..................................................................................................................................
What Is A Journalist?
By Peter Funt, May 31, 2013
As amateur news hounds gain power and influence through social media, the definition of “journalist” has ripened for philosophical debate. But now it’s becoming a legal issue — one that could hamper efforts to protect the news profession at the very time federal lawmakers are awakening to the need to do so.
Following disclosure of government scrutiny of the Associated Press in connection with leaks of sensitive material, President Obama urged passage of a new shield law to cover journalists. Versions of the bill were quickly introduced in the House and Senate, each requiring the federal government to convince a judge about the significance of information possessed by journalists before their documents could be seized and their sources exposed.
One of the authors of the Senate measure, Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, said the bill “would balance national security needs against the public’s right to the free flow of information.”
But Schumer’s colleague Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) raised the question, “What is a journalist today?”
Durbin went on to ask, “Does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who’s tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection?”
The House and Senate bills differ on this key point. The Senate version defines persons to be covered as those whose “primary intent” is to disseminate public news or information. The description is lengthy and so broad that it could very well apply to anyone with access to the Internet or social media — which is to say, everyone.
The House measure, introduced by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), is more focused. It defines a journalist as someone gathers and reports news “for financial gain or livelihood.”
Poe’s legislation has broad support. Yet, in the digital age, can a law protecting news flow be so narrowly tailored that it covers only those who earn their living as journalists?
Forty states plus the District of Columbia have some form of shield law, but none exists on the federal level. State protections differ widely, and in many cases utilize antiquated language to describe the function of journalists, by limiting their work to newspapers, magazines and conventional broadcasting. Courts in New Jersey and California, have ruled that bloggers are also entitled to protection under state shield laws.
This goes beyond semantics. One can easily imagine a situation similar, say, to the Boston Marathon bombing, in which classmates of a possible suspect distribute information via the Internet. Should their sources be protected?
Schumer first introduced a version of his shield law in 2009, but it ran into trouble after the online group WikiLeaks began publishing a trove of classified government documents, causing lawmakers to stall on the very question of who deserves protection.
Marshall McLuhan’s prescient discussion of the medium and the message still haunts us. To some, format has little or no relevance in defining journalism; what matters is content. To others, the media must be defined, and as such limited, lest shield laws apply to everyone with a mobile device. To authors of the House bill, journalists are only those who earn a living from their craft, meaning they might be expected to bring a measure of professional responsibility to handling of sensitive material.
I’ve written previously that the term “citizen journalist” is an oxymoron, because journalism is a profession for which training is requisite. However, when it comes to protection under law, I do not believe such rights can be restricted as they are in the House bill. If we are to have a federal shield law, then the Senate measure provides the more reasonable approach, even though its definition of journalism is more sweeping.
To answer Sen. Durbin’s questions: Are all tweeters journalists? No. Are those who seek to distribute information entitled to some level of protection from unreasonable government scrutiny? Yes.
..................................................................................................................................
Friday, May 31, 2013
Bachmann's lineage derives from the "Know-Nothings".... seems appropriate, don't you think?
..................................................................................................................................
Bachmann’s Retirement Delivers a Death Blow to the 1850s
By Tina Dupuy, May 31, 2013
I attended a tea party event hosted by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann the day before the Republican National Convention in Florida last year. I observed the following: Wearing a tri-corner hat in proximity to the Caribbean makes you look like a pirate.
Which pretty much sums up the tea party crowd: historically inaccurate, attached to the Republican Party and welcomed by Michele Bachmann.
With her presidential campaign finances facing FBI scrutiny, Bachmann announced this week she will not seek re-election for a fifth term. “The law limits anyone from serving as president of the United States for more than eight years … in my opinion, well, eight years is also long enough for an individual to serve as a representative for a specific congressional district,” she said over strangely cheery music in her video addressing the decision.
Bachmann is the chair of the mostly defunct congressional Tea Party Caucus. She was one of the conservative members of Congress who gleefully hopped onto the elder-rage bandwagon in the wake of the economic meltdown coupled with the first black president in 2009.
While they chose the Boston Tea Party — a revolt against lack of representation rather than taxes — as their raison d’etre, their real lineage is the Know-Nothing movement of the mid-1800s. The Know-Nothings were the spear-tip of broader anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic sentiment. According to William Gienapp’s book, The Origins of the Republican Party, they attracted many casual, first-time voters. Apparently, “their” country was being overrun with non-Protestants from Europe. Workers felt threatened by the wave of new arrivals. Also, in the 1850s some Americans lamented the scourge of technology, namely, the railroad tearing away community values with every spike.
Their past was better, their future uncertain, their enemy obvious: Others. Suddenly the fraternal order of nativists known as the Know-Nothings sprung into power and influence.
Stephen Miller, a Know-Nothing from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, wrote in 1854 that they were the “American Reform Movement,” organized “to take from the professional politicians the government of State and cities.”
There you have it. A changing economy coupled with a presumed surge of foreign “others” and suddenly there’s a call to elect people who aren’t “Washington insiders,” to take the country back. Sound familiar? It’s an American classic!
The tea party wasn’t the first time anti-change, anti-foreigner feelings have translated into anti-partisan, anti-establishment, anti-politician demands. It probably won’t be the last. This is America and the sentiment that any influx we’re uncomfortable with means we should have another revolution will always be someone’s bright idea.
Historian Mark Voss-Hubbard wrote in his 2002 book, Beyond Party, “Although Know Nothingism institutionalized an alternative politics, it also attracted political elites who viewed the movement through the lens of personal ambition.”
This is basically the paradox of the tea party and specifically Michele Bachmann. It’s the normal conservative fear-others-based hyperbole we’re used to, re-branded as something alternative to give rise to pre-existing politicians.
The tea party and Bachmann are as inseparable as the Know-Nothings and Millard Fillmore, one of the lowest-ranked presidents in the history of the country.
Whatever happened to the Know-Nothings? They did their damage. They killed the Whig Party, disenfranchised and intimidated immigrants, and stalled the Washington Monument’s construction by stealing the “Pope Stone.” Then, after 15 years or so they were forgotten.
What will happen to Michele Bachmann and her beloved tea party? They have yet to break the Republican Party’s back although they’ve left it with a considerable limp.
Ultimately, the tea party exists in the vacuum of anxiety. It’s alive when there’s an opening or, as Bachmann put it, “There is no future option or opportunity, be it directly in the political arena or otherwise, that I won’t be giving serious consideration if it can help save and protect our great nation.”
Indeed.
..................................................................................................................................
Bachmann’s Retirement Delivers a Death Blow to the 1850s
By Tina Dupuy, May 31, 2013
I attended a tea party event hosted by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann the day before the Republican National Convention in Florida last year. I observed the following: Wearing a tri-corner hat in proximity to the Caribbean makes you look like a pirate.
Which pretty much sums up the tea party crowd: historically inaccurate, attached to the Republican Party and welcomed by Michele Bachmann.
With her presidential campaign finances facing FBI scrutiny, Bachmann announced this week she will not seek re-election for a fifth term. “The law limits anyone from serving as president of the United States for more than eight years … in my opinion, well, eight years is also long enough for an individual to serve as a representative for a specific congressional district,” she said over strangely cheery music in her video addressing the decision.
Bachmann is the chair of the mostly defunct congressional Tea Party Caucus. She was one of the conservative members of Congress who gleefully hopped onto the elder-rage bandwagon in the wake of the economic meltdown coupled with the first black president in 2009.
While they chose the Boston Tea Party — a revolt against lack of representation rather than taxes — as their raison d’etre, their real lineage is the Know-Nothing movement of the mid-1800s. The Know-Nothings were the spear-tip of broader anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic sentiment. According to William Gienapp’s book, The Origins of the Republican Party, they attracted many casual, first-time voters. Apparently, “their” country was being overrun with non-Protestants from Europe. Workers felt threatened by the wave of new arrivals. Also, in the 1850s some Americans lamented the scourge of technology, namely, the railroad tearing away community values with every spike.
Their past was better, their future uncertain, their enemy obvious: Others. Suddenly the fraternal order of nativists known as the Know-Nothings sprung into power and influence.
Stephen Miller, a Know-Nothing from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, wrote in 1854 that they were the “American Reform Movement,” organized “to take from the professional politicians the government of State and cities.”
There you have it. A changing economy coupled with a presumed surge of foreign “others” and suddenly there’s a call to elect people who aren’t “Washington insiders,” to take the country back. Sound familiar? It’s an American classic!
The tea party wasn’t the first time anti-change, anti-foreigner feelings have translated into anti-partisan, anti-establishment, anti-politician demands. It probably won’t be the last. This is America and the sentiment that any influx we’re uncomfortable with means we should have another revolution will always be someone’s bright idea.
Historian Mark Voss-Hubbard wrote in his 2002 book, Beyond Party, “Although Know Nothingism institutionalized an alternative politics, it also attracted political elites who viewed the movement through the lens of personal ambition.”
This is basically the paradox of the tea party and specifically Michele Bachmann. It’s the normal conservative fear-others-based hyperbole we’re used to, re-branded as something alternative to give rise to pre-existing politicians.
The tea party and Bachmann are as inseparable as the Know-Nothings and Millard Fillmore, one of the lowest-ranked presidents in the history of the country.
Whatever happened to the Know-Nothings? They did their damage. They killed the Whig Party, disenfranchised and intimidated immigrants, and stalled the Washington Monument’s construction by stealing the “Pope Stone.” Then, after 15 years or so they were forgotten.
What will happen to Michele Bachmann and her beloved tea party? They have yet to break the Republican Party’s back although they’ve left it with a considerable limp.
Ultimately, the tea party exists in the vacuum of anxiety. It’s alive when there’s an opening or, as Bachmann put it, “There is no future option or opportunity, be it directly in the political arena or otherwise, that I won’t be giving serious consideration if it can help save and protect our great nation.”
Indeed.
..................................................................................................................................
Like your privacy? You should be following this
..................................................................................................................................
Justice Department tries to force Google to hand over user data
Judge orders Google to comply with FBI's secret NSL demands
by Declan McCullagh, May 31, 2013
A federal judge tells the company to comply with the FBI's warrantless National Security Letter requests for user details, despite ongoing concerns about their constitutionality.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
Google Defeated By FBI: Judge Reverses Decision On NSLs After Reviewing Secret Affidavits
By Ryan W. Neal, May 31 2013
Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) made headlines in April when it defended user privacy by publicly resisting a national security letter, becoming one of the few major communications companies to do so. But U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco recently rejected Google’s request to throw out 19 NSLs after two FBI officials submitted classified affidavits.
As it stands now, Google must comply with the NSLs and surrender confidential user data, but the case isn’t over yet. [snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
Judge Orders Google to Comply With National Security Letters
Despite Google's Assertion That Such Letters (and Gags) Are Illegal
By Karl Bode, May 31, 2013
Google's fight against National Security Letters (NSLs) appears to have hit a small speed bump. We've covered for several years the growing use (or in a significant number of proven cases, the abuse) of NSLs, which allow the government to obtain personal user records from ISPs (or banks and other companies), then invoke a gag order against the company preventing them from ever mention it -- all with no judicial review.
That process is incredibly open to abuse, given Uncle Sam has been able to obtain any records they want, nobody can talk about it, and nobody has been able to review it. Fortunately for users and companies, a California Judge recently ruled the use of such letters Unconstitutional. Court filings recently also revealed that Google has been quietly waging war against NSLs, though this week that closed-door effort hit a bit of a snag.
According to Declan McCullagh over at CNET, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco has rejected Google's attempt to have 19 such letters discarded on the grounds that they're illegal. The good news is that Judge Illston didn't shoot down Google entirely, she simply requested that Google be more specific in their complaints:
..................................................................................................................................
Justice Department tries to force Google to hand over user data
by Declan McCullagh, May 31, 2013
Secret lawsuit in Manhattan filed last month asks judge to force Google to cough up user data without a search warrant. A different court has already ruled that the process is unconstitutional.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................Secret lawsuit in Manhattan filed last month asks judge to force Google to cough up user data without a search warrant. A different court has already ruled that the process is unconstitutional.
[snipped]
Judge orders Google to comply with FBI's secret NSL demands
by Declan McCullagh, May 31, 2013
A federal judge tells the company to comply with the FBI's warrantless National Security Letter requests for user details, despite ongoing concerns about their constitutionality.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
Google Defeated By FBI: Judge Reverses Decision On NSLs After Reviewing Secret Affidavits
By Ryan W. Neal, May 31 2013
Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) made headlines in April when it defended user privacy by publicly resisting a national security letter, becoming one of the few major communications companies to do so. But U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco recently rejected Google’s request to throw out 19 NSLs after two FBI officials submitted classified affidavits.
As it stands now, Google must comply with the NSLs and surrender confidential user data, but the case isn’t over yet. [snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
Judge Orders Google to Comply With National Security Letters
Despite Google's Assertion That Such Letters (and Gags) Are Illegal
By Karl Bode, May 31, 2013
Google's fight against National Security Letters (NSLs) appears to have hit a small speed bump. We've covered for several years the growing use (or in a significant number of proven cases, the abuse) of NSLs, which allow the government to obtain personal user records from ISPs (or banks and other companies), then invoke a gag order against the company preventing them from ever mention it -- all with no judicial review.
That process is incredibly open to abuse, given Uncle Sam has been able to obtain any records they want, nobody can talk about it, and nobody has been able to review it. Fortunately for users and companies, a California Judge recently ruled the use of such letters Unconstitutional. Court filings recently also revealed that Google has been quietly waging war against NSLs, though this week that closed-door effort hit a bit of a snag.
According to Declan McCullagh over at CNET, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco has rejected Google's attempt to have 19 such letters discarded on the grounds that they're illegal. The good news is that Judge Illston didn't shoot down Google entirely, she simply requested that Google be more specific in their complaints:
It wasn't a complete win for the Justice Department, however: Illston all but invited Google to try again, stressing that the company has only raised broad arguments, not ones "specific to the 19 NSLs at issue." She also reserved judgment on two of the 19 NSLs, saying she wanted the government to "provide further information" prior to making a decision.NSLs are also being challenged on another front via a lawsuit by the EFF on behalf of an anonymous telecom company (which I believe is either Credo Mobile or Sonic.net). Another person who deserves consumer praise for his fight against NSLs is Nicholas Merrill of Calyx Internet Access, who was sued by the DOJ for questioning the practice's legitimacy after he and his ISP were "gagged" by the government for years.
..................................................................................................................................
We progressives and liberals are just idling
..................................................................................................................................
Are Liberals Souring on Politics?
By Ed Kilgore, May 30, 2013
There’s a pretty big and alarming fear bouncing around progressive opinion circles that has been forced into the open by reports of a really bad ratings month for MSNBC: maybe liberals are (relatively speaking) souring on politics! Before anyone says it, no, this apparent progressive media slough of depression cannot be attributed to some Dickmorrisian sudden magical trend to the Right in public opinion: there’s no evidence of it whatsoever in any public opinion research. It’s hard to attribute it to any decline in the quality or content of progressive political content, either. In the case of MSNBC, the only thing that changed before May was the replacement of Ed Schultz by Chris Hayes, and it’s hard to imagine that displeased large numbers of viewers.
Salon’s Alex Pareene looked at the MSNBC phenomenon the other day, and offered these observations, after noting that the show taking the real pounding in ratings has been Morning Joe, hardly a liberal-magnet:
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
One of the commenters posted:
..................................................................................................................................
buddy66
I think Digby, as usual, put her finger on it:
"I realize that political scientists tell us that the presidency isn’t very powerful, but most people don’t believe that since we’ve extolled the office as the most powerful on earth for decades."
I get that most mornings at the Nite Owl Cafe. It still amazes me that people know so little about how the game is played. Sadly, it's not just the grease monkeys and rednecks I drink coffee with; even beltway boozers like MoDo and Matthews don't get it: -- the GOP wants Obama DEAD and buried. And they will bring down the country if that's what it takes. They're crazy and the country is at great peril. They have no intention of working with a Democratic president, ever again.
It seemed clear the day after Obama's reelection that we were in for a stalemate until such a time that one party or the other controls both houses and the presidency. It's infuriating but it's true. The American government is a near-obsolete clunker. But we're not out of gas, we progressives and liberals, we're just idling.
..................................................................................................................................
Are Liberals Souring on Politics?
By Ed Kilgore, May 30, 2013
There’s a pretty big and alarming fear bouncing around progressive opinion circles that has been forced into the open by reports of a really bad ratings month for MSNBC: maybe liberals are (relatively speaking) souring on politics! Before anyone says it, no, this apparent progressive media slough of depression cannot be attributed to some Dickmorrisian sudden magical trend to the Right in public opinion: there’s no evidence of it whatsoever in any public opinion research. It’s hard to attribute it to any decline in the quality or content of progressive political content, either. In the case of MSNBC, the only thing that changed before May was the replacement of Ed Schultz by Chris Hayes, and it’s hard to imagine that displeased large numbers of viewers.
Salon’s Alex Pareene looked at the MSNBC phenomenon the other day, and offered these observations, after noting that the show taking the real pounding in ratings has been Morning Joe, hardly a liberal-magnet:
It’s simplistic to say that viewers aren’t watching because the president’s having a bad news cycle. Bad news is often good for ratings. Liberals like to watch Republicans portrayed as big scary meanies when they’re not watching them be presented as inept nutso clowns. There was no such thing as liberal cable news during the Clinton impeachment, but if there had been I guarantee it would’ve been a hit. Maybe — maybe! — some viewers are tuning out because they’re not hearing enough of an unqualified defense of the president and his administration from some of MSNBC’s more left-leaning voices. But I’d guess that’s still not enough people to make a huge ratings difference.
Perhaps there just isn’t a huge, permanent, year-round liberal audience for political news and discussion. Which is effectively all MSNBC does, because political discussion is cheap as hell, and gets good ratings when certain periods and certain personalities align. Young liberals tune in during election years. The rest of the time they keep up with the news online (or on “The Daily Show”) and spend their evenings watching actual TV. Like, “Game of Thrones” and stuff.Expanding beyond television to the lag in web traffic (which can no longer be attributed to mere post-election fatigue) all of us progressive bloggers have noticed, Digby adds some thoughts:
I’m with [P]areene that if the Republicans really get crazy, the audience will come back. Short of that (or something else catastrophic) my impression is that liberals are either bored or disillusioned right now for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that a liberal majority has been effectively obstructed and the president seems to be ineffectual. (I realize that political scientists tell us that the presidency isn’t very powerful, but most people don’t believe that since we’ve extolled the office as the most powerful on earth for decades.)
We’ve been through a number of elections, crises, other ups and downs over the past decade but I’ve not seen anything like the drop in interest over the past few months. If it was just me I’d attribute it to my little project having run its course but it’s happening across the liberal media spectrum. I don’t now what the answer is, but it isn’t that there isn’t a permanent audience. There was until very recently. It’s that the liberal audience is tuning out and one can only assume it’s because they don’t like what they see in our politics.I’m sure there are other semi-plausible theories, mostly involving a ritual incantation of the words “social media” followed by the unsupported suggestion that cable shows and blogs are so 2008. But since the same phenomenon doesn’t appear to be occurring on the Right despite the debacle of 2012, it remains a bit of a mystery, and if it doesn’t last, maybe one that can occupy journalism students down the road.
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
One of the commenters posted:
..................................................................................................................................
buddy66
I think Digby, as usual, put her finger on it:
"I realize that political scientists tell us that the presidency isn’t very powerful, but most people don’t believe that since we’ve extolled the office as the most powerful on earth for decades."
I get that most mornings at the Nite Owl Cafe. It still amazes me that people know so little about how the game is played. Sadly, it's not just the grease monkeys and rednecks I drink coffee with; even beltway boozers like MoDo and Matthews don't get it: -- the GOP wants Obama DEAD and buried. And they will bring down the country if that's what it takes. They're crazy and the country is at great peril. They have no intention of working with a Democratic president, ever again.
It seemed clear the day after Obama's reelection that we were in for a stalemate until such a time that one party or the other controls both houses and the presidency. It's infuriating but it's true. The American government is a near-obsolete clunker. But we're not out of gas, we progressives and liberals, we're just idling.
..................................................................................................................................
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Well, this is *one* man's opinion!
..................................................................................................................................
Posted by an astute commenter on this opinion piece:
"Petty mistakes? How are being dangerously ignorant of basic facts on politics, economics and foreign policy, extremely dishonest, ultra-religious and notoriously intolerant and so illogical it borders on crazy, "petty mistakes"?...
Take that, Patton!
..................................................................................................................................
Michele Bachmann, One Of Our Best
By Doug Patton, May 30, 2013
The prophet Isaiah wrote, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20, KJV) Sixteenth century theologian Martin Luther once said, “Send your good men into the clergy, but send your best men into politics.” Taken together, these two powerful quotes speak volumes to our day and age.
One could argue that fallen humanity has always gravitated toward the darkness, which reflects the natural complexion of our hearts. But today seems different somehow. I have seen a difference just in my lifetime.
Franklin Roosevelt may have created the modern American welfare state, upon which every president, Democrat and Republican, has built his power base in the name of helping the less fortunate. But Barack Obama has taken this leftist instinct to extremes even FDR could not have imagined. Thus, we now have what is arguably the most corrupt, power-mad presidential administration in the history of the country — which is quite a feat when one looks at some of our past presidents.
Sadly, one of our best and brightest, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-MN, has chosen not to seek a fifth term in Congress. A petite and beautiful happy warrior for truth, justice and the Constitution, Bachmann virtually defied political gravity when she was first elected in 2006 — the same year voters repudiated the George W. Bush-led GOP and gave Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid control of both the House and the Senate.
Bachmann fought in Congress just as she had in her previous roles of school board member and state legislator: fearlessly. And when voters all across the country rebelled after two years of Barack Obama’s excesses, she was there to start the Tea Party caucus in the House. Unfortunately, while the Democrat old guard hated her and was trying to destroy her, the Republican old guard didn’t take kindly to this upstart firebrand female in their midst, either. Constitution? Hmph! Who does she think she is, anyway?
But then Bachmann sought to do what no one since the 19th century has pulled off: go directly from the United States House of Representatives to the Presidency. She picked up the mantle when it became obvious that her friend, Sarah Palin, was not going to run, and waged an aggressive, take no prisoners campaign that catapulted her to victory in the narrowly defined Iowa Republican Straw Poll in August of 2011.
Within weeks, however, the media began to highlight her foibles and eccentricities, crucifying her for petty mistakes that paled in contrast to the gigantic failures of their golden boy. In effect, they did to her what they have done to every conservative from Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to Rick Santorum and Herman Cain. They hated them and so they destroyed them, and Bachmann was no exception. She was out of the race the day after placing sixth in the Iowa caucuses in January of last year.
Returning to Minnesota to focus on her House race, she won a re-election squeaker that has the Dems salivating for a rematch in 2014. Whether that is the reason for her departure (she claims it isn’t) or whether she is sincere about believing an eight-year term limit imposed on the presidency is good for the congress as well, it makes little difference to her brief legacy in the House of Representatives. The truth of the matter is that she is a courageous and virtuous woman in a generation dominated by dumbed-down liberal voters who hate virtue and wink at corruption.
More’s the pity. I doubt that we have heard the last of her. Like Sarah Palin before her, I hope she prospers in the private sector. She deserves better than the treatment she received during her presidential campaign, and our nation is better for her having served.
..................................................................................................................................
Posted by an astute commenter on this opinion piece:
"Petty mistakes? How are being dangerously ignorant of basic facts on politics, economics and foreign policy, extremely dishonest, ultra-religious and notoriously intolerant and so illogical it borders on crazy, "petty mistakes"?...
Take that, Patton!
..................................................................................................................................
Michele Bachmann, One Of Our Best
By Doug Patton, May 30, 2013
The prophet Isaiah wrote, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20, KJV) Sixteenth century theologian Martin Luther once said, “Send your good men into the clergy, but send your best men into politics.” Taken together, these two powerful quotes speak volumes to our day and age.
One could argue that fallen humanity has always gravitated toward the darkness, which reflects the natural complexion of our hearts. But today seems different somehow. I have seen a difference just in my lifetime.
Franklin Roosevelt may have created the modern American welfare state, upon which every president, Democrat and Republican, has built his power base in the name of helping the less fortunate. But Barack Obama has taken this leftist instinct to extremes even FDR could not have imagined. Thus, we now have what is arguably the most corrupt, power-mad presidential administration in the history of the country — which is quite a feat when one looks at some of our past presidents.
Sadly, one of our best and brightest, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-MN, has chosen not to seek a fifth term in Congress. A petite and beautiful happy warrior for truth, justice and the Constitution, Bachmann virtually defied political gravity when she was first elected in 2006 — the same year voters repudiated the George W. Bush-led GOP and gave Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid control of both the House and the Senate.
Bachmann fought in Congress just as she had in her previous roles of school board member and state legislator: fearlessly. And when voters all across the country rebelled after two years of Barack Obama’s excesses, she was there to start the Tea Party caucus in the House. Unfortunately, while the Democrat old guard hated her and was trying to destroy her, the Republican old guard didn’t take kindly to this upstart firebrand female in their midst, either. Constitution? Hmph! Who does she think she is, anyway?
But then Bachmann sought to do what no one since the 19th century has pulled off: go directly from the United States House of Representatives to the Presidency. She picked up the mantle when it became obvious that her friend, Sarah Palin, was not going to run, and waged an aggressive, take no prisoners campaign that catapulted her to victory in the narrowly defined Iowa Republican Straw Poll in August of 2011.
Within weeks, however, the media began to highlight her foibles and eccentricities, crucifying her for petty mistakes that paled in contrast to the gigantic failures of their golden boy. In effect, they did to her what they have done to every conservative from Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to Rick Santorum and Herman Cain. They hated them and so they destroyed them, and Bachmann was no exception. She was out of the race the day after placing sixth in the Iowa caucuses in January of last year.
Returning to Minnesota to focus on her House race, she won a re-election squeaker that has the Dems salivating for a rematch in 2014. Whether that is the reason for her departure (she claims it isn’t) or whether she is sincere about believing an eight-year term limit imposed on the presidency is good for the congress as well, it makes little difference to her brief legacy in the House of Representatives. The truth of the matter is that she is a courageous and virtuous woman in a generation dominated by dumbed-down liberal voters who hate virtue and wink at corruption.
More’s the pity. I doubt that we have heard the last of her. Like Sarah Palin before her, I hope she prospers in the private sector. She deserves better than the treatment she received during her presidential campaign, and our nation is better for her having served.
..................................................................................................................................
This is what happens when you let a con man run things
..................................................................................................................................
Karl Rove Was Feeding the Romneys False Hope on Election Night
By Elspeth Reeve, May 30, 2013
The Romneys clung to the belief that they could still win Ohio — and the White House — late into election night, even though exit polls across the country showed they were toast, as public polls had shown the week before. Karl Rove, too, refused to believe Ohio was lost, even after Fox News' own decision desk called the state for President Obama. Whose fault is that? The old story, reported right after the election, was that Rove was relaying the concerns of the Romney campaign on-air that night. But on Thursday, Ann Romney gave her first solo post-election interview to CBS This Morning, and she said it was Rove who'd been calling them that night, reassuring the Romneys they could still win. "About 6 o'clock we started getting a little worried," Romney said. "Exit polls weren't terrific and at about 8 o'clock the panic button was pressed." But a flicker of hope remained, she said, because of a certain Fox pundit.
..................................................................................................................................
Karl Rove Was Feeding the Romneys False Hope on Election Night
By Elspeth Reeve, May 30, 2013
The Romneys clung to the belief that they could still win Ohio — and the White House — late into election night, even though exit polls across the country showed they were toast, as public polls had shown the week before. Karl Rove, too, refused to believe Ohio was lost, even after Fox News' own decision desk called the state for President Obama. Whose fault is that? The old story, reported right after the election, was that Rove was relaying the concerns of the Romney campaign on-air that night. But on Thursday, Ann Romney gave her first solo post-election interview to CBS This Morning, and she said it was Rove who'd been calling them that night, reassuring the Romneys they could still win. "About 6 o'clock we started getting a little worried," Romney said. "Exit polls weren't terrific and at about 8 o'clock the panic button was pressed." But a flicker of hope remained, she said, because of a certain Fox pundit.
Gayle King: Even that night weren't people still saying, 'Hang in there, hang in there, it's not over yet'?" Romney: Yes. King: Who was saying that? Romney: Karl Rove. King: What'd he say? Romney: He's like, 'Don't give up, don't give up. We're gonna win Ohio. And, you know, it's gonna turn around.' And things just didn't follow the way we thought it was going to happen."After the election, Rove's spokesperson told New York, "Karl was in touch with the Romney people after he and Joe Trippi became concerned the call might be premature... It was then he found the Ohio Secretary of State website had roughly 7 percent more of the vote in and the two candidates separated first by 1,995 votes and then by 911." Romney's panic-button timeline suggests they were in touch earlier. Either way, it's a remarkably close relationship between a Fox News analysis and a presidential campaign.
..................................................................................................................................
Women know best-- in Congress and Scouting
..................................................................................................................................
What Congress really needs is the female touch
By Gail Collins, May 29, 2013
"... Let’s discuss how much better Congress would work if most of the members were women. The Senate seems to be a tad less polarized since the female population rose from 17 to 20 this year. It’s also possible that there’s been more productivity since women got more power. ..."
"... So, people, who do you think has been more helpful in edging the Senate toward a pinch of progress? The women or Ted Cruz? One strives for collegiality by holding regular bipartisan dinners. One called his colleagues “squishes” for opposing a gun control filibuster.
I’m sticking with the girls. “Women seem to know how to work in a way that at least moves the process,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland ..."
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Scouts, be prepared for a celebration in the future
By Leonard Pitts, Jr. May 29, 2013
"... For the record, the Girl Scouts have no policy limiting lesbian involvement. Indeed, according to its website, Girl Scouts of the USA has embraced diversity and inclusion from the beginning, and it doesn’t seem to have hurt that group any: it has 3.2 million members and recently celebrated its 101st anniversary. So Stemberger’s prediction that the boys are doomed for doing what the girls have done for years seems nonsensical at best. ...
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
On Military Sexual Assault Issue, A New Era for An Old Committee
By Liz Halloran, May 10, 2013
Other bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill may be collapsing around them, but a cadre of Democratic and Republican women serving on the Senate and House Armed Services committees are leveraging their historic clout to respond together to the sexual assault crisis engulfing the U.S. military.
In a Thursday gathering notable not just for its composition but for what it signaled about the direction of two of the oldest and most powerful panels in Congress, 16 legislators from both parties — just two of them men — sat in the White House with top presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett to talk about the path forward on the issue. ...
..................................................................................................................................
What Congress really needs is the female touch
By Gail Collins, May 29, 2013
"... Let’s discuss how much better Congress would work if most of the members were women. The Senate seems to be a tad less polarized since the female population rose from 17 to 20 this year. It’s also possible that there’s been more productivity since women got more power. ..."
"... So, people, who do you think has been more helpful in edging the Senate toward a pinch of progress? The women or Ted Cruz? One strives for collegiality by holding regular bipartisan dinners. One called his colleagues “squishes” for opposing a gun control filibuster.
I’m sticking with the girls. “Women seem to know how to work in a way that at least moves the process,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland ..."
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Scouts, be prepared for a celebration in the future
By Leonard Pitts, Jr. May 29, 2013
"... For the record, the Girl Scouts have no policy limiting lesbian involvement. Indeed, according to its website, Girl Scouts of the USA has embraced diversity and inclusion from the beginning, and it doesn’t seem to have hurt that group any: it has 3.2 million members and recently celebrated its 101st anniversary. So Stemberger’s prediction that the boys are doomed for doing what the girls have done for years seems nonsensical at best. ...
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
On Military Sexual Assault Issue, A New Era for An Old Committee
By Liz Halloran, May 10, 2013
Other bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill may be collapsing around them, but a cadre of Democratic and Republican women serving on the Senate and House Armed Services committees are leveraging their historic clout to respond together to the sexual assault crisis engulfing the U.S. military.
In a Thursday gathering notable not just for its composition but for what it signaled about the direction of two of the oldest and most powerful panels in Congress, 16 legislators from both parties — just two of them men — sat in the White House with top presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett to talk about the path forward on the issue. ...
..................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
"Stupidity of Congress" -- well said!
...............................................................................................
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Air-tight logic in the service of an absurd proposition
..................................................................................................................................
The Chilling Effect of Honesty
By Ed Kilgore, May 28, 2013
If you want an indicator of how rapidly conservative-land has internalized the latest talking point that shadowy tax-exempt groups engaged in campaign activities have a God-given right to hide their donors, check out this development from Texas, as reported by HuffPost’s Luke Johnson:
More air-tight logic in the service of an absurd proposition. And all the more reason Congress should be talking about legislation to eliminate eligibility for tax-exempt status for all groups—left, right or center—who engage in campaign activities.
..................................................................................................................................
The Chilling Effect of Honesty
By Ed Kilgore, May 28, 2013
If you want an indicator of how rapidly conservative-land has internalized the latest talking point that shadowy tax-exempt groups engaged in campaign activities have a God-given right to hide their donors, check out this development from Texas, as reported by HuffPost’s Luke Johnson:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) vetoed a Republican bill Saturday that would have required nonprofits that engage in politics to disclose their donors.
The measure, SB 346, would have required 501(c)4 social welfare groups that spend more than $25,000 in a calendar year on political expenditures to disclose contributions above $1,000.
“My fear is that SB 346 would have a chilling effect on both of those rights in our democratic political process,” Perry said in his veto message. “While regulation is necessary in the administration of Texas political finance laws, no regulation is tolerable that puts anyone’s participation at risk or that can be used by any government, organization or individual to intimidate those who choose to participate in our process through financial means.”
He then alluded to the current controversy over the IRS’ targeting of tea party groups. “At a time when our federal government is assaulting the rights of Americans by using the tools of government to squelch dissent, it is unconscionable to expose more Texans to the risk of such harassment, regardless of political, organizational or party affiliation,” he said.Oh yeah. The vicious, frightening efforts of the feds to get groups running ads and advocating for and against candidates to tell us who’s paying the freight in exchange for a tax subsidy are now justification for their refusal to tell us who’s paying the freight in exchange for a tax subsidy.
More air-tight logic in the service of an absurd proposition. And all the more reason Congress should be talking about legislation to eliminate eligibility for tax-exempt status for all groups—left, right or center—who engage in campaign activities.
..................................................................................................................................
Supporting amnesty will sink Congressional Republicans
..................................................................................................................................
MARCO RUBIO IS THE FIRST REPUBLICAN TO FACE THE POLITICAL FALL-OUT OF SUPPORTING AMNESTY, BUT WON’T BE THE LAST
By Paul Mirengoff, May 28, 2013
Byron York reports that Marco Rubio’s support for “comprehensive immigration reform” is seriously harming his standing with Iowa Republicans. Byron bases this conclusion on responses he received from leading Iowa Republicans to an email that asked a few general questions about the GOP field, without mentioning immigration.
The responses were “all about immigration, and nearly all negative.” GOP State Central Committee member Jamie Johnson said:
Over the last three months, Marco Rubio’s name and face and voice have been so attached to the comprehensive immigration bill that it has virtually killed any enthusiasm among Republicans in Iowa for a Rubio presidential candidacy. Most Republicans here now see Rubio as the amnesty candidate.
Sioux City conservative radio host Sam Clovis added:
Rubio has hurt himself immeasurably with his support of the current immigration bill. The rule of law still trumps all the feel-good aspects of the bill.
There is a lesson here for congressional Republicans considering how to vote on amnesty. That lesson is: do so at your peril.
Immigration reform isn’t the focus of most conservatives right now. They are worried more about the debt and focused more on various Obama administration scandals. Conservatives are aware that Marco Rubio joined John McCain, Chuck Schumer and others to support amnesty and, as Byron’s report suggests, they aren’t happy about this.
But I suspect that most conservatives are confident the Republican House will never agree to amnesty, much less a path to citizenship, for illegal immigrants. Thus, immigration is a back-burner issue for them; their outrage is directed elsewhere.
If Congress enacts amnesty legislation, however, I think we’ll see an explosion of shock and outrage. Naturally, the outrage will be directed primarily at the Republican members of Congress who voted for the legislation (though some will also be directed at the House leadership for not blocking the fiasco). Such members should not be surprised if they find themselves facing very uncomfortable primary fights.
One Iowa Republican activist told Byron that amnesty will be “a separator issue, for sure” in the Iowa caucuses. I believe that, come primary time in 2016, it will also be a separator issue for more than a few congressional Republicans who take the plunge with Marco Rubio.
..................................................................................................................................
MARCO RUBIO IS THE FIRST REPUBLICAN TO FACE THE POLITICAL FALL-OUT OF SUPPORTING AMNESTY, BUT WON’T BE THE LAST
By Paul Mirengoff, May 28, 2013
Byron York reports that Marco Rubio’s support for “comprehensive immigration reform” is seriously harming his standing with Iowa Republicans. Byron bases this conclusion on responses he received from leading Iowa Republicans to an email that asked a few general questions about the GOP field, without mentioning immigration.
The responses were “all about immigration, and nearly all negative.” GOP State Central Committee member Jamie Johnson said:
Over the last three months, Marco Rubio’s name and face and voice have been so attached to the comprehensive immigration bill that it has virtually killed any enthusiasm among Republicans in Iowa for a Rubio presidential candidacy. Most Republicans here now see Rubio as the amnesty candidate.
Sioux City conservative radio host Sam Clovis added:
Rubio has hurt himself immeasurably with his support of the current immigration bill. The rule of law still trumps all the feel-good aspects of the bill.
There is a lesson here for congressional Republicans considering how to vote on amnesty. That lesson is: do so at your peril.
Immigration reform isn’t the focus of most conservatives right now. They are worried more about the debt and focused more on various Obama administration scandals. Conservatives are aware that Marco Rubio joined John McCain, Chuck Schumer and others to support amnesty and, as Byron’s report suggests, they aren’t happy about this.
But I suspect that most conservatives are confident the Republican House will never agree to amnesty, much less a path to citizenship, for illegal immigrants. Thus, immigration is a back-burner issue for them; their outrage is directed elsewhere.
If Congress enacts amnesty legislation, however, I think we’ll see an explosion of shock and outrage. Naturally, the outrage will be directed primarily at the Republican members of Congress who voted for the legislation (though some will also be directed at the House leadership for not blocking the fiasco). Such members should not be surprised if they find themselves facing very uncomfortable primary fights.
One Iowa Republican activist told Byron that amnesty will be “a separator issue, for sure” in the Iowa caucuses. I believe that, come primary time in 2016, it will also be a separator issue for more than a few congressional Republicans who take the plunge with Marco Rubio.
..................................................................................................................................
Monday, May 27, 2013
UPDATED AGAIN: stats being published again (UPDATE: No daily visitor stats again for the "Zero" and the Trib)
..................................................................................................................................
After five days, both the Olympian and the Tribune published their daily visitor stats again. 2013 May 29
..................................................................................................................................
Four days and counting without publication of the daily visitor stats for the Olympian and the Tribune. Apparently they are no longer interested in tooting their horns?
..................................................................................................................................
After five days, both the Olympian and the Tribune published their daily visitor stats again. 2013 May 29
..................................................................................................................................
Four days and counting without publication of the daily visitor stats for the Olympian and the Tribune. Apparently they are no longer interested in tooting their horns?
..................................................................................................................................
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Tea party groups are all about political activity, so how can they be tax exempt?
..................................................................................................................................
Blogmore: Sure, the IRS blew it; but aren't tea party groups political?
By Kevin Woster, May 26, 2013
It's a good political issue, this IRS scandal.
And that's good for the tea party, which is all about politics. Isn't it? Or, aren't they?
Singular or plural, it-they seem so to me.
At the risk of revealing a wild, left-wing-liberal tendency, a notion most of my Democratic friends will laugh at, I gotta says [sic] that I've been puzzled from the start of the whole IRS-tea-party fuss about the notion that tea party and tax exempt could be considered one in the same.
Maybe that's because I don't really understand tax exempt. And maybe one of the bright Mount Blogmorite can explain it to me.
But if your primary purpose is not supposed to be political activity, how can any tea party group seriously be considered tax exempt?
They're all about political activity.
This is not to say I'm not concerned about the IRS and its behavior in this. What some officials did seems, at best, stupid. And maybe it represents the kind of government overreach that should worry us all.
But if you have a bunch of groups that seem pretty clearly to be political in nature applying for tax-exempt status, doesn't it make sense to give them a hard look?
Or am I missing something?
Yet again.
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
MORE:
..................................................................................................................................
Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics
Some groups legitimately flagged by IRS, experts say
..................................................................................................................................
Blogmore: Sure, the IRS blew it; but aren't tea party groups political?
By Kevin Woster, May 26, 2013
It's a good political issue, this IRS scandal.
And that's good for the tea party, which is all about politics. Isn't it? Or, aren't they?
Singular or plural, it-they seem so to me.
At the risk of revealing a wild, left-wing-liberal tendency, a notion most of my Democratic friends will laugh at, I gotta says [sic] that I've been puzzled from the start of the whole IRS-tea-party fuss about the notion that tea party and tax exempt could be considered one in the same.
Maybe that's because I don't really understand tax exempt. And maybe one of the bright Mount Blogmorite can explain it to me.
But if your primary purpose is not supposed to be political activity, how can any tea party group seriously be considered tax exempt?
They're all about political activity.
This is not to say I'm not concerned about the IRS and its behavior in this. What some officials did seems, at best, stupid. And maybe it represents the kind of government overreach that should worry us all.
But if you have a bunch of groups that seem pretty clearly to be political in nature applying for tax-exempt status, doesn't it make sense to give them a hard look?
Or am I missing something?
Yet again.
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
MORE:
..................................................................................................................................
Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics
Some groups legitimately flagged by IRS, experts say
..................................................................................................................................
For all our past, present, and future members of the Armed Forces
...............................................................................................
Saturday, May 25, 2013
GOP-- overreaching and thirsting for scandals
..................................................................................................................................
Watch the high-stakes credibility game unfold
By Joe Gandelman, May 22, 2013
Forget the political “blame game.” The biggest game in town now is the credibility game — a high-stakes exercise that will end with America’s political middle deciding who is trustworthy and who isn’t. Some key players:
• President Barack Obama: In the case of the Benghazi emails, government snooping on the Associated Press and Fox News, and the IRS, the issue is now whether Obama is more ruthless than he publicly showed or is a hapless, out-to-lunch manager. The media and political class take his delay in acting as a flaw. But could it be this is how Obama works? Obama’s former speechwriter John Favreau, writing in The Daily Beast, says yes:
“The handwringers and bed wetters in the D.C. punditocracy should know Barack Obama will never be on their timeline,” he writes. “He does not value being first over being right. He will not spend his presidency chasing news cycles.
“He will not shake up his White House staff just because of some offhand advice offered to Politico by a longtime Washingtonian or a nameless Democrat who’s desperately trying to stay relevant. And if that means Dana Milbank thinks he’s too passive; if it means that Jim VandeHei will keep calling him arrogant and petulant; if it means that Chris Matthews will whine about him not enjoying the presidency, then so be it. He’ll live.”
• The Republicans: Are they overreaching and so visibly thirsting for scandals that the middle will dismiss their assertions?
National Journal’s level-headed Charlie Cook notes how in the Clinton impeachment, Republicans were sure the country was outraged (it wasn’t) and how during election 2012, GOPers were convinced Mitt Romney would win (he didn’t). He points to polls showing Obama’s numbers firm, or going up.
“The simple fact is that although the Republican sharks are circling, at least so far, there isn’t a trace of blood in the water, “ Cook writes. “But it might just be that Americans are more focused on an economy that is gradually coming out of the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression ... One wonders how long Republicans are going to bark up this tree, perhaps the wrong tree, while they ignore their own party’s problems, which were shown to be profound in the most recent elections.”
It boils down to credibility — the kind of credibility undermined when a GOPer suggests these scandals are the worst in American history or that Obama should be impeached. Talking Points memo has documented eight prominent Republicans raising the impeachment issue.
• The Press: ABC’s John Karl wrongly reported as fact Benghazi emails inaccurately paraphrased to him by his Congressional Republican sources. Washington Post fact-checker Glen Tessler gave the White House “three Pinocchios” for calling the emails “doctored.” NY Journalism professor Jay Rosen says Karl “dragged the entire news division at ABC into his self-dug pit. He got played.” ABC and Karl later did a partial retraction, leading Rosen to write that ABC and Karl were “attempting to rescue his ‘exclusive ... All to avoid confessing error and protect a misbegotten scoop.”
For years, conservatives warned about liberal moles in the media. Now liberals talk about a conservative mole (Karl). Reporters and news organizations that make major errors and don’t totally retract them are weeds in the garden of press credibility.
Here’s a tip: In coming months, get ready to see some pants on fire.
..................................................................................................................................
Watch the high-stakes credibility game unfold
By Joe Gandelman, May 22, 2013
Forget the political “blame game.” The biggest game in town now is the credibility game — a high-stakes exercise that will end with America’s political middle deciding who is trustworthy and who isn’t. Some key players:
• President Barack Obama: In the case of the Benghazi emails, government snooping on the Associated Press and Fox News, and the IRS, the issue is now whether Obama is more ruthless than he publicly showed or is a hapless, out-to-lunch manager. The media and political class take his delay in acting as a flaw. But could it be this is how Obama works? Obama’s former speechwriter John Favreau, writing in The Daily Beast, says yes:
“The handwringers and bed wetters in the D.C. punditocracy should know Barack Obama will never be on their timeline,” he writes. “He does not value being first over being right. He will not spend his presidency chasing news cycles.
“He will not shake up his White House staff just because of some offhand advice offered to Politico by a longtime Washingtonian or a nameless Democrat who’s desperately trying to stay relevant. And if that means Dana Milbank thinks he’s too passive; if it means that Jim VandeHei will keep calling him arrogant and petulant; if it means that Chris Matthews will whine about him not enjoying the presidency, then so be it. He’ll live.”
• The Republicans: Are they overreaching and so visibly thirsting for scandals that the middle will dismiss their assertions?
National Journal’s level-headed Charlie Cook notes how in the Clinton impeachment, Republicans were sure the country was outraged (it wasn’t) and how during election 2012, GOPers were convinced Mitt Romney would win (he didn’t). He points to polls showing Obama’s numbers firm, or going up.
“The simple fact is that although the Republican sharks are circling, at least so far, there isn’t a trace of blood in the water, “ Cook writes. “But it might just be that Americans are more focused on an economy that is gradually coming out of the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression ... One wonders how long Republicans are going to bark up this tree, perhaps the wrong tree, while they ignore their own party’s problems, which were shown to be profound in the most recent elections.”
It boils down to credibility — the kind of credibility undermined when a GOPer suggests these scandals are the worst in American history or that Obama should be impeached. Talking Points memo has documented eight prominent Republicans raising the impeachment issue.
• The Press: ABC’s John Karl wrongly reported as fact Benghazi emails inaccurately paraphrased to him by his Congressional Republican sources. Washington Post fact-checker Glen Tessler gave the White House “three Pinocchios” for calling the emails “doctored.” NY Journalism professor Jay Rosen says Karl “dragged the entire news division at ABC into his self-dug pit. He got played.” ABC and Karl later did a partial retraction, leading Rosen to write that ABC and Karl were “attempting to rescue his ‘exclusive ... All to avoid confessing error and protect a misbegotten scoop.”
For years, conservatives warned about liberal moles in the media. Now liberals talk about a conservative mole (Karl). Reporters and news organizations that make major errors and don’t totally retract them are weeds in the garden of press credibility.
Here’s a tip: In coming months, get ready to see some pants on fire.
..................................................................................................................................
Standing and waiting
..................................................................................................................................
PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE, AND A POLITICAL STRATEGY
By David M. Shribman, May 25, 2013
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. -- Don't be spooked by the dateline. Nothing going on here. Presidential race hasn't started. No cause for worry about debates, delegate counts, stump speeches. Not for a long time, maybe a very long time. Read on without peril.
Because this is a column about why the Democratic campaign, and thus maybe the Republican campaign, too, may be delayed indefinitely, why the person at the center of the speculation has no incentive to budge one inch, and why your fatigue with politics may perfectly match her strategic imperatives.
The politician we are speaking of is Hillary Rodham Clinton, late the secretary of state, before that the senator from New York. The political commentariat, including this foot soldier in those bedraggled and discredited ranks, has noted that she is in the unusual position of freezing the race. None of the Democrats will move -- not Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., not even this season's hugababy, Martin O'Malley, still so little known that it's bad manners to the reader not to append his title, governor of Maryland -- until she does.
Or doesn't.
This is not an everyday phenomenon. Consider the most formidable political figures of modern times: No other potential contender waited to gauge Sen. John F. Kennedy's intentions for 1960. Not a soul on Earth put his life on hold to see if Gov. Bill Clinton would run in 1988, when he didn't, or in 1992, when he did. Neither of the George Bushes scared anyone else out of the race in 1988 or 2000 or kept multitudes waiting for a decision from Kennebunkport. Jimmy Carter? You must be kidding. One of the reasons he carried his own grip was because he didn't have any supporters to do so.
The Clinton position in this race is without precedent. Andrew Jackson was the presumptive 1828 Democratic nominee from the start -- so much so that the party didn't even hold a nominating caucus. But he had been the clear winner in both the popular and Electoral College vote in 1824, only to lose the presidency in the "corrupt bargain" that took John Quincy Adams to the White House in the only election ever decided in the House of Representatives. Nothing could deny Jackson the nomination four years later.
Even Grover Cleveland, who won the presidency in 1884, and then lost it in 1888, wasn't in as commanding a position as Clinton when he sought (and won) another term in 1892. His views on the free coinage of silver, the signature issue of the party and the time, were out of sync with many Democrats, and he had the enmity of the Tammany forces in his own state. He won re-nomination on the first ballot by only a handful of delegates in a raucous, fractured convention.
The only political figure since the Civil War to have anything remotely resembling the Clinton effect was Dwight D. Eisenhower, who as victorious general in Europe could have had the presidential nomination of the Republican Party and very likely the Democratic Party in 1948, and who would have breezed to the nomination of either party four years later.
So alluring a candidate was he that President Harry Truman suggested he would stand down in 1948 if Eisenhower wanted to run as a Democrat. As late as July 5, 1948, just 120 days before the election, Eisenhower issued this statement: "I will not, at this time, identify myself with any political party and could not accept nomination for any public office or participate in a partisan political contest."
Naturally, politicos being politicos, the phrase "at this time" attracted inordinate attention and, according to Jean Edward Smith in the most recent Eisenhower biography, "few doubted that the (Democratic) nomination would have been his if he wanted it."
But even in 1948 and 1952, Eisenhower's indecision, whether real or calculated, didn't make as much of a difference as Clinton's refusal, whether real or calculated, to make an early decision. Those races went on anyway.
Eventually Eisenhower declared himself a Republican and powered past Sen. Robert Taft to win the 1952 Republican presidential nomination. But he didn't stop Taft from running hard -- far from it, for the Ohio senator won several important primaries, including Wisconsin and Illinois, and then engaged in a bitter convention battle that featured a now-forgotten contretemps over "stolen delegates."
Today, we know Clinton's party affiliation but we do not know her political intentions. And until we do, there is no campaign.
But it is more than that. She's the favorite for the nomination -- can there breathe a soul who does not know who she is and what she has done? -- and so dominating a figure out of power, out of the public eye and out of the nastiness of today's politics, that she has no incentive whatsoever to weaken her position by dipping back in.
How long could this last? As long as she wants it to, and she very likely will want it to last a very long time.
Why? The longer it lasts, the less time her putative opponents have to build organizations in Iowa and New Hampshire, still the indispensable first two steps toward a presidential nomination, and the less money the other potential candidates will have collected as the first voting nears.
But perhaps most important, the longer it lasts, the less opportunity for O'Malley and a half dozen others will have to build support and even name recognition.
"She's the most qualified candidate in the field and perhaps in a long time," former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview, comparing the depth of Clinton's preparation to that of George H.W. Bush, who had served in the House, as director of the CIA, as a diplomat in China and as a two-term vice president when he ran for president in 1988. "I dearly hope she runs. Here's someone immensely ready -- and she happens to be a woman."
But there's no hurry. In this case they also serve (their own purposes) who stand and wait.
..................................................................................................................................
PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE, AND A POLITICAL STRATEGY
By David M. Shribman, May 25, 2013
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. -- Don't be spooked by the dateline. Nothing going on here. Presidential race hasn't started. No cause for worry about debates, delegate counts, stump speeches. Not for a long time, maybe a very long time. Read on without peril.
Because this is a column about why the Democratic campaign, and thus maybe the Republican campaign, too, may be delayed indefinitely, why the person at the center of the speculation has no incentive to budge one inch, and why your fatigue with politics may perfectly match her strategic imperatives.
The politician we are speaking of is Hillary Rodham Clinton, late the secretary of state, before that the senator from New York. The political commentariat, including this foot soldier in those bedraggled and discredited ranks, has noted that she is in the unusual position of freezing the race. None of the Democrats will move -- not Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., not even this season's hugababy, Martin O'Malley, still so little known that it's bad manners to the reader not to append his title, governor of Maryland -- until she does.
Or doesn't.
This is not an everyday phenomenon. Consider the most formidable political figures of modern times: No other potential contender waited to gauge Sen. John F. Kennedy's intentions for 1960. Not a soul on Earth put his life on hold to see if Gov. Bill Clinton would run in 1988, when he didn't, or in 1992, when he did. Neither of the George Bushes scared anyone else out of the race in 1988 or 2000 or kept multitudes waiting for a decision from Kennebunkport. Jimmy Carter? You must be kidding. One of the reasons he carried his own grip was because he didn't have any supporters to do so.
The Clinton position in this race is without precedent. Andrew Jackson was the presumptive 1828 Democratic nominee from the start -- so much so that the party didn't even hold a nominating caucus. But he had been the clear winner in both the popular and Electoral College vote in 1824, only to lose the presidency in the "corrupt bargain" that took John Quincy Adams to the White House in the only election ever decided in the House of Representatives. Nothing could deny Jackson the nomination four years later.
Even Grover Cleveland, who won the presidency in 1884, and then lost it in 1888, wasn't in as commanding a position as Clinton when he sought (and won) another term in 1892. His views on the free coinage of silver, the signature issue of the party and the time, were out of sync with many Democrats, and he had the enmity of the Tammany forces in his own state. He won re-nomination on the first ballot by only a handful of delegates in a raucous, fractured convention.
The only political figure since the Civil War to have anything remotely resembling the Clinton effect was Dwight D. Eisenhower, who as victorious general in Europe could have had the presidential nomination of the Republican Party and very likely the Democratic Party in 1948, and who would have breezed to the nomination of either party four years later.
So alluring a candidate was he that President Harry Truman suggested he would stand down in 1948 if Eisenhower wanted to run as a Democrat. As late as July 5, 1948, just 120 days before the election, Eisenhower issued this statement: "I will not, at this time, identify myself with any political party and could not accept nomination for any public office or participate in a partisan political contest."
Naturally, politicos being politicos, the phrase "at this time" attracted inordinate attention and, according to Jean Edward Smith in the most recent Eisenhower biography, "few doubted that the (Democratic) nomination would have been his if he wanted it."
But even in 1948 and 1952, Eisenhower's indecision, whether real or calculated, didn't make as much of a difference as Clinton's refusal, whether real or calculated, to make an early decision. Those races went on anyway.
Eventually Eisenhower declared himself a Republican and powered past Sen. Robert Taft to win the 1952 Republican presidential nomination. But he didn't stop Taft from running hard -- far from it, for the Ohio senator won several important primaries, including Wisconsin and Illinois, and then engaged in a bitter convention battle that featured a now-forgotten contretemps over "stolen delegates."
Today, we know Clinton's party affiliation but we do not know her political intentions. And until we do, there is no campaign.
But it is more than that. She's the favorite for the nomination -- can there breathe a soul who does not know who she is and what she has done? -- and so dominating a figure out of power, out of the public eye and out of the nastiness of today's politics, that she has no incentive whatsoever to weaken her position by dipping back in.
How long could this last? As long as she wants it to, and she very likely will want it to last a very long time.
Why? The longer it lasts, the less time her putative opponents have to build organizations in Iowa and New Hampshire, still the indispensable first two steps toward a presidential nomination, and the less money the other potential candidates will have collected as the first voting nears.
But perhaps most important, the longer it lasts, the less opportunity for O'Malley and a half dozen others will have to build support and even name recognition.
"She's the most qualified candidate in the field and perhaps in a long time," former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview, comparing the depth of Clinton's preparation to that of George H.W. Bush, who had served in the House, as director of the CIA, as a diplomat in China and as a two-term vice president when he ran for president in 1988. "I dearly hope she runs. Here's someone immensely ready -- and she happens to be a woman."
But there's no hurry. In this case they also serve (their own purposes) who stand and wait.
..................................................................................................................................
No daily visitor stats again for the "Zero" and the Trib?
..................................................................................................................................
Remember last February when the Olympian and the News Tribune didn't post the number of daily visitors for three days?
Well, they haven't posted the numbers for the last two days. Are they hiding something again? No reason for the Trib to hide, of course, but the "Zero" now, that might be a different story.... although their numbers haven't been all that bad recently.
..................................................................................................................................
Remember last February when the Olympian and the News Tribune didn't post the number of daily visitors for three days?
Well, they haven't posted the numbers for the last two days. Are they hiding something again? No reason for the Trib to hide, of course, but the "Zero" now, that might be a different story.... although their numbers haven't been all that bad recently.
..................................................................................................................................
Friday, May 24, 2013
Abstention round robin
..................................................................................................................................
This reads like an article from The Onion. Let's hope that the Olympia Council members don't read it! Bwahahahaha....
..................................................................................................................................
3 of 6 Ypsilanti City Council members abstain from voting on resolution to prevent abstention
By Katrease Stafford, May 22, 2013
Three Ypsilanti City Council members abstained from voting on a resolution Tuesday that would have prevented them from taking that very action in the future when considering issues.
Council member Pete Murdock proposed a resolution Tuesday that would have required council members to only vote yes or no on each issue facing council unless they had a financial or professional conflict of interest.
Mayor Paul Schreiber, Council members Susan Moeller and Brian Robb abstained from the vote to show their disapproval of the resolution brought forth by Murdock.
Mayor Pro Tem Lois Richardson and Council Member Ricky Jefferson voted no, while Murdock and Council Member Daniel Vogt voted yes. The resolution failed.
Murdock said he decided to make the proposal after Council Member Susan Moeller abstained from a vote on May 7 regarding an amendment to the Water Street Family Dollar development purchase agreement.
Moeller abstained from a vote that approved the entire $210,000 from the purchase agreement, and future monies related to Water Street, going toward a fund solely dedicated toward retiring the Water Street debt or for infrastructure costs.
"I was a little surprised that we could do that," Murdock said. "The (city) charter said we have to vote yes or no. The city of Ann Arbor has that in their charter. I just think that people put us here to make decisions. We should vote on every issue."
Moeller said she only abstained from the vote because she wasn't in favor of the Family Dollar being on Water Street. Moeller said she supported the amendment, but not it being packaged with the Family Dollar agreement.
"Lately we’re having all this censorship and push here," Moeller said to Murdock. "You didn’t like that I abstained and now you just want to have new rules."
Murdock disagreed.
"I don't think it's appropriate," Murdock said. "I think you should have to vote on all the issues. It's not really about you. It's about us."
Moeller said it wasn't wrong for her to abstain from voting, adding that City Attorney John Barr indicated she could do so.
"If someone wants to sit up here and abstain from every vote, their constituents will judge them for that," Robb said, adding that council members should have that right.
Richardson moved to have the resolution set aside, stating she was concerned it would create a "divided council." The motion failed.
"I would rather not see us do things that would divide us," Richardson said. "If we really want to see the city move forward, we have to work together."
..................................................................................................................................
This reads like an article from The Onion. Let's hope that the Olympia Council members don't read it! Bwahahahaha....
..................................................................................................................................
3 of 6 Ypsilanti City Council members abstain from voting on resolution to prevent abstention
By Katrease Stafford, May 22, 2013
Three Ypsilanti City Council members abstained from voting on a resolution Tuesday that would have prevented them from taking that very action in the future when considering issues.
Council member Pete Murdock proposed a resolution Tuesday that would have required council members to only vote yes or no on each issue facing council unless they had a financial or professional conflict of interest.
Mayor Paul Schreiber, Council members Susan Moeller and Brian Robb abstained from the vote to show their disapproval of the resolution brought forth by Murdock.
Mayor Pro Tem Lois Richardson and Council Member Ricky Jefferson voted no, while Murdock and Council Member Daniel Vogt voted yes. The resolution failed.
Murdock said he decided to make the proposal after Council Member Susan Moeller abstained from a vote on May 7 regarding an amendment to the Water Street Family Dollar development purchase agreement.
Moeller abstained from a vote that approved the entire $210,000 from the purchase agreement, and future monies related to Water Street, going toward a fund solely dedicated toward retiring the Water Street debt or for infrastructure costs.
"I was a little surprised that we could do that," Murdock said. "The (city) charter said we have to vote yes or no. The city of Ann Arbor has that in their charter. I just think that people put us here to make decisions. We should vote on every issue."
Moeller said she only abstained from the vote because she wasn't in favor of the Family Dollar being on Water Street. Moeller said she supported the amendment, but not it being packaged with the Family Dollar agreement.
"Lately we’re having all this censorship and push here," Moeller said to Murdock. "You didn’t like that I abstained and now you just want to have new rules."
Murdock disagreed.
"I don't think it's appropriate," Murdock said. "I think you should have to vote on all the issues. It's not really about you. It's about us."
Moeller said it wasn't wrong for her to abstain from voting, adding that City Attorney John Barr indicated she could do so.
"If someone wants to sit up here and abstain from every vote, their constituents will judge them for that," Robb said, adding that council members should have that right.
Richardson moved to have the resolution set aside, stating she was concerned it would create a "divided council." The motion failed.
"I would rather not see us do things that would divide us," Richardson said. "If we really want to see the city move forward, we have to work together."
..................................................................................................................................
Back atcha, Andrea!
..................................................................................................................................
Fox News host: ‘Punch’ Obama voters ‘in the face’
Posted by Joel Connelly, May 24, 2013
Fox News boss Roger Ailes is decrying what he alleges is the Obama administration’s “attempt to intimidate Fox News” and saying that administration explanations/excuses will not survive “the test of decency, nor the test of time.”
Ailes might talk to one of his own minions about intimidation.
Fox News host Andrea Tantaros, on her Thursday radio show, suggested that her listeners find Obama voters and “punch” them “in the face.”
The U.S. Justice Department has targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen in a leaks investigation and obtained access to his personal email and phone reports for five different lines into Fox News. The leak probe followed news that Justice had obtained months of phone records for seven reporters with The Associated Press.
The revelations have generated outrage among some Obama supporters, from The New York Times editorial page to bloggers at The Stranger.
Tantaros, however, chose to throw a broad-brush partisan tantrum.
“Let me tell you how people and journalists are being treated these days,” she declared. “They are being stalked. They are being spied on. In Missouri a news station fired an anchor who talked about the IRS shakedown. Yeah — fired. That is how corrupt the left is.”
Nor was she done. ”This is what’s happening to our press. This is Obama’s America. It’s like the Soviet Union. He said he would change the country. He said it . . . and a lot of people voted for him. And if you see any of those people today, do me a favor and punch them in the face.”
Tantaros is living, breathing evidence to support an Obama administration hope — namely that Republicans will overreach, as they did with the Clinton impeachment drive, with hyperbole, exaggeration, racy innuendo and outright untruths. Preaching to the choir can do that to you.
She should also look around for other examples of intimidation. Fox’s Bill O’Reilly once threatened to sic “Fox security” on a caller who vocally disagreed with him. BillO is famous for targeting a person for alleged sins (e.g. being an instrument of the “war on Christmas”) and bringing down an avalanche of obscene hate mail on the unlucky target.
..................................................................................................................................
Fox News host: ‘Punch’ Obama voters ‘in the face’
Posted by Joel Connelly, May 24, 2013
Fox News boss Roger Ailes is decrying what he alleges is the Obama administration’s “attempt to intimidate Fox News” and saying that administration explanations/excuses will not survive “the test of decency, nor the test of time.”
Ailes might talk to one of his own minions about intimidation.
Fox News host Andrea Tantaros, on her Thursday radio show, suggested that her listeners find Obama voters and “punch” them “in the face.”
The U.S. Justice Department has targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen in a leaks investigation and obtained access to his personal email and phone reports for five different lines into Fox News. The leak probe followed news that Justice had obtained months of phone records for seven reporters with The Associated Press.
The revelations have generated outrage among some Obama supporters, from The New York Times editorial page to bloggers at The Stranger.
Tantaros, however, chose to throw a broad-brush partisan tantrum.
“Let me tell you how people and journalists are being treated these days,” she declared. “They are being stalked. They are being spied on. In Missouri a news station fired an anchor who talked about the IRS shakedown. Yeah — fired. That is how corrupt the left is.”
Nor was she done. ”This is what’s happening to our press. This is Obama’s America. It’s like the Soviet Union. He said he would change the country. He said it . . . and a lot of people voted for him. And if you see any of those people today, do me a favor and punch them in the face.”
Tantaros is living, breathing evidence to support an Obama administration hope — namely that Republicans will overreach, as they did with the Clinton impeachment drive, with hyperbole, exaggeration, racy innuendo and outright untruths. Preaching to the choir can do that to you.
She should also look around for other examples of intimidation. Fox’s Bill O’Reilly once threatened to sic “Fox security” on a caller who vocally disagreed with him. BillO is famous for targeting a person for alleged sins (e.g. being an instrument of the “war on Christmas”) and bringing down an avalanche of obscene hate mail on the unlucky target.
..................................................................................................................................
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Learning from a rascal
..................................................................................................................................
Rumsfeld's Rules: Seriously?
By Jhn Baldoni, May 21, 2013
There is little in Donald Rumsfeld newest book, Rumsfeld’s Rules: Leadership Lessons in Business, Politics, War and Life, that anyone in leadership would dispute.
The book is an outgrowth of management and leadership aphorisms that Rumsfeld wrote and put on 3×5 notecards. Now gathered in book form, Rumsfeld’s Rules explores how to serve an organization and how to lead it. There is sound wisdom in these pages.
The problem arises from the fact that Rumsfeld the author is not Rumsfeld the executive, who served as Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration.
When Rumsfeld was addressing troops in Kuwait in 2004 who raised concerns about lack of armor on Humvees, Rumsfeld replied, “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Certainly that was true in 1941 when America was surprised attacked by Japanese Imperial forces at Pearl Harbor. It was not true in 2003 when America invaded Iraq pre-emptively and as such controlled resources, manpower and timing.
Thomas Ricks, long-time military observer and author of many best-sellers on military affairs, writes in The Generals that “As defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld did a poor job at many things, including enforcing accountability. He was wont to loudly criticize and abuse subordinates, but he rarely fired them.” By contrast, as Ricks writes, his successor Robert Gates who replaced Rumsfeld after President Bush fired him, “did an admirable job of restoring accountability.”
The question that students of leadership may raise when reading Rumsfeld Rules is his: is it okay to listen to some who writes well but does not hold himself to the same standards? My response is yes. When it comes to leadership you can learn as much from rascals, maybe even more so, than from saints. The challenge for readers is to read what he writes through the lens of history.
Well-intentioned people will disagree with my assessment of Mr. Rumseld. After all, he served as a Navy aviator in the fifties and was a U.S. Congressman, and secretary of defense in the Gerald R. Ford administration. Patriot to be certain but when push came to shove when his leadership acumen mattered most he blundered.
Robert D. Kaplan, a military observer and best-selling author, notes in his 2008 piece for The Atlantic, Rumsfeld’s attempt to streamline the U.S. military in order to make it lighter, swifter and smarter was a good idea but out of step with the realities of America’s two wars. Kaplan quotes Richard H. Shultz Jr., the director of international security studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, as saying “Rumsfeld got war and transformation only half-right. He was right that the lethality and speed of a military advance could be transformational, but he didn’t realize that the enemy might have an answer to that in the form of a war after the war.” Kaplan, who does believe Rumsfeld was correct on some issues, concludes his article by summarizing Shultz’s belief that Rumsfeld “being half-wrong on operational strategy for too many years cost too many Iraqis, Afghans and Americans untold suffering.”
In his introduction to Rumseld as a guest on Meet the Press, host David Gregory noted that Rumsfeld is about to become a great-grandfather. That is good news for the Rumsfeld family, but for my part I cannot forget the many hundreds of thousands of U.S. military troops that Rumsfeld as Secretary of State sent to a hot and dusty corner of the world. Four thousand of them never returned, never to experience what he as a great-grandfather will enjoy.
It is something that anyone who reads Rumsfeld’s Rules will do well to remember.
..................................................................................................................................
Rumsfeld's Rules: Seriously?
By Jhn Baldoni, May 21, 2013
There is little in Donald Rumsfeld newest book, Rumsfeld’s Rules: Leadership Lessons in Business, Politics, War and Life, that anyone in leadership would dispute.
The book is an outgrowth of management and leadership aphorisms that Rumsfeld wrote and put on 3×5 notecards. Now gathered in book form, Rumsfeld’s Rules explores how to serve an organization and how to lead it. There is sound wisdom in these pages.
The problem arises from the fact that Rumsfeld the author is not Rumsfeld the executive, who served as Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration.
When Rumsfeld was addressing troops in Kuwait in 2004 who raised concerns about lack of armor on Humvees, Rumsfeld replied, “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Certainly that was true in 1941 when America was surprised attacked by Japanese Imperial forces at Pearl Harbor. It was not true in 2003 when America invaded Iraq pre-emptively and as such controlled resources, manpower and timing.
Thomas Ricks, long-time military observer and author of many best-sellers on military affairs, writes in The Generals that “As defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld did a poor job at many things, including enforcing accountability. He was wont to loudly criticize and abuse subordinates, but he rarely fired them.” By contrast, as Ricks writes, his successor Robert Gates who replaced Rumsfeld after President Bush fired him, “did an admirable job of restoring accountability.”
The question that students of leadership may raise when reading Rumsfeld Rules is his: is it okay to listen to some who writes well but does not hold himself to the same standards? My response is yes. When it comes to leadership you can learn as much from rascals, maybe even more so, than from saints. The challenge for readers is to read what he writes through the lens of history.
Well-intentioned people will disagree with my assessment of Mr. Rumseld. After all, he served as a Navy aviator in the fifties and was a U.S. Congressman, and secretary of defense in the Gerald R. Ford administration. Patriot to be certain but when push came to shove when his leadership acumen mattered most he blundered.
Robert D. Kaplan, a military observer and best-selling author, notes in his 2008 piece for The Atlantic, Rumsfeld’s attempt to streamline the U.S. military in order to make it lighter, swifter and smarter was a good idea but out of step with the realities of America’s two wars. Kaplan quotes Richard H. Shultz Jr., the director of international security studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, as saying “Rumsfeld got war and transformation only half-right. He was right that the lethality and speed of a military advance could be transformational, but he didn’t realize that the enemy might have an answer to that in the form of a war after the war.” Kaplan, who does believe Rumsfeld was correct on some issues, concludes his article by summarizing Shultz’s belief that Rumsfeld “being half-wrong on operational strategy for too many years cost too many Iraqis, Afghans and Americans untold suffering.”
In his introduction to Rumseld as a guest on Meet the Press, host David Gregory noted that Rumsfeld is about to become a great-grandfather. That is good news for the Rumsfeld family, but for my part I cannot forget the many hundreds of thousands of U.S. military troops that Rumsfeld as Secretary of State sent to a hot and dusty corner of the world. Four thousand of them never returned, never to experience what he as a great-grandfather will enjoy.
It is something that anyone who reads Rumsfeld’s Rules will do well to remember.
..................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
"A cure well worse than the disease"
..................................................................................................................................
Lew: No Political Pressure on IRS
By Jeffrey Sparshott, May 22, 2013
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew told Congress Wednesday it would have been wrong for the White House or the Treasury Department to intervene in Internal Revenue Service administration of the tax system amid reports that the agency was targeting conservative groups.
“It would be inappropriate as the White House chief of staff, as the secretary of the Treasury to try to put any political pressure on our tax system. I never did, I never would,” Mr. Lew testified at a House Financial Services Committee hearing. “That is why I didn’t pay an awful lot of attention to questions of the administration of our tax system–because it wasn’t something that I would have intervened in.”
“Please, let’s not get into a world where we start having the White House jump into administration of the tax system, because that would be a cure well worse than the disease,” Mr. Lew added during his second congressional appearance where he was asked about the IRS matter.
The IRS is facing multiple congressional probes and a Justice Department criminal investigation after disclosures that it gave extra scrutiny to conservative groups applying for nonprofit status.
Republican lawmakers grilled Mr. Lew, who served as President Barack Obama‘s chief of staff before joining the Treasury Department in February, on when he first knew that the agency was targeting specific groups. In one heated exchange, Rep. Sean Duffy (R., Wis.) repeatedly asked: “When did you learn that the IRS was targeting Americans?”
Mr. Lew maintained that he first became aware of the facts of the situation when an inspector general’s report was released last week. But he said he found out about the IG audit on March 15.
“I was informed of the fact that there was an audit under way on March 15th, when I had an initial meeting with the inspector general,” he said. “It was brought to my attention at a very high level that it was an investigation regarding 501(c)(4) approvals and I was told that there could be some troubling findings. And then I did what is an appropriate thing: I did not do anything to get in the way of an independent IG review.”
The targeting was first made public on May 10, when an IRS official apologized at a Washington conference. The inspector general’s report was released May 14.
Mr. Duffy said it was clear that the Treasury secretary knew of improper targeting before the investigation was made public.
Here’s a partial transcript of the Duffy-Lew exchange:
Mr. Duffy: “I’m not asking about an investigation. …My question is, when did you learn that the IRS was targeting different Americans because of political views.”
Mr. Lew: “I had no knowledge until the dates I’m describing. People can make all kinds of allegations but I had knowledge on the dates that I described.”
Mr. Duffy: “So the first time that you heard about any targeting of Americans by the IRS was when you read the IG report. Is that your testimony?”
Mr. Lew: “You’re asking me when I knew. I answered.”
Mr. Duffy: “I’m not asking you or the president when you heard about an IG report. I want to know when you learned thatthe IRS was targeting Americans? ”
Mr. Lew: “I’m telling you when the facts were available to me.”
Mr. Duffy: “Outside of the IG report, that’s the first time you heard about it was the IG report?”
Mr. Lew: “I had no facts…”
Mr. Duffy: “I’m not asking about facts.”
Mr. Lew: “Then what are you asking me?”
Mr. Duffy: “When did you learn that the IRS was targeting Americans?”
Mr. Lew: “You’re not going to like my answer.”
And on it went for about five minutes. Following the exchange, Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.) told Mr. Lew to take a deep breath. “You’ve earned it,” Mr. Sherman said.
..................................................................................................................................
Lew: No Political Pressure on IRS
By Jeffrey Sparshott, May 22, 2013
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew told Congress Wednesday it would have been wrong for the White House or the Treasury Department to intervene in Internal Revenue Service administration of the tax system amid reports that the agency was targeting conservative groups.
“It would be inappropriate as the White House chief of staff, as the secretary of the Treasury to try to put any political pressure on our tax system. I never did, I never would,” Mr. Lew testified at a House Financial Services Committee hearing. “That is why I didn’t pay an awful lot of attention to questions of the administration of our tax system–because it wasn’t something that I would have intervened in.”
“Please, let’s not get into a world where we start having the White House jump into administration of the tax system, because that would be a cure well worse than the disease,” Mr. Lew added during his second congressional appearance where he was asked about the IRS matter.
The IRS is facing multiple congressional probes and a Justice Department criminal investigation after disclosures that it gave extra scrutiny to conservative groups applying for nonprofit status.
Republican lawmakers grilled Mr. Lew, who served as President Barack Obama‘s chief of staff before joining the Treasury Department in February, on when he first knew that the agency was targeting specific groups. In one heated exchange, Rep. Sean Duffy (R., Wis.) repeatedly asked: “When did you learn that the IRS was targeting Americans?”
Mr. Lew maintained that he first became aware of the facts of the situation when an inspector general’s report was released last week. But he said he found out about the IG audit on March 15.
“I was informed of the fact that there was an audit under way on March 15th, when I had an initial meeting with the inspector general,” he said. “It was brought to my attention at a very high level that it was an investigation regarding 501(c)(4) approvals and I was told that there could be some troubling findings. And then I did what is an appropriate thing: I did not do anything to get in the way of an independent IG review.”
The targeting was first made public on May 10, when an IRS official apologized at a Washington conference. The inspector general’s report was released May 14.
Mr. Duffy said it was clear that the Treasury secretary knew of improper targeting before the investigation was made public.
Here’s a partial transcript of the Duffy-Lew exchange:
Mr. Duffy: “I’m not asking about an investigation. …My question is, when did you learn that the IRS was targeting different Americans because of political views.”
Mr. Lew: “I had no knowledge until the dates I’m describing. People can make all kinds of allegations but I had knowledge on the dates that I described.”
Mr. Duffy: “So the first time that you heard about any targeting of Americans by the IRS was when you read the IG report. Is that your testimony?”
Mr. Lew: “You’re asking me when I knew. I answered.”
Mr. Duffy: “I’m not asking you or the president when you heard about an IG report. I want to know when you learned thatthe IRS was targeting Americans? ”
Mr. Lew: “I’m telling you when the facts were available to me.”
Mr. Duffy: “Outside of the IG report, that’s the first time you heard about it was the IG report?”
Mr. Lew: “I had no facts…”
Mr. Duffy: “I’m not asking about facts.”
Mr. Lew: “Then what are you asking me?”
Mr. Duffy: “When did you learn that the IRS was targeting Americans?”
Mr. Lew: “You’re not going to like my answer.”
And on it went for about five minutes. Following the exchange, Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.) told Mr. Lew to take a deep breath. “You’ve earned it,” Mr. Sherman said.
..................................................................................................................................
Silly, silly question-- of course the GOP is blinded by their hatred of Obama
..................................................................................................................................
Is the GOP blinded by Obama hatred?
By Jon Terbush, May 21, 2013
Republicans continue to hammer away at the president — perhaps to their own detriment
A congressional committee on Wednesday will grill Lois Lerner, head of the IRS' tax-exempt division, about her role in the agency's targeting of conservative groups, ensuring that the story will remain front and center in Washington and in the news.
Republicans have sought to link President Obama to that scandal, as well as to ongoing controversies about Benghazi and the Justice Department's seizure of reporters' phone records. Yet despite those efforts, one question remains: What is any of it accomplishing?
Though the supposed scandals have bounced around for weeks now, they don't appear to be doing any real damage to the president, and polls have shown the public eager for Congress to move on to other matters. That Republicans continue to make their case to apparently deaf ears has some asking if the party is blindly focusing on the president at the expense of real issues — and its own beleaguered standing with the American public.
Writing in National Journal, Charlie Cook argues that congressional Republicans are making the same mistake the party made in 1998 when it used the Lewinsky scandal as a cudgel against President Clinton, yet never won over the American public.
"The conservative echo machine had worked itself into such a frenzy, the GOP didn't realize that the outrage was largely confined to the ranks of those who never voted for Clinton anyway," he says.
Republicans and conservatives who are so consumed by these "scandals" should ask themselves why, despite wall-to-wall media attention and the constant focus inside the Beltway — some are even talking about grounds for impeachment — Obama’s job-approval needle hasn't moved. The CNN/ORC poll suggests that people are aware of and watching the news, but they aren’t reacting, at least not yet. Clearly Republicans hope the public will begin to respond. But at what point do they decide that maybe voters might be more interested in other issues or worries than about politicians on one side pointing fingers and throwing allegations at those on the other side? At what point might the GOP conclude that it is just digging the hole a little deeper? [National Journal]
Indeed, several recent polls seem to indicate that the IRS, Benghazi, and Associated Press trifecta is having little or no impact on public opinion. Obama's approval rating, at 49 percent, has remained unchanged in Gallup's tracking polls; a CNN survey out this week pegged it even higher, at 53 percent, a slight uptick from the network's last survey in April, before all three stories blew up.
Further, a Public Policy Polling survey released last week found that a majority of voters said Congress had better things to do, like pass immigration reform and gun background check bills, than continue focusing on Benghazi. And that was even after a much-ballyhooed "whistle-blower" hearing into the matter.
"What we're finding after last week's Benghazi hearings is that as angry as Republicans are, most voters think Congress should be focused more on other issues," said PPP President Dean Debnam.
The Washington Post's Greg Sargent flagged yet another poll from that paper on Tuesday in which 60 percent of respondents said Republicans were focusing on issues they felt were unimportant.
"Polls have shown that majorities take the scandals seriously, as well they should, at least in the cases of the IRS story and the Justice Department gathering of media phone records," he says. "But Republicans continue to talk about the scandals in ways that seem mainly tailored to Obama-hating base voters."
Yet Mother Jones' Kevin Drum cautioned against reading too much into these early polls, and especially against making comparisons to the GOP's handling of the Clinton affair in the late 90s. There is still a lot we don't know about the IRS' program and the DOJ's snooping, so it is possible more damaging information could come out.
I'll play devil's advocate here. First, I think 1998 was probably unique: The nature of the scandal was clear to everyone and a majority of Americans simply didn't think it was very serious. The nature of our current set of contretemps isn't yet clear, and the Post poll makes it plain that most Americans do take them seriously. As we learn more, there's every chance that the public could view them as even more serious. In fact, they probably will. After all, a big pile of scandals in the sixth year of a presidency usually spells trouble. 1998 is the sole exception, and I wouldn't hang too much on it. [Mother Jones]
Returning to that IRS hearing scheduled for Wednesday, Lerner has already said she'll plead the Fifth to avoid answering lawmakers' questions. While that's not in itself an admission of wrongdoing, it could serve to ratchet up criticisms of the president and, perhaps, finally strike a meaningful blow to his approval rating.
..................................................................................................................................
Is the GOP blinded by Obama hatred?
By Jon Terbush, May 21, 2013
Republicans continue to hammer away at the president — perhaps to their own detriment
A congressional committee on Wednesday will grill Lois Lerner, head of the IRS' tax-exempt division, about her role in the agency's targeting of conservative groups, ensuring that the story will remain front and center in Washington and in the news.
Republicans have sought to link President Obama to that scandal, as well as to ongoing controversies about Benghazi and the Justice Department's seizure of reporters' phone records. Yet despite those efforts, one question remains: What is any of it accomplishing?
Though the supposed scandals have bounced around for weeks now, they don't appear to be doing any real damage to the president, and polls have shown the public eager for Congress to move on to other matters. That Republicans continue to make their case to apparently deaf ears has some asking if the party is blindly focusing on the president at the expense of real issues — and its own beleaguered standing with the American public.
Writing in National Journal, Charlie Cook argues that congressional Republicans are making the same mistake the party made in 1998 when it used the Lewinsky scandal as a cudgel against President Clinton, yet never won over the American public.
"The conservative echo machine had worked itself into such a frenzy, the GOP didn't realize that the outrage was largely confined to the ranks of those who never voted for Clinton anyway," he says.
Republicans and conservatives who are so consumed by these "scandals" should ask themselves why, despite wall-to-wall media attention and the constant focus inside the Beltway — some are even talking about grounds for impeachment — Obama’s job-approval needle hasn't moved. The CNN/ORC poll suggests that people are aware of and watching the news, but they aren’t reacting, at least not yet. Clearly Republicans hope the public will begin to respond. But at what point do they decide that maybe voters might be more interested in other issues or worries than about politicians on one side pointing fingers and throwing allegations at those on the other side? At what point might the GOP conclude that it is just digging the hole a little deeper? [National Journal]
Indeed, several recent polls seem to indicate that the IRS, Benghazi, and Associated Press trifecta is having little or no impact on public opinion. Obama's approval rating, at 49 percent, has remained unchanged in Gallup's tracking polls; a CNN survey out this week pegged it even higher, at 53 percent, a slight uptick from the network's last survey in April, before all three stories blew up.
Further, a Public Policy Polling survey released last week found that a majority of voters said Congress had better things to do, like pass immigration reform and gun background check bills, than continue focusing on Benghazi. And that was even after a much-ballyhooed "whistle-blower" hearing into the matter.
"What we're finding after last week's Benghazi hearings is that as angry as Republicans are, most voters think Congress should be focused more on other issues," said PPP President Dean Debnam.
The Washington Post's Greg Sargent flagged yet another poll from that paper on Tuesday in which 60 percent of respondents said Republicans were focusing on issues they felt were unimportant.
"Polls have shown that majorities take the scandals seriously, as well they should, at least in the cases of the IRS story and the Justice Department gathering of media phone records," he says. "But Republicans continue to talk about the scandals in ways that seem mainly tailored to Obama-hating base voters."
Yet Mother Jones' Kevin Drum cautioned against reading too much into these early polls, and especially against making comparisons to the GOP's handling of the Clinton affair in the late 90s. There is still a lot we don't know about the IRS' program and the DOJ's snooping, so it is possible more damaging information could come out.
I'll play devil's advocate here. First, I think 1998 was probably unique: The nature of the scandal was clear to everyone and a majority of Americans simply didn't think it was very serious. The nature of our current set of contretemps isn't yet clear, and the Post poll makes it plain that most Americans do take them seriously. As we learn more, there's every chance that the public could view them as even more serious. In fact, they probably will. After all, a big pile of scandals in the sixth year of a presidency usually spells trouble. 1998 is the sole exception, and I wouldn't hang too much on it. [Mother Jones]
Returning to that IRS hearing scheduled for Wednesday, Lerner has already said she'll plead the Fifth to avoid answering lawmakers' questions. While that's not in itself an admission of wrongdoing, it could serve to ratchet up criticisms of the president and, perhaps, finally strike a meaningful blow to his approval rating.
..................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)