaders’ emails"

(Brisbane Times): "Euro manufacturing jumps to two-year high"

(Reuters): "America's Diana Nyad, 64, sets record with Cuba-to-Florida swim"                                     

Read More

Behind the Ad: Special House election in the Alabama 1st congressional district

By Richard K. Barry

Who: Former state Sen. Bradley Byrne

Where: Alabama 1st congressional district

What's going on: The Hill reports that Byrne will be going up with his first television ad, highlighting his "work as a public servant to clean up the state’s community college system." They say that the $47,000 positive spot will "air on broadcast for the week beginning Sept. 3, and on cable beginning Friday through Sept. 9."

You may or may not recall that Rep. Jo Bonner resigned this House seat on Aug. 2 to become vice-chancellor of the University of Alabama. Primary elections are on September 24. If no runoffs are required, the general election will be on November 5. If runoffs are needed, they will be on November 5, with the general election taking place on December 17.

While Byrne is leading in this very Republican district, The Southern Political Report offers this analysis:

The betting is that Byrne will not get a majority in the September 24 primary. Whoever comes in second is likely to run to Byrne’s right, setting up a contest between an establishment conservative and a more ideological, hard-right conservative. Notes Birmingham Southern political science Professor Natalie Davis, if his runoff foe “is a Tea Party type, it would make Bradley Byrne vulnerable. Absent that, he will probably win.” Former state GOP Chairman Marty Connors points out that “Bradley won a plurality in that district, but only a plurality.”

Read More