To Participate on Thurstonblog

email yyyyyyyyyy58@gmail.com, provide profile information and we'll email your electronic membership


Monday, September 30, 2013

“Crazy Ain’t Original No More”-- it's just more of the same ol' unoriginal GOP BS

..................................................................................................................................
A theme song for Washington’s current political dysfunction
By Carter Eskew, September 30, 2013

While the topic isn’t political dysfunction, the title of a new Sheryl Crow song applies perfectly to Washington right now: “Crazy Ain’t Original No More.” The battle over the budget and debt limit is the definition of insane: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. In this case, the “same thing” means our government hurting — perhaps dramatically — the very citizens it was created to protect. But by now, it almost seems routine.

However, this time, hours before a government shutdown, the two political sides seem eager to fight, eschewing the usual last-minute patchwork deal. House Republicans, led by a small group of members emboldened by the anti-Obama, anti-government sentiments of their constituents, are excited to have this fight. They are disproportionately powerful, not just for their swing-vote status in the House, but also because they represent the center of energy for the party’s grassroots and money machine, led by the Koch brothers. These interests are settling in for a long siege.

On the other side, President Obama is also ready for a political Gettysburg. The president, according to a top aide, thinks it’s time “to punch the bully in the nose.” This is how conflicts start and become destructive; both sides have decided it’s in their maximum interest to go to war. There is only one hopeful outcome in this otherwise destructive scenario:  The Republican Party pays a lasting price for its appeasement of its lunatic fringe.
..................................................................................................................................

Cruz is "no clown"? Hmmmmm, I'm not so sure about that. He does put on a show, though

..................................................................................................................................
Learning to Love Ted Cruz
By Jason Stanford, September 30, 2013

Ted Cruz said he would go to Washington to change Washington. Well, he’s done it. He’s united Democrats and more than a few Senate Republicans in hatred of Texas’ very junior senator and your new 2016 GOP frontrunner. But as much as Cruz sincerely drives me nuts, he might be the best thing that has happened to Democrats since the last big government shutdown.

Cruz does not embody the prototypical political neediness. His pathos doesn’t pander. He is no clown, and neither does he seem to care one whit about political reality, whether it’s taking on a long shot senate race against a multimillionaire lieutenant governor or trying to force the president to defund his signature legislative achievement. He should be refreshing, but all I want to do when he opens his mouth is put my fist in it.

There are a million reasons Cruz makes me want to punch him in his smug face, all of them good. (There is one bad one: It’s a felony. Don’t do it.)

A constitutional law expert who has argued before the Supreme Court, Cruz routinely misstates constitutional law, such as his contention that state legislatures and not judges should adjudicate rights.

A college debate champion, his practiced rhetorical delivery strikes many, myself included, as phony, smarmy, and disingenuous. His raised eyebrows express a feigned humility that comes across like nails on the chalkboard.

A graduate both of Princeton and of Harvard Law, he pretends a fake anti-intellectualism, such as when he claimed endangered lizards “make darn fine boots.”

He takes an imp’s glee in telling outrageous lies and exploits political opportunity even at the expense of the country he professes to want to save. All of these are great reasons, but they don’t explain why Cruz is the Republican whom Democrats love to hate.

It’s actually quite simple: Cruz is the kid in class who always thinks he knows the answer even when he doesn’t. He disrespects people whom he doesn’t think are as smart as he is, which is everyone who disagrees with him. He’s an elitist, intellectual snob.

Cruz has drawn comparisons to Joe McCarthy for questioning the patriotism of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State of John Kerry, but better historical antecedent is former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the king of patronizing condescension.

Cruz’s fight in the Judiciary Committee last March with Diane Feinstein was pure Gingrich. When he “mansplained” the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision to her, she snapped, “I am not a 6th grader.” While true, her response lacked composure. It was a visceral, intellectualized animal response. Not since Gingrich in his heyday [h]as a Republican been able to get under our skin like this.

Republican voters consider this one of Cruz’s chief virtues and further evidence that he has succeeded in not going to Washington to make friends but to shake things up—another parallel to the former Speaker. Cruz is scratching an itch so satisfying to Republicans that they forget how Gingrich’s story ended—getting blamed for shutting down the federal government and resigning after leading his party to a historically rare electoral loss.

With his forehead crinkled in feigned innocence, Cruz says it’ll be different this time. But this isn’t a sequel, it’s a remake. We know how it ends, which is precisely why Democrats need to sit back, pour themselves some liquid therapy on ice, and enjoy the show.

Ted Cruz is the best thing that has happened to Obama since Michelle agreed to go out with him. Just as Bill Clinton thrived with Gingrich as his foil, the famously introspective and inscrutable Obama finally has a Moriarty to give him focus, if not purpose. The cartoonish obstruction offered by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell never rose to this level. They never moved us to hate, never incited us to demand their heads on spikes.

Not so with Cruz. Democrats could not have asked for a better Republican villain. He unites Democrats, divides Republicans, and swings independent voters our way. The better Cruz does, the worse Republicans do. The sound of his voice might make me want to tear the skin from my face, but right now he’s the best spokesman the Democrats have. Let the man speak.
..................................................................................................................................

Obviously elephants aren't any smarter than lemmings

................................................................................

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Harkin: "Since they can't get their way, they're going to create this confusion and discourse and hope that the public will be so mixed up in who is to blame for this, that they'll blame both sides." Nope, we blame only the Tea Partiers.

..................................................................................................................................
Senator Says Politics Have Reached Civil War Levels
By Matt Berman, September 27, 2013



As the clock ticks down toward a possible government shutdown, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, isn't holding back.

On the Senate floor before 10 a.m. Friday, the senator gave a speech describing how American politics have reached the level at which "a small group of willful men and women who have a certain ideology"—read: the tea party and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas—have been able to take over the congressional budget debate in the last week. "Since they can't get their way," Harkin said, "they're going to create this confusion and discourse and hope that the public will be so mixed up in who is to blame for this, that they'll blame both sides."

This isn't just congressional business as usual, Harkin said. It's much, much more dire:
It's dangerous. It's very dangerous. I believe, Mr. President, we are at one of the most dangerous points in our history right now. Every bit as dangerous as the break-up of the Union before the Civil War.
This isn't the first time the senator has spoken out about the spiraling budget and the fight over Obamacare. Harkin suggested Thursday that Cruz looked "foolish" for his "little tirade" that lasted from Tuesday afternoon until Wednesday morning. Harkin called out Cruz as being part of "the most extreme tea-party wing" of his party, and for his "ideology-driven obstructionism."

Of course, it'd be a stretch to think that the United States is on the cusp of anything as violent as the Civil War. But the consequences of a government shutdown or topping over the debt ceiling could be massively harmful for the U.S. economy, whether you're looking at the possibility of a downgrade in U.S. credit or just the shutdown in payments and services with thousands of government employees out of work.

Harkin isn't the first to pull out a dramatic historical analogy on the Senate floor this week, either. During his 21-plus hour speech, Cruz hearkened back to Nazi Germany for a comparison to "pundits" who think Obamacare cannot be defeated:
If we go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany—look, we saw it in Britain. Neville Chamberlain told the British people: Accept the Nazis. Yes, they will dominate the continent of Europe, but that is not our problem. Let's appease them. Why? Because it can't be done. We cannot possibly stand against them.
In America there were voices who listened to that; I suspect the same pundits who said it couldn't be done. If this had happened in the 1940s, we would have been listening to them. Even then they would have made television. They would have gotten beyond the carrier pigeons and letters and they would have been on TV saying: You cannot defeat the Germans.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., later pilloried Cruz on the floor for the comparison.

So, for those of you keeping track at home: With just three days to go until a possible government shutdown, we've already had comparisons to Nazi Germany and the Civil War. And we're surely not done yet.
..................................................................................................................................

GOP needs to recognize that they (and the U.S.) do not stand alone

..................................................................................................................................
If Republicans Want To Shut Down Washington, They'll Have To Ask China's Permission First
By Eamonn Fingleton, September 29, 2013

In their never-say-die efforts to defeat Obamacare, Tea Party Republicans brought the federal government a giant step closer to shutdown last night. What they seem not to have considered is how America’s foreign creditors will react.

Although China, Japan, and other major creditor nations have no dog in the Obamacare fight, they have a strong interest in preserving America’s basic financial, economic, and social stability. From their point of view, the Tea Party contingent is not following the script and a corrective may prove necessary.

If the creditor nations were to sell just a small proportion of their American assets, they could send Wall Street into a tailspin, with unpleasant implications for many Republicans.

They are unlikely to push things that far but even if they were merely to slow the pace of their buying, bond yields would rocket and stocks could fall 15 percent in the space of a couple of weeks. A key thing here is that American asset valuations are at historic highs — the Standard & Poor’s 500 is on a P/E of 19 and long-term bonds yields are still near their lowest levels in decades.

It is sometimes suggested that by triggering a sell-off, creditor nations would be cutting their own throats. Actually this is a characteristically myopic Western way of looking at things – a view that completely misunderstands how things have changed now that East Asians call the tune. The point is that the creditor nations are long-term holders who are largely indifferent to short-term fluctuations.

As a general rule, the East Asian creditor nations hate drawing attention to themselves. But they are quite effective behind the scenes in making their views known. One of the most important ways they wield influence is through major Wall Street investment banks. These latter in turn spend large amounts on political contributions, typically backing both Republicans and Democrats. Their money gives them plenty of face time to advise American elected representatives on “good economics,” a term that more and more these days amounts to economics that serves East Asia’s interests. Meanwhile American investors generally are short-term thinkers who rarely show much intestinal fortitude in riding out downturns.

It remains to be seen how markets will react tomorrow but the betting is that, in the absence of a climbdown by Republicans, we will see a significant correction. And if  Tea Party stalwarts continue to stick by their guns in the weeks ahead, we could see damage particularly in techs and other high P/E stocks. For the record, major tech stocks that seem most richly valued on a forward P/E basis include CRM, LNKD, CCI, FB, and ADBE. Although future prospects may justify such valuations, the short-term action could be quite bumpy — certainly  bumpy enough to frighten a lot of the Republican rank and file.
..................................................................................................................................

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Check it out for yourselves-- don't let the Republicans stampede you!

..................................................................................................................................
Yes, this is Texas-based, but the basic principle is the same.
..................................................................................................................................
Editorial: Give health exchanges a chance to work
Dallas Morning News, September 27, 2013

Regardless of your politics, if you don’t have medical insurance, you owe it to yourself and your family to look at the options when health insurance exchanges go online Tuesday.
Health care costs are high partly because more than 40 million Americans lack insurance. In Dallas County, about 26 percent of residents aren’t covered; Texas ranks near the top in its number of uninsured residents.
When the uninsured experience a medical crisis, there are two possible outcomes — both of them bad: staggering medical expenses that drain their bank accounts or care that winds up being financed by taxpayers.
The exchanges won’t cure all our health care system’s ills, nor will the rollout be glitch-free. There remain legitimate concerns about long-term economic impacts, including cost issues that led this newspaper to oppose the law at the time of its passage.
But the law was passed by Congress and signed by the president. Now it’s important to give the new system an honest try.
For some, paying something instead of nothing may feel like sticker shock at first. But others, such as small-business owners, probably will find themselves paying less for coverage than they would have if they purchased it in the individual insurance marketplace. That’s because the exchanges are designed to marry pools of buyers and multiple insurers.
In essence, the exchanges are websites that consumers will use to compare plans before buying coverage. Many of the participating insurers will offer benefits similar to those in traditional employer-based plans. Despite claims to the contrary, this is not government-run insurance. In contrast, these exchanges are a sensible, market-based approach that was first envisioned years ago by conservative think tanks.
Getting millions more Americans, especially young, healthy adults, enrolled in private-based insurance plans is a step toward stemming costs.
It’s also worth noting that if you already have insurance through your employer’s group plan, nothing will change. Other provisions of the Affordable Care Act have allowed children to stay on their parents’ policy until age 26 and forced insurers to stop denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
Critics of Obamacare would be wise to stop throwing wrenches into the gears of the developing system and instead allow the exchanges a chance to work. For example, Gov. Rick Perry has urged more rules for the federally funded navigators assigned to help people evaluate the insurance plans. Given that 2 million Texans will be eligible for insurance through the exchanges, far better for Perry not to undermine implementation. After all, getting the uninsured to pay for their own coverage — as opposed to having taxpayers foot the bill — would be a great thing for all of us.
Most reasonable people would agree that the economics of health care must change. For now, the Affordable Care Act is the blueprint for that transformation, so let’s give it a chance.
Getting signed up
Oct. 1: Open enrollment in health care exchanges begins.
January: Coverage begins.
March: Open enrollment closes.
Where to learn more: HealthCare.gov; call 1-800-318-2596; TTY: 1-855-889-4325.
..................................................................................................................................

Huelskamp obviously despises women and wants to cancel out preventative health coverage

..................................................................................................................................
GOP adds 'conscience clause' to spending bill
By Lisa Desjardins, September 28, 2013

House Republicans have added a measure aimed at limiting contraceptive coverage to the spending bill coming up for a vote Saturday night, a spokesman for Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, told CNN.

A senior House leadership aide confirmed that development.

The so-called “conscience clause” would allow employers and insurers to opt out of preventative care for women which they find objectionable on moral or religious grounds. That prominently includes birth control, which most insurers are required to provide for free under current Obamacare rules.

With this move, House Republican leaders would give any employer or group health plan the ability to opt out of contraception coverage for the next year. That time frame syncs up with the larger measure in which this is included: a one-year delay of Obamacare provisions not yet in effect.

“This is a big deal for the congressman,” Huelskamp’s spokesman, Paul Nelson, told CNN. “He has been pushing for (the conscience clause) since he entered Congress.”

Democrats say the measure is unnecessary because the administration has granted exemptions to contraceptive coverage to religious nonprofit institutions. But advocates, such as Huelskamp, insist that all institutions should be able to opt out of any preventative coverage for women that they find objectionable.

The addition of the “conscience clause” ties a heated social issue to the already sharp shutdown debate.
..................................................................................................................................

Without staffers, Washington can't run, and lawmakers know it-- the question is whether the GOP cares

..................................................................................................................................
How to Use Congressional Staffers as Political Props

Some prime examples from Ted Cruz and President Obama.


By Matt Vasilogambros, September 27, 2013

Congressional staffers are the lifelines of members of Congress. So, how do you get under the skin of a senator or a representative? Bring their staff into the debate.

This seems to be the tactic being used in the continuing-resolution debate happening in Washington right now, one utilized by both President Obama on Friday and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during his long speech from Tuesday into Wednesday.

Take Cruz first. When discussing what he said are the negative effects of the Affordable Care Act, he brought his staff into the picture, saying many were concerned about the law's effects on their personal income and welfare.
Among congressional staff, just like among members, the idea that they would be subject to Obamacare deeply concerns them. It concerns them on the money side and it concerns them on the quality of care and health insurance that they will be able to get on the exchanges.I have had one staff member already indicate she would retire after many years of service, and the possibility of being put on Obamacare was a real factor in that decision.
President Obama used a similar tactic when talking about a potential government shutdown. If Congress doesn't pass a continuing resolution in the coming days, their staffers won't be able to come into work or get paid. And the president wanted to remind lawmakers of just that.
So, any Republican in Congress who is currently watching, I'd encourage you to think about who you're hurting. There are probably young people in your office right now who came to work for you without much pay because they believe that public service was noble. You're preparing to send them home without a paycheck.
It's unclear whether this playbook works, but it's hard to overstate the value that staffers have to their bosses—advising them on how to vote on legislation, responding to constituents, writing committee and floor speeches, running the office, communicating with other lawmakers' offices, and of course, crafting legislation.

By invoking the potential suffering of their staff, Cruz and Obama are banking on lawmakers acting to prevent such outcomes. For without staffers, Washington can't run, and lawmakers know it.
..................................................................................................................................

Friday, September 27, 2013

Boehner is supposed to be a religious man..... looks like he'd better start praying for the power to divide his red sea

..................................................................................................................................
How Boehner, like Moses, could part the Red Sea
By Sarah Binder, September 27, 2013

















All eyes are on Speaker John Boehner this weekend as the House GOP conference struggles to respond to the “clean” Continuing Resolution passed today by the Senate.  Stripped clean of language to defund Obamacare, the fate of the spending bill to temporarily fund the government rests in the GOP leadership’s hands.  Do they try to amend the clean CR with just GOP votes, surely risking a government shutdown early next week?  Or does the speaker dare not risk his party being blamed for an unpopular shutdown, and likely split up his red conference by calling for a vote on the clean CR?

A little House arithmetic makes plain Boehner’s predicament within his 433-member conference.  He might not be able to muster 217 GOP votes for amending the CR, and he can’t pass a clean CR without turning to Democrats for help.  To illustrate Boehner’s situation, I’ve devised a simple index of voting behavior within the House GOP conference, summing up lawmakers’ choices on pivotal votes in the 113th Congress.   The chart above shows the number of lawmakers in each category, moving from the most loyal to Boehner on the left to his the greatest thorns in his side on the right.  I tally votes against electing Boehner as speaker, against funding for Hurricane Sandy relief, against Violence Against Women Act, against the debt limit deal last March, and against the farm bill in June. Finally, I score whether the member signed the Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) letter pushing the leadership to defund Obamacare in the CR.  (Note: These votes differ slightly from those selected by The Fix in July; The Fix included two votes on the farm bill and the 112th Congress fiscal cliff vote, and did not include the Meadows letter.)

The chart above clarifies Boehner’s challenge:

First, Boehner’s go-to crowd represents a very small portion of the conference, under 15 percent of his colleagues stuck with him through thick and thin this year.  Even if we add in his colleagues who defected just once from the leadership’s preferred position, his supporters are still relatively few, making up just over a third of the chamber.  That’s a thin reed to lean on if Boehner plays Moses and takes a path that divides his red sea. (Ouch.)

Second, if Boehner relied on a strict reading of the “Hastert Rule,” he would still find it challenging to corral a majority of the majority party to support a clean CR.  To secure the votes of a party majority, Boehner must dig deep into the ranks of his colleagues who were willing to defy him twice on the most salient (and arguably consequential) votes of the year.

Finally, and possibly better news for the speaker, the right side of the chart reminds us how few GOP lawmakers have bucked the speaker at every turn.  Less than 10 percent of the conference has routinely attempted to foil the leadership’s agenda.  However, the speaker’s acute problem is that those 19 colleagues exceed the party’s margin over House Democrats.  If the speaker brings an amended CR to the floor, no Democrat will vote for the bill.  That route would likely precipitate a government shutdown.  But if the amended bill doesn’t meet the (increasingly implacable) demands of the far right of the conference, Boehner won’t get the 217 votes he needs to pass a bill without the Democrats.  That route also likely leads to a shutdown.   We’re not yet at the proverbial 11th hour before the government runs out of money.  But unless Boehner is willing to pass a clean CR with Democratic votes, it seems likely that the 12th hour brings a shutdown.
..................................................................................................................................

Yes-- “How dare you?”

..................................................................................................................................
Gore accuses GOP of ‘political terrorism’
By Aaron Blake and Karen Tumulty, September 27, 2013



Former Vice President Al Gore on Friday called the GOP's strategy to defund Obamacare "political terrorism."

Speaking at the Brookings Institution, Gore called it a "despicable and dishonorable threat to the United States of America" for Republicans to risk shutting down the government if they don't get what they want.

Gore's comments echo senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer, who on Thursday likened the GOP to someone with "a bomb strapped to their chest" demanding a ransom.

Gore attributed the intransigence in Washington to the influence of special interests who have "hacked" the American political system.

“American democracy has been hacked," Gore said. "That’s a computer word as you know, which refers to somebody taking over the operating system of a computer and making it do things that the owner of the computer doesn’t want it to do.”

Gore also said politics is turning off qualified people and attracting people who are damaging American government -- alluding specifically to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

“Some that I wish were not in politics are speaking for long stretches of time," Gore said, clearly referring to Cruz's 21-hour marathon speech this week on defunding Obamacare.

Congress has until Monday to come to an agreement on funding the government.
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Al Gore Accuses GOP of ‘Political Terrorism’ With Shutdown Threat
By Abby D. Phillip, September 27, 2013

Former vice president Al Gore today had harsh words for lawmakers who are on the verge of allowing the government to shutdown over a bid to defund President Obama’s health care law.

“The only phrase that describes it is political terrorism,” Gore said at the launch of the Brookings Institution’s Center for Effective Public Management in Washington. “Why does partisanship have anything to do with such a despicable and dishonorable threat to the integrity of the United States of America?”

Gore said that the effort among some Republicans in the House and Senate to demand that Congress defund Obamacare in order to approve funding for the government “cannot be allowed.”

Gore noted that those lawmakers want to undo a law that was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.

“And now you want to threaten to not only shut down our government but to blow up the world economy unless we go back and undo what we did according to the processes of this democracy?” Gore asked. “How dare you?”

Gore has largely re-invented himself outside of elected office as an advocate of climate change policy (among other things) after narrowly losing (or winning, according to his supporters) the 2000 presidential election to President George W. Bush.

But he’s still known to throw in a joke about it.

“My attitude is you win some, you lose some. Then there’s that little known third category,” Gore joked.
..................................................................................................................................

I'm also proud to say I'm a ‘Liberal’ -- are you?

..................................................................................................................................
“If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal’, then I'm proud to say I'm a ‘Liberal’.”

– John F. Kennedy
   Profiles in Courage
..................................................................................................................................

Tweeting and facebooking = faux participation

..................................................................................................................................
Twitter Is Turning Us Into Political Punks

Hashtags, tweets and Facebook posts are not a substitute for real political activism.

By Charles Ellison, September 25, 2013

As seminal events take their twists and turns through the zeitgeist, more often than not we're as likely to tweet about it as we are to act on it. These days, critical issues aren't marked by mass movements to counteract fire hoses and snapping German shepherds on a bigot's leash. And you'd be pressed to find sit-ins at lunch counters or college campuses.

Outrage is less in-your-face, more anonymous fumes on the feed. You can hide the whites of your eyes under sunglasses or snap only half your mug in the profile square.

Generally speaking, we've become a world of tweeting punks. We're like kids who punch and run in the schoolyard. The online space, much like cable talk, is now dominated by a vernacular arms race of who's snarkier than who. But at the end of a long, exhausting day of freestyle clashes, name-calling and incessant whining about the state of things, we should ask ourselves: Did we get anything done other than piss off other people?

In other words: is our social media translating into social impact?

  
While political scientists and pundits get punch-drunk with virtual signs of increased political engagement, we may be misreading the signs of that engagement. Suddenly we're all stars. We have better ways to amplify our stage presence, but screaming is one thing. Execution is something else.

Somewhere along the way, we mistook digital advocacy for social change -- the easiest, most efficient way to get it done. We databased our capacity to change and ended up diluting it. Some of that is pure laziness; some of it is because it's cost-effective. But much of it stems from not knowing the what-separates-the-professionals-from-the-amateurs political process.

Hoodie-accessorizing profile pics and screenshots may have been the viral sensation that ultimately raised needed awareness for #TrayvonMartin. But the political dots have yet to connect. "Stand your ground" laws remain in 26 states (as well as among any number of emotionally distressed, wife-beating, trigger-happy gun collectors looking for an excuse). And while there are more than 600 black state elected officials throughout the United States, many playing key leadership roles in state legislatures, no one has yet triggered an effective "Stand your ground" repeal movement.

Hashtagging #VoterID in your feed and retweeting the rage might get you fist-bump replies. But it's not as if the Supreme Court cared about your hashtag before it gutted the Voting Rights Act this past summer, along with affirmative action as we knew it. Black politics got its ass served on a conservative platter while #blacktwitter went viral.

Smart folks point out that political engagement is actually rising. A recent University of Chicago survey (pdf) of 3,000 people ages 15-25 found "participatory" politics increasing or at relatively respectable levels in a democracy, with much of it driven by regular social media use. African-American youths, at 57 percent, are more likely than their white (51 percent), Latino (49 percent) or Asian-American (52 percent) counterparts to send messages, share status updates and links or routinely chat it up. Overall, 41 percent of the youth demographic was reported to have been politically engaged in the previous year.

However, many of us are improperly equating high levels of political engagement and vocalization with actual political participation and mobilization. That's just more people finding newer ways to shout.

How many times you tweet the name of an issue or candidate might determine who or what wins an election. But political activism is being duped into a false sense of ... political activism. We've confused democracy with advocacy, and justifiable frustration with method and process. It's civic illiteracy. We expect tangible social or political change, but most Americans can't name all three branches of government and don't know who John Roberts is.

We can get elated all we want about people voting when they could watch it all unfold from home. But do they even know the full story beyond scripted 140-character billboards that fit into a smartphone? According to an analysis by Social Media Today, you'll see fewer likes on your Facebook page if you post messages that are longer than 140 characters; and Pew found that nearly 30 percent of the hottest YouTube videos were a minute or less.

And yet social media is essential. It holds enormous value and almost limitless community value, especially when it's used for the common good. I use it, you use it; many in the space understand the need for it. But political social networking sites and stratagems should not be viewed as the panacea to democracy's ills; that's the tail leading the horse. It is one necessary screw in the larger political-action toolbox.

Hence, first we need to reassess how we're defining political participation in the digital age and accept that it's not on a couch or in a coffeehouse or on a keyboard. Real participation is holistic ... and dirty. The real value is when you touch lives in tangible ways, when the social media message is crystallized and takes radical shape on the kitchen table.

The true performance metric for social media is when it jumps from screen to political action committee to canvassing to volunteering to people on the street en masse or crowding legislative and regulatory offices en masse. And it shouldn't just be for one candidate, either. This is when you get lawmakers to shift from useless debt and deficit fights and focus on more important issues, like unemployment, income inequality and homelessness. That's when we might have a shot at reducing gas, food and college tuition prices in a way that's much more consequential than millions of WTFs, SMHs and other cute protestations in the online space.

Our voices are louder, but our attention spans are shorter. We're celebrating an increase in youth political engagement, but few know anything about politics beyond what's in front of them -- and even that won't get the time of day unless it's A-listed or trending. In the constantly evolving digital space where we're compelled to keep up with and join the latest social media thing, we're jumping from one tweet, retweet and reply to the next before we even know what's going on.
..................................................................................................................................

Go Wendy! Ann Richards needs company in the Texas history books

..................................................................................................................................
Well, that is if the Texas PTBs would allow the publication of accurate history books!
..................................................................................................................................
Wendy Davis to run for governor in Texas
By Peter Hamby and Ashley Killough, September 26, 2013

State Sen. Wendy Davis of Texas will run for governor next year, two Democratic sources familiar with the planning confirmed to CNN.

The Democrat, who gained national fame after her 13-hour filibuster over a controversial abortion bill, was already scheduled to make an announcement about her political future on October 3.

But until Thursday it wasn't certain whether she would be running for governor or run for re-election to her state Senate seat. Politico first reported Davis would run for governor.

Her campaign has remained tight lipped to the press about her upcoming public decision. Her spokesman, Hector Nieto, did not confirm–but also didn't deny–reports that she was putting her hat into the gubernatorial ring.

"All I can say...is that Senator Davis told her grassroots supporters last week via email she has made a decision and she looks forward to making her decision public on October 3," he told CNN. ... But advisers have reached out privately to Democrats to inform them of her decision, according to sources.

After her filibuster–which delayed a vote on a bill meant to ban most abortions for pregnancies past 20 weeks and implement strict regulations on abortion clinics–Davis found herself on the national stage and a potential hope for Democrats in Texas who want to turn the state blue.

Given the attention she drew over the filibuster, speculation soon followed that she may challenge Gov. Rick Perry in 2014, but the longtime Republican governor announced this summer he won't be seeking re-election next year.

Republican Greg Abbott, the state's attorney general, has already started running for the office, and is considered the leading GOP candidate.


Democrats haven't won a gubernatorial election in Texas since Ann Richard's victory in 1990.
..................................................................................................................................

What goes around comes around

..................................................................................................................................
How about we call West a "black American court fool"*?
* Def. of "court fool": "A person deficient in intellect; one who acts absurdly, or pursues a course contrary to the dictates of wisdom;
one without judgment; a simpleton; a dolt."
..................................................................................................................................
Report: Tea party star out of job for nasty outburst
wftv.com, September 27, 2013

Former Congressman Alan West quickly rose to political fame, and eventually came crashing back down, due to his outspoken nature and controversial choice of words. Now, his notably sharp tongue may have cost him yet another job.

According to a report on the website Buzzfeed.com, West is leaving his job with a conservative media company shortly after an alleged nasty exchange with a coworker. 

The site quotes an anonymous source who claims West yelled at a female coworker telling her to "shut up" and calling her a "Jewish American Princess." Perhaps coincidentally, it was announced shortly thereafter that West would be leaving PJ Media.

West had only been with the conservative media company since this past January and had been hired to act as director of programming for its web-based video channel. He also contributed as a blogger for the company's news and opinion site. 

West has denied being fired and is insisting he is leaving for future political aspirations stating in a farewell note to former coworkers that he was going, "on the front lines to expand the message of constitutional conservatism across our country."

Buzzfeed posted what it says is an internal note to PJMedia employess that says West is leaving on his own terms and to pursue other options.

His one term in Congress, West made a name for himself with his hyperbolic speeches and interviews. In one of his more infamous episodes, he wrote a letter to Democratic Representative and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz stating that she was "the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the U.S. House of Representatives."

West was defeated in 2012 by political newcomer Democrat Patrick Murphy in a very close race. 
..................................................................................................................................

Doesn't surprise me

Popular Science silences its comments section

We live in a community where reality (science) is trumped by trollish bullshit

Thursday, September 26, 2013

So why take criticism from John McCain? He doesn't live in NJ, either

..................................................................................................................................
Christie: ‘Meghan McCain has no standing to be criticizing me’
By Bryan Koenig, September 25, 2013

New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s only response to Meghan McCain being “over” him is that he has no response.

In his monthly “Ask the Governor” session on the NJ101.5 radio station Wednesday night, Christie mostly fielded questions about the state’s recovery from Superstorm Sandy. But the questions briefly turned to Meghan McCain, daughter of former GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Tuesday, the younger McCain told CNN’s Piers Morgan that she was “over” Christie’s presumed 2016 candidacy. Current polls put Christie at the head of a crowded field of potential 2016 Republican contenders.

“I’m kind of done with Chris Christie right now,” McCain said.

She referred to Christie’s 2012 GOP convention speech that barely mentioned nominee Mitt Romney. “There’s some level of self-promotion that you have to do, but I would like the next leader of the Republican Party, the next nominee to maybe be a little more interested in helping the country than just their platform.”

For his part, Christie, who is currently running for reelection, was dismissive of McCain’s comments.

“Are we really going to be responding to Meghan McCain?” Christie said, referring to the entire episode as “sophomoric.”

Christie said that he would take a call or criticism from McCain’s father. But Meghan McCain holds no office and doesn't live in New Jersey.

“Meghan McCain has no standing to be criticizing me,” Christie said.

“I’m not going to respond to somebody just because of their last name.”

..................................................................................................................................

The line forms over here.... calm down, please.... no pushing or shoving.... there's more than enough for everybody

..................................................................................................................................
GOP Lawyer Launches Political Donation Refund Group
By Michael Beckel, September 26, 2013

A new group has formed to get money out of politics. But unlike typical "good government" groups, this new nonprofit is connected to a Republican lawyer with a case before the U.S. Supreme Court next month -- McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission -- arguing that wealthy Americans have the right to invest even larger sums of money in politics.

Virginia-based PoliticalRefund.org, which is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, wants to inform donors that they may request their money back should they become displeased with a candidate. It offers free resources on its website to do so.

There is, however, nothing in federal law that requires politicians to issue refunds.

Dan Backer, an attorney who has made his name as a proponent of campaign finance deregulation, serves as the group's lawyer and is also a board member.

Business records further list Backer as PoliticalRefund.org's registered agent, and he also registered the nonprofit's website, according to Internet registry records.

"I decided to take the liberal speech police at their word that there is too much money in politics and am helping to get some out," Backer told the Center for Public Integrity.

"The intent is to focus on those who make -- and then break -- campaign promises in such an egregious way" that frustrated donors might want refunds, he continued, adding that the new group will be nonpartisan. "Everyone hates politicians who lie."

The group recently asked the Federal Election Commission for permission to use data contained in federal campaign finance reports to reach out to contributors.

Federal law prohibits FEC data from being used "used by any person for the purpose of soliciting contributions or for commercial purposes," which PoliticalRefund.org says it will not be doing.

There is some precedent to Backer's request.

In 2009, the conservative Club for Growth sought -- and received -- the FEC's permission to contact donors to then-Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania after he left the GOP and became a Democrat. At the time, Specter had promised to voluntarily give back money to any contributor who desired a refund.
..................................................................................................................................

Ideological purity could continue costing the GOP

..................................................................................................................................
The Price of Political Purity
By Richard Klass, September 26, 2013

It is clear from the current debate over Obamacare and the debt ceiling that a small number of Republican members of Congress, perhaps 50 in the House and five in the Senate, put ideological purity over their constitutional obligation to govern. There is a political price to be paid for this choice.

True, the price is not obvious in House elections. Political gerrymandering has allowed the "Tea Party" to elect enough members to give Majority Leader John Boehner his position despite minority Democratic candidates garnering some one and a quarter million more votes in the 2012 elections than their GOP opponents. But, as he has learned to his dismay, leadership does not result in followership when zealots are in the fold.

But on a broader Senate electoral battleground, radical candidates have cost the GOP at least five Senate seats. Harry Reid (NV) in 2010 and Claire McCaskill (MO) in 2012 were doomed until the GOP chose literally incredible candidates. The primary defeat of Dick Lugar (IN) by an extreme candidate handed the seat to the Democrats as in 2012 did the primary defeat of Mike Castle (R) in DE in 2010. A similar actions likely cost the GOP the CO seat in 2010.

Now we have a chance to see if such radical GOP candidates can also lose governorships in very purple swing states. Consider this pattern in Virginia (VA) governor's races that occur the year after the presidential election:

In 1976 Jimmy Carter (D) was elected president and in 1977 John Dallon (R) was elected VA governor. In 1980 Ronald Reagan (R) was elected president. In1981 Charles Robb (D) was elected VA governor. In 1984 Reagan was reelected and in 1985 Gerald Balles (D) was elected VA governor. In 1988 George H.W. Bush (R) was elected president and in 1989 Douglas Wilder (D) was elected VA governor. In 1992 Bill Clinton (D) was elected president and in1993 George Allen (R) was elected VA governor. In 1996 Clinton was reelected and in 1997 Jim Gilmore (R) was elected VA governor. In 2000 George W. Bush (R) was elected president and in 2001 Mark Warner (D) was elected VA governor. In 2004 Bush was reelected and in 2009 Tim Kaine (D) was elected VA governor. In 2008 Barack Obama (D) was elected president and in 2009 Bob McDonnell (R) was elected VA governor. In 2012 Obama was reelected and the pattern would indicate a GOP win in the November 5, 2013 VA election.

But the voters of the Commonwealth of Virginia may be unwilling to continue this pattern for the current GOP candidate. As the polls stand today, six weeks before the 2013 election, the streak appears ready to end. The GOP has chosen a very conservative Ken Cuccinelli II, the current Attorney General, as their candidate. (And an even more radical lieutenant governor candidate.) Cuccinelli is best known for supporting trans-vaginal probes, opposing gay rights and resisting Medicaid expansion. His opponent, former Democratic National Committee chairman, Terry McAulliffe has never held elected office and may not be the ideal candidate but currently leads by five to eight points in the polls with a strong lead among women voters.

If McAulliffe wins, breaking the pattern it will have less to do with his appeal than Cuccinelli's rejection by the voters for his extreme, no compromise ideologically purity. One would think the GOP would draw a lesson from this. One would probably be mistaken.
..................................................................................................................................

Not surprisingly, Cruz is "... tapping into something out there which is mean and ugly."

..................................................................................................................................
Rep. King: Cruz supporters making 'vile, obscene' phone calls
By Ashley Killough, September 26, 2013

Rep. Peter King, who called fellow Republican Ted Cruz a 'fraud,' said his office is now receiving threatening phone calls from people who say they're supporters of the Texas senator.

"You can't always blame a person if his followers act in a terrible way," King said on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer." However, he expressed concern about the "vile, obscene" nature of the phone calls.

"I have young women, women interns, full-timers, in their late teens, early 20s, and they get these phone calls," he continued. He did not elaborate on how many calls were received.

Rep. King on defund plan: 'Custer, Kamikaze'

King of New York has not been shy about his feelings toward the freshman lawmaker, who's spearheading an effort to defund Obamacare in a spending bill that must pass by Monday night to avert a government shutdown.

On Friday, King said he hoped the current showdown on Capitol Hill will let "people know that Ted Cruz is a fraud, and he'll no longer have any influence in the Republican Party."

King made his comments before Cruz launched his marathon speech on the Senate floor this week, which won both acclaim and criticism from Republicans.

The congressman reiterated on Thursday that he doesn't think the phone calls are Cruz's fault, but argued that "he's tapping into something out there which is mean and ugly."

Cruz's office declined to comment on King's remarks.
..................................................................................................................................

Do you wonder what happens with the information (e-mail address, etc.) that you post to on-line petitions such as Change.org?

..................................................................................................................................
The dot org domain name seems to indicate that this is a non-profit, but don't kid yourself, that is not the case.  If you've ever set up a website and looked into domain names, you will find that there is little, if any, investigation into who you are and why you want a dot org (or any other) designation.
..................................................................................................................................
Meet Change.org, the Google of Modern Politics
By Klint Finley, September 26, 2013

After Trayvon Martin was shot dead inside a Florida gated community and the state declined to press charges against the man who killed him, the boy’s parents took to the web.

In March of last year, they set up an online petition calling for authorities to change their stance. It quickly attracted over 2.2 million virtual signatures, and by the following month, a special prosecutor charged George Zimmerman with murder.

The campaign was a victory not just for the Martin’s family, but for Change.org, the website that hosted the petition. Change.org is a site specifically designed for petitions, providing a way of reaching the public at a speed that was unheard of just a few years ago. A year and half after the Martin shooting, the site is launching more than 25,000 new petitions each month, covering the length and breadth of the world’s causes.

“We have a totally open platform that’s rapidly diversifying,” says CEO and co-founder Ben Rattray. “Some of the petitions are in competition with each other.”

But there’s an extra twist. What many people fail to realize is that Change.org isn’t a non-profit organization.(1) Though anyone can set up a petition for free, the company makes an awful lot of money from all the data it collects about its online petitions and the people who sign them. It’s not just a path to The People. It’s a Google-like Big Data play.

In amassing data from its 45 million users and the 660,000 petitions they’ve created and signed, the company has unprecedented insight into the habits of online activists. If you sign one animal rights petition, the company says, you’re 2.29 times more likely to sign a criminal justice petition. And if you sign a criminal justice petition, you’re 6.3 times more likely to sign an economic justice petition. And 4.4 times more likely to sign an immigrant rights petition. And four times more likely to sign an education petition. And so on.

Change.org uses this data to serve you petitions you’re more likely to be interested in. And, in many cases, it also uses the stuff as a way of pairing you with paying sponsors you’re more likely to give money to.

It’s an intriguing business, and as it turns out, a rather lucrative one. But for some, it also toes an ethical line. “We’ve sort of created an email industrial complex where we’ll do anything to get people’s email address,” says Clay Johnson, a Presidential Innovation Fellow who, in 2004, co-founded Blue State Digital, a for-profit consulting company that helped develop the Obama campaign’s finely targeted fundraising system.


You could even argue that the Change.org recommendation engine is perverting the petition process, creating a Google-like feedback loop that leads us only to where we’ve been before. And when you consider that petitions in places like California can so easily turn into ballot initiatives, this sort of thing looks even more ominous. But that’s the direction politics is headed — towards the Googlization of everything.

[major snippage]

(1) Update 3:30pm EST 09/26/13: This story originally called Change.org a for-profit company, but the company maintains that although it isn’t a non-profit organization, it isn’t a for-profit company. “We are a mission-driven social enterprise, and while we bring in revenue, we reinvest 100% of that revenue back into our mission of empowering ordinary people,” says Hill. “It’s not just that we’re not yet making a profit – it’s that we are decidedly not for-profit.”
..................................................................................................................................

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Wanna bet that Obamacare will become as popular as Medicare and Social Security?

..................................................................................................................................
Obamacare as political theater

When Medicare was born, the naysayers were out in force too. The difference this time is that opponents seem unwilling to help make the law work.

By Marilyn Moon, September 26, 2013

Each week seems to bring new claims that the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) — which begins enrollment for coverage on health insurance exchanges on Oct. 1 — will bring calamity. In many ways, this furor is reminiscent of Medicare's beginnings in 1966. That law, passed in 1965, had just a year before it went live. There were plenty of naysayers and fears of potentially calamitous roadblocks.

For starters, many physician groups called for a national boycott. That never took place. Many physicians quickly realized that whether or not this was "socialized" medicine, Medicare would pay for visits by many Americans who had not been able to afford care. The number of people 65 and older using physician services jumped dramatically, and doctors and patients both benefited.

Another concern was that the Medicare law required hospitals receiving Medicare dollars to take all comers, thus desegregating U.S. hospitals in one fell swoop. Federal workers and even the National Guard were put on call in July 1966 should disaster strike. But all was quiet, and Medicare contributed substantially to speeding up the desegregation of healthcare.

Nearly half a century later, Medicare is — along with Social Security — one of the two most popular government programs ever, and well accepted by the medical community.

In its day, Medicare was in some ways even more controversial than the Affordable Care Act is today, since it was so different from the rest of the healthcare system. What's different is that Obamacare's opponents, more than Medicare's, seem unwilling to help make the law work. This frenzied and often misleading opposition might seem comical if millions of people who stand to benefit weren't being put at risk. No wonder the polls find that people are confused.

What's going on here? It's partly political theater in a society so deeply divided that "the other side" never gets credit for doing a good job or even having good intentions. And it's partly a peculiarly American resistance to changes in government programs buttressed by overblown fears. One fear is that Obamacare is bad for business and will lead to unemployment. Yes, UPS announced it would no longer cover spouses of workers who could get coverage elsewhere. But while a few companies are using the new law as an excuse to do what they planned to do anyway, there is little evidence that many are. In fact, if employers do cut benefits, Obamacare offers options for good insurance at affordable prices.

The new insurance marketplaces that will help individuals who lack employer coverage have also been attacked as forcing people into buying excessive insurance. Some states that could have helped shape these marketplaces to better fit their needs declined to cooperate with the new law. But isn't setting up a level playing field where insurers must offer a recognized set of benefits in ways that allow competition the very heart of what a capitalist society owes its citizens? And mandating that people buy insurance is a lot like requiring that everyone contribute to Medicare, which few Americans now see as controversial.

Another fear is that insurance costs will be higher. But announced rates for these new plans are turning out to be very reasonable. Many expected California's rates to come in high (with some opponents projecting a 66% increase, for example). In fact, most Californians will pay about the same rates in 2014 as in 2013, and many will be eligible for subsidies that make care even more affordable. Only those who currently skimp on coverage in the risky hope that they'll remain healthy indefinitely may have to spend more for better plans.

The latest dust-up is over "navigators" — people hired to help buyers understand their choices and choose plans. Coincidentally, this program is modeled on those for Medicare beneficiaries that have worked well. The red flags raised about privacy issues should be lowered because such counselors will know only what individuals choose to tell them if they seek help.

Chances are, when the law takes effect and the sky doesn't fall, people will accept that both the requirement that everyone have insurance and the rules governing how insurance is offered are improvements to our health system — much as they accepted Medicare.
..................................................................................................................................

There's improvement, but there are severe gaps shrouding in secrecy many corporate spenders in an era of surging hidden political spending

..................................................................................................................................
Companies disclosing more political spending

But 'severe' gaps remain in an era of corporation-fueled electioneering, new study says

By David Levinthal, September 25, 2013

In an age of hidden election cash, the nation’s wealthiest public companies are increasingly revealing their campaign-related contributions and political policies — and doing so voluntarily.

More than three in four are more transparent than they were a year ago, with representatives of the pharmaceutical, IT service, chemical, health care and aerospace/defense industries ranking highest in a new study of political disclosure practices by the nonpartisan Center for Political Accountability and the Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

The findings follow a 2012 election cycle in which nonprofit groups, fueled by corporate cash to a level unknown, spent more than $300 million to advocate for and against political candidates primarily through negative television advertising. Federal law doesn’t require such nonprofits to reveal their donors.

The study in part judges whether — and to what degree — companies publicly disclose donations to politically active trade groups and “social welfare” nonprofits, adopt policies that govern political expenditures and disclose payments made to influence the outcome of ballot measures.

Improved disclosure hardly means all companies are willing to publicly out their politicking, which has become a major story line in federal politics since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in 2010 granted corporations powerful spending freedoms. 

To wit: a dozen of the 200 corporations studied didn’t snag a single point on the CPA-Zicklin index’s 70-point scale.

Financial service firms Charles Schwab Corp., T. Rowe Price Corp. and CME Group, as well as billionaire Warren Buffett’s holding company, Berkshire Hathaway, are among those earning goose eggs.

Internet giant Yahoo! Inc., Bank of America Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Priceline.com Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and CBS Corp. meanwhile dwell at the basement’s threshold, each collecting just a handful of points.

But drug maker Merck & Co. Inc., IT firm Qualcomm Incorporated and United Parcel Service Inc. are disclosure stars, according to the study, with each receiving 66 out of a possible 70 points.

Insurer AFLAC Inc., Microsoft Corp. oil company ConocoPhillips, communications company Time Warner Inc. and banks JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. also scored highly.

Slightly lower, but squarely in the index’s top quartile: tobacco makers Reynolds American Inc. and Altria Group Inc., aerospace and defense behemoth Boeing Co., retailer Costco Wholesale Corp., pharmaceutical firm Pfizer Inc. and computer chip manufacturer Intel Corp.  Reynolds American corporate documents, for example, this year revealed that the firm recently helped bankroll prominent conservative nonprofits highly active during the 2012 elections.

Houston-based Noble Energy, which specializes in oil and gas production, recorded the greatest improvement from 2012 to 2013, as it jumped from barely above zero to just short of a perfect score.  Railroad company CSX Corp. and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. also experienced dramatic jumps.

Half of the corporations studied publicly reveal at least some information about money they give to nonprofit trade associations organized under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Service code.

About 37 percent of them either disclose information about some or all of their giving to 501(c)(4)  nonprofit groups, or they simply don’t give to them at all. That’s notably up from last year, when one in four fit this description.

Corporations’ state-level ballot measure activity, meanwhile, is also growing more transparent, with nearly half disclosing some information. Last year, about 36 percent did.

Much of this increased disclosure can be attributed to shareholder pressure and greater public awareness about corporations funding politically active nonprofits, said Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability.

“This has put the issue of disclosure squarely on the agendas of corporate boards,” Freed said. “The companies are taking this seriously.”

But while the study notes that many corporations have made “steady and tangible progress” in their political disclosure practices, it states that its findings also reflect “severe gaps that shroud many corporate spenders in secrecy in an era of surging hidden political spending.“
..................................................................................................................................

Cruz isn't happy after his inane and procedurally pointless filibuster? Isn't that too damned bad!

..................................................................................................................................
Political Coverage Isn’t Focused on the Issues, Whines Self-Made National Distraction Ted Cruz
By Juli Weiner, September 25, 2013



Senator Ted Cruz (R–Ted Cruz) is not happy with coverage of his 21-hour-long publicity stunt on the Senate floor. Shallow reporters only care about “personalities bickering back and forth,” he claims. Where’s the analysis of Important Matters of Substance like the plot of Green Eggs and Ham or whether Cruz’s Darth Vader impression is pretty solid or very solid?

Cruz has a theory on the root of the wretched state of political discourse in this country. “You know, the political reporters in Washington D.C., I think some of them may be frustrated because they really wanted to be Hollywood gossip reporters, because they cover these issues as a battle of personalities,” he said during the inane and procedurally pointless filibuster that served no purpose other than a day-long tryout for his future career in cable news.

Cruz’s hypothesis, like his Darth Vader impression, is pretty solid. Did you know that National Magazine Award–winning journalist Mark Leibovich only pursued the political beat after he was denied an interview with the cast of Dancing with the Stars? And Jason Horowitz was forced to take a job at The Washington Post after botching a detail of Nick Lachey and Vanessa Lachey’s wedding during an unpaid internship at People.com? (Guests like Lachey’s former 98 Degrees bandmate Jeff Timmons nibbled on mini cupcakes, not petit fours, Horowitz.) And were you aware that political historian Robert Caro originally began his five-volume study of Lyndon Johnson as something to do while he waited for a callback from Ashley Tisdale’s publicist’s assistant? Caro would gladly trade both his Pulitzers for a chance to ask Tisdale whether she and her High School Musical cast mates still keep in touch.
..................................................................................................................................

Democrats figure that chaos is their friend in the current political climate

..................................................................................................................................
Analysis: Republicans in a risky fight with Obama
By David Espo, September 25, 2013

Under relentless pressure from their right wing, Republicans are in the midst of a risky fight with President Barack Obama they know they will lose, little more than a year before an election that history says they should win.

To minimize the damage, the party must redefine victory as something less than a full defunding of Obama's 3-year-old health care law, yet convince the most conservative GOP supporters that Republican lawmakers succumbed after a principled fight. All without triggering a government shutdown or a default by the Treasury, or otherwise offending independents whose ballots will settle the 2014 elections.

Already, party leaders are making that effort. "I just don't happen to think filibustering a bill that defunds Obamacare is the best route to defunding Obamacare," Sen. Mitch McConnell said archly Tuesday. "All it does is shut down the government and keep Obamacare funded."

That was one day after rejecting the path outlined by the party's rebel-in-chief, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — who staged a speaking marathon on the Senate floor Tuesday and Wednesday in which he said politicians in both parties routinely ignore the voters' wishes.

Seeking to turn the heat on to Democrats, McConnell said that four years ago they voted for the health care law with the "excuse that they didn't know how it would turn out. Well, they don't have that excuse now. I think we deserve to know where they stand now."

In addition to the future of health care and a possible government shutdown, the perennial struggle for raw political power is at the root of the struggle.

Republicans will need to pick up six seats in 2014 to win control of the Senate, a tall hurdle but not impossible. The party out of power in the White House historically has won an average of three to four seats in midterm elections since 1934, and Democrats are defending a half-dozen in difficult circumstances.

In the House, the GOP holds a 233-200 majority with two vacancies, and the historical trends show a 27-seat gain in midterm elections for the party locked out of the White House.

Enter the campaign to defund Obama's health care overhaul, accompanied by the risk of a shutdown or default.

Democrats, holding a Senate majority and seeking the same in the House, figure that chaos is their friend in the current political climate. They calculate that the public will blame Republicans for any interruption in government services or benefits, as it did two decades ago in the last shutdown confrontation that approximates the current one.

As a result, Democratic leaders employ rhetoric designed to raise questions about the mental health of some members of the Republican rank and file, if not their intelligence. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada routinely refers to them as tea party "anarchists." Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York says they have embarked on an "insane plan." New York Rep. Steve Israel, who heads the House Democratic campaign committee, says Republicans have launched a "kamikaze mission to shut down the U.S. government and our economy."

Speaking over the weekend to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Obama was less personal but just as pointed.

"This is an interesting thing to ponder, that your top agenda is making sure 20 million people don't have health insurance," and you are willing to shut down the government to win the point, he said.

Behind the president's remarks lie Democratic assumptions that the health care law isn't as unpopular as Republicans say it is, and that millions who now lack coverage will decide they like it once they have it.

In a three-cornered fight, each side cites polls to prove its point.

Cruz and his allies are focused largely on the tea party slice of the electorate as they flirt with a partial shutdown — an outcome the Texan says he doesn't want — in their drive to defund "Obamacare." McConnell and other Republican leaders focus on other soundings. So do Obama and congressional Democrats.

Each finds something to like in a survey by the Pew Research Center.

Among the general population, just 33 percent of those surveyed said they want lawmakers to defund Obamacare if it means a government shutdown.

For independents, it is 36 percent — sobering for Republicans whose goal is to win a majority in November, rather than merely a series of primaries.

Among tea party members, 77 percent said they want to defund Obamacare even if a shutdown results.

That's enough to give hope to a challenger running against even the most entrenched Republican next fall, and to a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate as well.

After eight months in the Senate, Cruz is already counted among them, and he has easily eclipsed fellow White House hopefuls Rand Paul and Marco Rubio as the face of the drive to "Defund Obamacare."

The Texas Republican co-stars with fellow Sen. Mike Lee of Utah in television commercials to promote the cause. The ads are paid for by the Senate Conservatives Fund, one of a cluster of organizations that makes a specialty of backing tea party-aligned challengers in congressional primaries.

For now, at least, establishment Republicans speak dismissively of such organizations, which they accuse of seeking to raise money for their own political purposes with little or no concern for the broader fortunes of the party. Yet they can scarcely ignore them.

In its latest filing with the Federal Election Commission, the SCF reported receiving contributions of $1.5 million in August, roughly as much as the previous four months combined.

Nor is there much mystery about how it intends to spend some of it.

It has already aired ads targeting McConnell. He "is the Senate Republican leader but he refuses to lead on defunding Obamacare," said one commercial that aired in Kentucky and was backed by more than $300,000. The group seems to be moving steadily toward endorsing Matt Bevin, who is challenging McConnell for the Republican nomination to the Senate next year.

Some tea party-backed challengers, including Cruz, Paul and Rubio, have won Senate seats in recent years after defeating incumbents or establishment-backed candidates. But the list of those who won nominations only to lose elections that were clearly winnable is longer, in Nevada, Colorado, Delaware, Missouri, Indiana.

Long enough to have cost Republicans chances at winning the majority in 2010 and 2012, and threaten any chance they have in 2014 as well.
..................................................................................................................................