..................................................................................................................................
You know, Mitt, a hurricane isn't any "little thing" and no "joke", either.
One of the comments on this piece stated: "Since damage from storms of that caliber can be classified as 'acts of God' by insurance companies, does his blaming the hurricane for losing mean that it's God's fault he lost?"
..................................................................................................................................
Romney wishes Hurricane Sandy ‘hadn’t happened,’ hurt campaign
By Joel Connelly, June 7, 2013
Mitt Romney has started going on cable TV, telling interviewers he wishes Hurricane Sandy “hadn’t happened” and that the storm that did $50 billion in damage also damaged his campaign.
“I wish the hurricane hadn’t happened when it did because it gave the president a chance to be presidential and to be out showing sympathy for folks:That’s one of the advantages of incumbency,” Romney told CNN.
“But you know, you don’t look back and worry about each little thing and how could that have been different. You look forward.”
Hurricane Sandy was no little thing, but a super-storm. It devastated the Jersey Shore and portions of coastal Long Island and Staten Island. President Obama was quickly on the scene with New Jersey’s Republican Gov. Chris Christie, and returned to the Jersey Shore two weeks ago to look at recovery efforts.
Romney and his wife are hosting a Utah retreat this week for influential friends. Witness the number of those friends who flew their private jets to Boston for election night last November, the Romney camp was convinced (along with Fox News pundits Karl Rove and Dick Morris) that it was going to win.
“The election was close enough in the outcome with what 4 percent difference between the two campaigns that a number of things could have made the difference,” Romney said.
He did say of Hurricane Sandy, on Fox News: ”I don’t think that’s why the president won the election.”
But Romney implied that IRS scrutiny of Tea Party groups might have impacted the election. He wanted to know Obama’s whereabouts during the Benghazi attack.
Romney acknowledged his “mistakes” during the CNN interview, and “regrets” the 47 percent remark that a bartender recorded at a big-givers fundraiser in Florida. He talked about actor Clint Eastwood’s bizarre, profane empty chair skit at the Republican Convention, saying: “Clint didn’t hurt my campaign. I hurt my campaign.”
As well, argued Romney, the media can’t take a joke. “Jokes, for instance, will get you in trouble,” said Romney.
Obama won the election by a margin of 5 million votes, carrying every so-called “Swing State” except North Carolina.
..................................................................................................................................
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Friday, June 7, 2013
Talk about being clueless! Beck is the poster boy for "clueless"
..................................................................................................................................
Glenn Beck says he regrets dividing people
By David Bauder, June 6, 2013
A reflective Glenn Beck said Thursday he regrets that some of his fiery opinions caused division in the country over the last several years.
He wasn't fully aware of the perilous times and people "at each other's throats," said the conservative radio host, who accepted a First Amendment award from Talkers magazine, the trade publication for his industry.
The magazine's publisher, Michael Harrison, hailed Beck as "a once-in-a-generation performer in the broadcast arts."
Beck said he was puzzled by activists who organize boycotts of people who say things they disagree with. Beck's popular show on Fox News Channel ended in 2011 after a successful advertiser boycott organized after he said President Barack Obama had "a deep-seated hatred for white people."
Also on the minds of radio executives Thursday was the boycott on Rush Limbaugh's show after he called a law school student "a slut" for advocating funding of birth control.
"For any role that I have played in dividing, I wish I can take them back," Beck said. "I don't wish I could take back the truth that was spoken but perhaps — not perhaps — many times I could have said it differently."
He didn't specify any particular incidents.
To the Talkers convention, Beck brought along a series of props — a Nazi-era German school manual, a napkin said to contain blood stains from Hitler, a copy of the Koran — to buttress his point that Americans need to support the right of people to deliver opinions even if they disagree with them.
"If they tell you to sit down and shut up, it's trouble," he said. "If it's a Republican or Democrat or independent, if it's a Tea Party person or someone from Occupy Wall Street, if they say shut up, it's trouble."
Society only makes progress "when you speak your mind and you challenge each other" and even get angry with each other over differing opinions.
Beck praised CNN and Fox for giving him television shows, and radio networks like Premiere and Clear Channel for supporting free speech.
"If I can find an audience, they'll carry me," he said. "The day I can't find an audience, they should cancel me."
Beck is currently in the midst of a salesmanship effort, trying to convince cable and satellite operators to begin telecasting TheBlaze, the successful online opinion and entertainment network he started after leaving Fox News. The Dish network and Optimum TV already carry Beck's programming.
Angelo Carusone, a vice president at the liberal media advocacy group Media Matters who helped organize the Limbaugh boycott, was at Talkers to listen to Beck's speech and said it didn't surprise him.
"Beck's entire history is a series of booms, busts and rebirths," he said. Now he needs to repair his brand in business circles to support his ventures and the cable distribution campaign, he said.
"Brand repair doesn't happen immediately," Carusone said. "It's a process. Beck knows that. This soft contrition seemed like an attempt to advance that slow process. I'm not sure this will be effective, though, given that his approach hasn't really changed."
Radio executives were curious about how the Limbaugh campaign has affected talk radio's most popular show. Dan Metter, senior vice president of sales at the Premiere Networks, said Limbaugh's advertising sales were better now than they were last year. Metter said Premiere's sales approach has changed; instead of seeking large established advertisers, the sales force is going after smaller entrepreneurs.
Asked for some specifics following a panel appearance, Metter refused comment.
..................................................................................................................................
Glenn Beck says he regrets dividing people
By David Bauder, June 6, 2013
A reflective Glenn Beck said Thursday he regrets that some of his fiery opinions caused division in the country over the last several years.
He wasn't fully aware of the perilous times and people "at each other's throats," said the conservative radio host, who accepted a First Amendment award from Talkers magazine, the trade publication for his industry.
The magazine's publisher, Michael Harrison, hailed Beck as "a once-in-a-generation performer in the broadcast arts."
Beck said he was puzzled by activists who organize boycotts of people who say things they disagree with. Beck's popular show on Fox News Channel ended in 2011 after a successful advertiser boycott organized after he said President Barack Obama had "a deep-seated hatred for white people."
Also on the minds of radio executives Thursday was the boycott on Rush Limbaugh's show after he called a law school student "a slut" for advocating funding of birth control.
"For any role that I have played in dividing, I wish I can take them back," Beck said. "I don't wish I could take back the truth that was spoken but perhaps — not perhaps — many times I could have said it differently."
He didn't specify any particular incidents.
To the Talkers convention, Beck brought along a series of props — a Nazi-era German school manual, a napkin said to contain blood stains from Hitler, a copy of the Koran — to buttress his point that Americans need to support the right of people to deliver opinions even if they disagree with them.
"If they tell you to sit down and shut up, it's trouble," he said. "If it's a Republican or Democrat or independent, if it's a Tea Party person or someone from Occupy Wall Street, if they say shut up, it's trouble."
Society only makes progress "when you speak your mind and you challenge each other" and even get angry with each other over differing opinions.
Beck praised CNN and Fox for giving him television shows, and radio networks like Premiere and Clear Channel for supporting free speech.
"If I can find an audience, they'll carry me," he said. "The day I can't find an audience, they should cancel me."
Beck is currently in the midst of a salesmanship effort, trying to convince cable and satellite operators to begin telecasting TheBlaze, the successful online opinion and entertainment network he started after leaving Fox News. The Dish network and Optimum TV already carry Beck's programming.
Angelo Carusone, a vice president at the liberal media advocacy group Media Matters who helped organize the Limbaugh boycott, was at Talkers to listen to Beck's speech and said it didn't surprise him.
"Beck's entire history is a series of booms, busts and rebirths," he said. Now he needs to repair his brand in business circles to support his ventures and the cable distribution campaign, he said.
"Brand repair doesn't happen immediately," Carusone said. "It's a process. Beck knows that. This soft contrition seemed like an attempt to advance that slow process. I'm not sure this will be effective, though, given that his approach hasn't really changed."
Radio executives were curious about how the Limbaugh campaign has affected talk radio's most popular show. Dan Metter, senior vice president of sales at the Premiere Networks, said Limbaugh's advertising sales were better now than they were last year. Metter said Premiere's sales approach has changed; instead of seeking large established advertisers, the sales force is going after smaller entrepreneurs.
Asked for some specifics following a panel appearance, Metter refused comment.
..................................................................................................................................
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Conyers: "No good has ever come from an all-male committee deciding the law about a woman's body. This is not appropriate."
..................................................................................................................................
The Unconstitutional Abortion Bill That's Advancing Through the House
By Abby Ohlheiser, June 4, 2013
Republican Representative Trent Franks wanted this May to be the sequel to America's "Newtown moment" on gun control. But instead of pushing for background checks, Franks is trying to pass a nationwide ban on abortions after 20 weeks. Even though his pitch — America would be so outraged by the Gosnell trial that they'd support, even demand, legislation similar to his — didn't pan out, the bill itself is still making its way through the House.
Today, the bill (which originally only applied to D.C) was passed along by a House Judiciary subcommittee chaired by Franks in an expanded form — if it were to become law, which seems unlikely, it would now apply nationwide. The bill will move to the full committee, chaired by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va, who has a pretty consistent anti-abortion voting record. Franks, in a statement, declared today a personal win:
Today's Constitution and Civil Justice subcommittee markup of the bill ended with a 6-4 vote down party lines. Democrats on the subcommittee, noting that the bill was unconstitutional, also objected to the visual their discussion created: the 10-person subcommittee is entirely made up of men. Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan put it this way, according to the Huffington Posts's report on the markup: "No good has ever come from an all-male committee deciding the law about a woman's body. This is not appropriate."
..................................................................................................................................
The Unconstitutional Abortion Bill That's Advancing Through the House
By Abby Ohlheiser, June 4, 2013
Republican Representative Trent Franks wanted this May to be the sequel to America's "Newtown moment" on gun control. But instead of pushing for background checks, Franks is trying to pass a nationwide ban on abortions after 20 weeks. Even though his pitch — America would be so outraged by the Gosnell trial that they'd support, even demand, legislation similar to his — didn't pan out, the bill itself is still making its way through the House.
Today, the bill (which originally only applied to D.C) was passed along by a House Judiciary subcommittee chaired by Franks in an expanded form — if it were to become law, which seems unlikely, it would now apply nationwide. The bill will move to the full committee, chaired by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va, who has a pretty consistent anti-abortion voting record. Franks, in a statement, declared today a personal win:
"I understand the unfortunate reality that today's markup will be surrounded by some degree of controversy. But we, as a nation, find ourselves at a point at which we don't offer unborn children even the most basic protections – even protections we extend to animals and property. The trial of Kermit Gosnell exposed late abortions for what they really are: relocated infanticide...I pray we use this as a 'teachable moment,' in the words of President Obama, and can agree that, at the very least, we are better than dismembering babies who can feel every excruciating moment. I look forward to the bill's moving on the full judiciary committee and to an eventual vote on this necessary, common-sense measure."Franks's bill is called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and is similar to a state law in Franks's home state of Arizona, recently struck down in a federal court. It would ban abortions after 20 weeks, with exceptions only if the mother's life is in danger. In other words, later-term abortions for pregnancies resulting from incest, rape, and those that could pose significant (but non-lethal) health threats to the mother would be outlawed. The percentage of abortions affected in the country by the bill would be tiny — just 1.5 percent of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. So why would anti-abortion activists aim so low? Because the bill, if it became law, and if it survived a constitutional challenge (reminder: those are pretty big "if's"), would change the constitutional standard for determining the legality of abortions. As we explained before, the cut-off point of 20 weeks is based on what's called the fetal pain standard, which relies on a scientifically disputed claim that fetuses can feel pain at that point. That's against the precedent set by the Supreme Court, which has ruled that abortions are legal so long as the fetus isn't "viable," which is usually around 24 weeks. Any law like Franks's would, by going against that precedent, likely see a swift challenge in court, which is exactly what anti-abortion opponents are hoping for.
Today's Constitution and Civil Justice subcommittee markup of the bill ended with a 6-4 vote down party lines. Democrats on the subcommittee, noting that the bill was unconstitutional, also objected to the visual their discussion created: the 10-person subcommittee is entirely made up of men. Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan put it this way, according to the Huffington Posts's report on the markup: "No good has ever come from an all-male committee deciding the law about a woman's body. This is not appropriate."
..................................................................................................................................
Rumsfeld the incompetent needs to add another rule: shut the EFF up!
..................................................................................................................................
Donald Rumsfeld 'Can't Tell' if Obama Wants the Terrorists to Win
By Philip Bump, June 4, 2013
Unearthed by James Carter IV (of the "President Carter" Carters and the 47 percent video) and first shared by Talking Points Memo is this bit of video amazement. In it, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense under Bush, jokingly suggests that he "can't tell" if maybe President Obama now wants the terrorists to win the War on Terror.
A member of the audience at an interview between Rumsfeld and conservative writer David Horowitz posted yesterday prompts the response. He asks, "As you go around the country, do you have … the same sort of sinking that the rest of us have, that [Obama has] actually switched sides in the war on terror?" The audience applauds.
Rumsfeld grunts. "You know, I just don't feel competent to answer. I just can't tell."
Rumsfeld, on tour for his book Rumsfeld's Rules, notes that Obama campaigned in opposition to the anti-terror tools Bush put into place — renditions, military commissions, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo. But Obama kept most of them. "I think he still would prefer they didn't exist," Rumsfeld continues — then noting that the Bush administration didn't want them to exist, either. So it's not clear what constitutes the big differentiator between Obama and his old boss.
Except: "I have no idea what he thinks or how he operates," he concludes, "other than — it bothers me greatly that he's unwilling to identify the enemy." Rumsfeld was always very good at identifying the enemy. They can be found "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
It appears, then, that for the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to demonstrate his loyalty to the Armed Forces, he must do two things. One: Bring back forced renditions. And, two: Insist that the terrorists are everywhere, waiting, lurking. Only then will he earn Rumsfeld's respect.
..................................................................................................................................
Donald Rumsfeld 'Can't Tell' if Obama Wants the Terrorists to Win
By Philip Bump, June 4, 2013
Unearthed by James Carter IV (of the "President Carter" Carters and the 47 percent video) and first shared by Talking Points Memo is this bit of video amazement. In it, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense under Bush, jokingly suggests that he "can't tell" if maybe President Obama now wants the terrorists to win the War on Terror.
A member of the audience at an interview between Rumsfeld and conservative writer David Horowitz posted yesterday prompts the response. He asks, "As you go around the country, do you have … the same sort of sinking that the rest of us have, that [Obama has] actually switched sides in the war on terror?" The audience applauds.
Rumsfeld grunts. "You know, I just don't feel competent to answer. I just can't tell."
Rumsfeld, on tour for his book Rumsfeld's Rules, notes that Obama campaigned in opposition to the anti-terror tools Bush put into place — renditions, military commissions, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo. But Obama kept most of them. "I think he still would prefer they didn't exist," Rumsfeld continues — then noting that the Bush administration didn't want them to exist, either. So it's not clear what constitutes the big differentiator between Obama and his old boss.
Except: "I have no idea what he thinks or how he operates," he concludes, "other than — it bothers me greatly that he's unwilling to identify the enemy." Rumsfeld was always very good at identifying the enemy. They can be found "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
It appears, then, that for the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to demonstrate his loyalty to the Armed Forces, he must do two things. One: Bring back forced renditions. And, two: Insist that the terrorists are everywhere, waiting, lurking. Only then will he earn Rumsfeld's respect.
..................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Grassley is doing good, old-fashioned politics dressed up as court packing
..................................................................................................................................
Obama Picks Pawns in Political Fight as GOP Aims to Cut Down D.C. Circuit Court
Flanked by his nominees for seats on the D.C. Circuit Court, President Obama’s stern words about Republican obstructionism didn’t dampen the celebratory mood evident in the Rose Garden among the assembled guests, including Democratic lawmakers, liberal advocacy groups, and even embattled Attorney General Eric Holder, looking relaxed as he chatted with well-wishers on a sunny Tuesday morning. This is a showdown that Democrats have wanted for a long time, and when Obama said his efforts to fill three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit are not “court-packing,” as some Republicans allege, laughter rippled through the crowd even as the nominees kept their poker faces in an exemplary display of judicial temperament.
The phrase invokes FDR’s failed attempt to add more judges to a Supreme Court of aged men who were striking down his New Deal legislation. “It’s a classic case of neo-Orwellian Republican language distortion,” says Matt Bennett with Third Way, a moderate Democratic group. “It’s more than a stretch; it’s an outright untruth.”
Still, it’s a bell ringer with partisans on both sides, bolstering the narrative among Republicans that Obama is power hungry and hell-bent on packing the court with liberals, and the narrative among Democrats that Republicans will stop at nothing to block the president’s agenda.
“Forget about FDR,” protests Grassley in a phone interview with The Daily Beast. He took great umbrage with the idea that what he’s doing is political, pointing out that his concern about a bloated D.C. Circuit Court predate Obama. “I agreed with Bush 90 percent of the time, and I took away a seat from him. Just because I happen to disagree with Obama most of the time doesn’t have anything to do with it.” Grassley says he wants to save the taxpayers money, and that Obama has plenty of other vacancies he can fill without turning the D.C. Circuit Court into a political crisis.
There is a principled way to alter the size of a circuit court, and Grassley was part of a Senate effort in 2007 to reduce the D.C. court from 12 to its current 11 seats, shifting one seat to the Ninth Circuit Court in California with Democrat Dianne Feinstein’s backing. Lawmakers made the change effective after the next election and without knowing which party would have the White House. They acted upon the recommendation of the Judicial Conference that oversees U.S. judges. And most significantly, the legislation was bipartisan.
In the current situation, however, the Judicial Conference has not called for any change in the number of seats allocated. “It’s hard for Republicans with a straight face to say they don’t need to fill these seats” when they voted to fill the ninth, 10th, and 11th seats on the court when President Bush was in the White House, says Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice. One of the seats Obama is attempting to fill belonged to John Roberts before Bush tapped him for the Supreme Court. It's been vacant since 2005, the result of Democratic and Republican obstruction.
Russell Wheeler, a judicial expert at the Brookings Institution, calls the GOP attempt to characterize Obama’s appointments as court packing “silly on its face,” which is why it elicited laughter in the Rose Garden. But Grassley's bill reflect the GOP's determination to curtail Obama appointees on the D.C. Circuit Court, which is recognized as second in national influence to the Supreme Court. Every Republican on the Judiciary Committee has signed on as a cosponsor with Grassley along with, somewhat surprisingly, Maine Republican Susan Collins, who Democrats speculate is under pressure to prove her conservative bona fides in anticipation of a potential primary challenge.
The three nominees—District Court Judge Robert Leon Wilkins, Georgetown Law Professor Cornelia Pillard, and Attorney Patricia Ann Millett—are highly qualified and noncontroversial choices. The Senate confirmed Wilkins unanimously in 2010; Pillard has argued landmark cases before the Supreme Court, and Millett served in both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
The fight is not about the nominees or their credentials; they are pawns in a larger political game: GOP efforts to draw a line in the sand on the D.C. court, and to cut its size before Obama can add more Democrats to it. Of the eight sitting judges, four are Republican appointees. The four Democratic appointees include Sri Srinivasan, unanimously confirmed last month after Republicans had held up an earlier Obama nominee, Caitlin Halligan, for two and a half years.
For Obama, this is personal; it’s a fight about his agenda. “This court is pretty conservative, no doubt about it, and it’s a roadblock for Obama regularly,” says Wheeler. What really got Obama’s attention was early this year when the court went against 150 years of history with an extremely broad decision declaring Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and appointments to the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional. “He faces a court that is hostile to his agenda and willing to overturn it every opportunity they get,” says Aron, who with other liberal advocates has pressed Obama for some time to get more aggressive with his judicial nominations.
Grassley bases his case for downsizing the D.C. Circuit Court on its workload of only 108 cases per judge, a number that Wheeler says is accurate but misleading because it doesn’t take into account the nature of the cases before the court, which tend to involve national security and regulatory reform and are far more time- and labor-intensive than the contract disputes and prisoner appeals that make up the bulk of work in other circuits.
“There’s a lot of hypocrisy with this particular proposal,” says Adam Skaggs, senior counsel at the Brennan Center. He notes that Grassley was among those who voted unanimously to confirm Iowa public defender Jane Kelly to the Eighth Circuit Court, which by some metrics has the lowest workload of any of the circuits. “You can search long and hard for consistency around the stated justifications he’s (Grassley) put forth, and you’re not going to find it,” says Skaggs, who calls what Grassley is doing good, old-fashioned politics dressed up as court packing.
“It’s either the height of political cynicism or he’s disingenuous. It just doesn’t pass the laugh test.”
..................................................................................................................................
Obama Picks Pawns in Political Fight as GOP Aims to Cut Down D.C. Circuit Court
Sen. Chuck Grassley wants to reduce the number of judges on the powerful appellate court—just as the president aims to fill its vacant seats.
By Eleanor Clift, JFlanked by his nominees for seats on the D.C. Circuit Court, President Obama’s stern words about Republican obstructionism didn’t dampen the celebratory mood evident in the Rose Garden among the assembled guests, including Democratic lawmakers, liberal advocacy groups, and even embattled Attorney General Eric Holder, looking relaxed as he chatted with well-wishers on a sunny Tuesday morning. This is a showdown that Democrats have wanted for a long time, and when Obama said his efforts to fill three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit are not “court-packing,” as some Republicans allege, laughter rippled through the crowd even as the nominees kept their poker faces in an exemplary display of judicial temperament.
The phrase invokes FDR’s failed attempt to add more judges to a Supreme Court of aged men who were striking down his New Deal legislation. “It’s a classic case of neo-Orwellian Republican language distortion,” says Matt Bennett with Third Way, a moderate Democratic group. “It’s more than a stretch; it’s an outright untruth.”
Still, it’s a bell ringer with partisans on both sides, bolstering the narrative among Republicans that Obama is power hungry and hell-bent on packing the court with liberals, and the narrative among Democrats that Republicans will stop at nothing to block the president’s agenda.
“Forget about FDR,” protests Grassley in a phone interview with The Daily Beast. He took great umbrage with the idea that what he’s doing is political, pointing out that his concern about a bloated D.C. Circuit Court predate Obama. “I agreed with Bush 90 percent of the time, and I took away a seat from him. Just because I happen to disagree with Obama most of the time doesn’t have anything to do with it.” Grassley says he wants to save the taxpayers money, and that Obama has plenty of other vacancies he can fill without turning the D.C. Circuit Court into a political crisis.
There is a principled way to alter the size of a circuit court, and Grassley was part of a Senate effort in 2007 to reduce the D.C. court from 12 to its current 11 seats, shifting one seat to the Ninth Circuit Court in California with Democrat Dianne Feinstein’s backing. Lawmakers made the change effective after the next election and without knowing which party would have the White House. They acted upon the recommendation of the Judicial Conference that oversees U.S. judges. And most significantly, the legislation was bipartisan.
In the current situation, however, the Judicial Conference has not called for any change in the number of seats allocated. “It’s hard for Republicans with a straight face to say they don’t need to fill these seats” when they voted to fill the ninth, 10th, and 11th seats on the court when President Bush was in the White House, says Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice. One of the seats Obama is attempting to fill belonged to John Roberts before Bush tapped him for the Supreme Court. It's been vacant since 2005, the result of Democratic and Republican obstruction.
Russell Wheeler, a judicial expert at the Brookings Institution, calls the GOP attempt to characterize Obama’s appointments as court packing “silly on its face,” which is why it elicited laughter in the Rose Garden. But Grassley's bill reflect the GOP's determination to curtail Obama appointees on the D.C. Circuit Court, which is recognized as second in national influence to the Supreme Court. Every Republican on the Judiciary Committee has signed on as a cosponsor with Grassley along with, somewhat surprisingly, Maine Republican Susan Collins, who Democrats speculate is under pressure to prove her conservative bona fides in anticipation of a potential primary challenge.
The three nominees—District Court Judge Robert Leon Wilkins, Georgetown Law Professor Cornelia Pillard, and Attorney Patricia Ann Millett—are highly qualified and noncontroversial choices. The Senate confirmed Wilkins unanimously in 2010; Pillard has argued landmark cases before the Supreme Court, and Millett served in both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
The fight is not about the nominees or their credentials; they are pawns in a larger political game: GOP efforts to draw a line in the sand on the D.C. court, and to cut its size before Obama can add more Democrats to it. Of the eight sitting judges, four are Republican appointees. The four Democratic appointees include Sri Srinivasan, unanimously confirmed last month after Republicans had held up an earlier Obama nominee, Caitlin Halligan, for two and a half years.
For Obama, this is personal; it’s a fight about his agenda. “This court is pretty conservative, no doubt about it, and it’s a roadblock for Obama regularly,” says Wheeler. What really got Obama’s attention was early this year when the court went against 150 years of history with an extremely broad decision declaring Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and appointments to the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional. “He faces a court that is hostile to his agenda and willing to overturn it every opportunity they get,” says Aron, who with other liberal advocates has pressed Obama for some time to get more aggressive with his judicial nominations.
Grassley bases his case for downsizing the D.C. Circuit Court on its workload of only 108 cases per judge, a number that Wheeler says is accurate but misleading because it doesn’t take into account the nature of the cases before the court, which tend to involve national security and regulatory reform and are far more time- and labor-intensive than the contract disputes and prisoner appeals that make up the bulk of work in other circuits.
“There’s a lot of hypocrisy with this particular proposal,” says Adam Skaggs, senior counsel at the Brennan Center. He notes that Grassley was among those who voted unanimously to confirm Iowa public defender Jane Kelly to the Eighth Circuit Court, which by some metrics has the lowest workload of any of the circuits. “You can search long and hard for consistency around the stated justifications he’s (Grassley) put forth, and you’re not going to find it,” says Skaggs, who calls what Grassley is doing good, old-fashioned politics dressed up as court packing.
“It’s either the height of political cynicism or he’s disingenuous. It just doesn’t pass the laugh test.”
..................................................................................................................................
Wow, yet another "demagogic Republican"!
..................................................................................................................................
How Darrell Issa Undermines the GOP’s IRS Issue
By Joe Gandelman, June 5, 2013
Quick: someone call a chiropractor for California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa. He’s overreached so far his arm may separate from his shoulder. Even some key figures in his party are suggesting he needs an adjustment. F-a-s-t.
Issa, a self-made millionaire who became famous — or infamous, depending on one’s perspective — when his $1.6 million donation helped propel the successful 2003 effort to recall California’s inept Gov. Grey Davis, is the increasingly high-profile, hyper-partisan Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He’s known for declaring he’ll hold hearings on something that’ll prove wrong-doing on the part of the White House and bust the town wide open. His hearings usually are a bust.
His latest escapade is a case of quintessential political self-destruction. Angry over the White House line in the scandal over the IRS targeting conservative groups, Issa called White House Press Secretary Jay Carney a “paid liar.” Forget for a minute that all politicians — including Issa — have press secretaries who give information their bosses give them to the press. Issa’s harsh language immediately made him seem more like fill-in host for conservative talker Mark Levin rather than a serious Congressional investigator.
Significantly, Democrats seemed almost gleefully delighted to respond, while Republicans began discreetly began scurrying away from him.
Former White House advisor David Plouffe on Twitter noted all the dropped charges and unproven suspicions from Issa’s past: “Strong words from Mr. Grand Theft Auto and suspected arsonist/insurance swindler. And loose ethically today.” Former White House Press secretary Robert Gibbs called Issa’s charge “stunning” and said Americans “want to see the IRS cleaned up, but they will understand quickly that Darrell Issa is doing nothing more than politicizing this event.”
Republican Joe Scarborough said Issa’s language made him look bad. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham on Fox said there was “no evidence” the White House directed the IRS probes and added: “Let’s not make it personal. Jay Carney is not the issue here. He’s the spokesman for the White House.” Arizona Sen. John McCain on CBS said he didn’t like the word liar: “I think that we should let these investigations take their course, let the facts come out.”
The National Journal’s Ron Fournier, who often irks both parties, wrote: “Meet the best friend of a controversy-plagued Democratic White House: a demagogic Republican. In a reminder of how the GOP overreached during the Clinton-era sex scandal, Issa doesn’t seem capable of letting damning facts speak for themselves.”
Meanwhile, George W. Bush’s former speechwriter David Frum announced he was ending his blog at The Daily Beast due to some family tragedies and offered some parting key points for conservative reformers. One of them should be read by Issa:
“Now Republicans are working themselves into a frenzy that will paralyze Congress for the next 18 months at least, and could well lead to an impeachment crisis,” Frum wrote. “As it becomes clear that the IRS story is an agency scandal, not a White House scandal, conservative reformers need to be ready to do their part to apply the brakes and turn the steering wheel. There will be a Republican president again someday, and that president will need American political institutions to work. Republicans also lose as those institutions degenerate.”
Issa isn’t acting as if he’s stewarding a committee in a great institution seeking to learn the truth. He’s acting like a hyper-partisan with investigative powers who has already judged and desperately seeks something on the other party. He has not proven a thing yet. And, in the process, he’s destroying his own credibility — and the seriousness of questions raised about the IRS.
Which should worry a lot of Republicans. And please the White House.
..................................................................................................................................
How Darrell Issa Undermines the GOP’s IRS Issue
By Joe Gandelman, June 5, 2013
Quick: someone call a chiropractor for California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa. He’s overreached so far his arm may separate from his shoulder. Even some key figures in his party are suggesting he needs an adjustment. F-a-s-t.
Issa, a self-made millionaire who became famous — or infamous, depending on one’s perspective — when his $1.6 million donation helped propel the successful 2003 effort to recall California’s inept Gov. Grey Davis, is the increasingly high-profile, hyper-partisan Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He’s known for declaring he’ll hold hearings on something that’ll prove wrong-doing on the part of the White House and bust the town wide open. His hearings usually are a bust.
His latest escapade is a case of quintessential political self-destruction. Angry over the White House line in the scandal over the IRS targeting conservative groups, Issa called White House Press Secretary Jay Carney a “paid liar.” Forget for a minute that all politicians — including Issa — have press secretaries who give information their bosses give them to the press. Issa’s harsh language immediately made him seem more like fill-in host for conservative talker Mark Levin rather than a serious Congressional investigator.
Significantly, Democrats seemed almost gleefully delighted to respond, while Republicans began discreetly began scurrying away from him.
Former White House advisor David Plouffe on Twitter noted all the dropped charges and unproven suspicions from Issa’s past: “Strong words from Mr. Grand Theft Auto and suspected arsonist/insurance swindler. And loose ethically today.” Former White House Press secretary Robert Gibbs called Issa’s charge “stunning” and said Americans “want to see the IRS cleaned up, but they will understand quickly that Darrell Issa is doing nothing more than politicizing this event.”
Republican Joe Scarborough said Issa’s language made him look bad. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham on Fox said there was “no evidence” the White House directed the IRS probes and added: “Let’s not make it personal. Jay Carney is not the issue here. He’s the spokesman for the White House.” Arizona Sen. John McCain on CBS said he didn’t like the word liar: “I think that we should let these investigations take their course, let the facts come out.”
The National Journal’s Ron Fournier, who often irks both parties, wrote: “Meet the best friend of a controversy-plagued Democratic White House: a demagogic Republican. In a reminder of how the GOP overreached during the Clinton-era sex scandal, Issa doesn’t seem capable of letting damning facts speak for themselves.”
Meanwhile, George W. Bush’s former speechwriter David Frum announced he was ending his blog at The Daily Beast due to some family tragedies and offered some parting key points for conservative reformers. One of them should be read by Issa:
“Now Republicans are working themselves into a frenzy that will paralyze Congress for the next 18 months at least, and could well lead to an impeachment crisis,” Frum wrote. “As it becomes clear that the IRS story is an agency scandal, not a White House scandal, conservative reformers need to be ready to do their part to apply the brakes and turn the steering wheel. There will be a Republican president again someday, and that president will need American political institutions to work. Republicans also lose as those institutions degenerate.”
Issa isn’t acting as if he’s stewarding a committee in a great institution seeking to learn the truth. He’s acting like a hyper-partisan with investigative powers who has already judged and desperately seeks something on the other party. He has not proven a thing yet. And, in the process, he’s destroying his own credibility — and the seriousness of questions raised about the IRS.
Which should worry a lot of Republicans. And please the White House.
..................................................................................................................................
No such thing as “robust independent” journalists?
..................................................................................................................................
The end times of political reporting? A response.
By Dan Hazelwood, June 4, 2013
Our piece on whether or not the end of political reporting is near drew lots and lots of, well, let’s call it feedback. One spirited rebuttal came from Dan Hazelwood, a Republican direct mail consultant. Dan agreed to let us publish his thoughts, which put the blame squarely on reporters and with which we, largely, disagree. His thoughts appear below unedited.
“Reporting is under assault by a political class.”
Au contraire, my friend. Reporting has been shredded by members of the industry called journalism. We lived in a moment for a few years where we pretended this bunk about the fourth estate. The reality is, perhaps sadly, that for nearly the entire history of the Republic press/media have been partisan. It was true in 1792 and in 1813, 1913 and still in 2013. Yes there are some journalists who tilt at the windmill and try to be independent. I would give you credit for clearly trying to stay away from one partisan side or another.
But there is no such thing as “robust independent” journalists. There may be journalists that don’t react on orders and will chase off on what they find interesting. But that is far and away the exception. They are in the business—the failing business—of trying to get eyeballs on their paper, newscast or computer screen.
What do journalists aspire to now? They want to be on the talking head shows. So they slash and call it news, because that is what gets ratings.
Even flip open your paper. There are editorials scattered throughout the paper as columns and news analysis, long before you get to the editorial page.
Then [there is] the absolute incompetence of political reporting at most levels around the country, where writing stories about polls, or receiving planted opposition research from the other side and passing it off as their own “research” is considered respectable.
Stories are driven by what blogs are saying, because the reporter wants a fig leaf argument to write their agenda. I am not saying the agenda is universally liberal, but it is close to universally partisan.
Roll out the cable shows that are shout and spin fests. That is what is leading “political journalism”. The line between commentary, partisan and journalist isn’t blurry. It is GONE in most cases and to the public eye.
Why should ANYONE grant sole discretionary power to journalists — a self-selecting group that delivers partisan viewpoints. The voters don’t trust them now either, which explains why readership is collapsing.
Journalists need to set their own house in order. They can’t go on Chris Matthews or Bill Maher and endorse those shows’ credibility and keep their own.
Then the story often written by journalists in politics are always process and who is up and down. That is OK if that is your mission. But [the] reporting on a host of political issues is way too often through the political lens. That is not what the public wants. There are clear differences and debatable policy differences on countless issues. But the lead cover story is always how this helps or hurts some partisan figure or agenda.
It wasn’t that long ago where a lot of towns had a Republican paper and Democrat[ic] paper. And the local TV affiliates were allied to lesser degrees. Now one paper is gone and the other is struggling, and stories are process-based on what the news people have been told to pay attention to or harassed by staff to report on. But if a reporter thinks a race isn’t going to be exciting they barely go through the exercise of the token article that repeats bios and has two lines on issues. Maybe that is a product of the decimation of the staff. But that leads the news consumers to look elsewhere for the content, so the news business has further declines in revenue.
If journalism wants to cover politics it should say every week we will have one story at least about every political figure in our market at the federal level. And it will include their opponent and it will not be slogan- but issue-based. And every week the story cannot be the same issue (abortion and tea party and Obamacare angle).
So reporting isn’t under assault by the political class. As I have said, political reporters are part of the political class. Gleefully so. They have all the foibles and blind spots of human beings. Now the political operative wing of the political class has a giant load of problems of its own. But journalists should only blame themselves, because they’ve done it to themselves.
..................................................................................................................................
The end times of political reporting? A response.
By Dan Hazelwood, June 4, 2013
Our piece on whether or not the end of political reporting is near drew lots and lots of, well, let’s call it feedback. One spirited rebuttal came from Dan Hazelwood, a Republican direct mail consultant. Dan agreed to let us publish his thoughts, which put the blame squarely on reporters and with which we, largely, disagree. His thoughts appear below unedited.
“Reporting is under assault by a political class.”
Au contraire, my friend. Reporting has been shredded by members of the industry called journalism. We lived in a moment for a few years where we pretended this bunk about the fourth estate. The reality is, perhaps sadly, that for nearly the entire history of the Republic press/media have been partisan. It was true in 1792 and in 1813, 1913 and still in 2013. Yes there are some journalists who tilt at the windmill and try to be independent. I would give you credit for clearly trying to stay away from one partisan side or another.
But there is no such thing as “robust independent” journalists. There may be journalists that don’t react on orders and will chase off on what they find interesting. But that is far and away the exception. They are in the business—the failing business—of trying to get eyeballs on their paper, newscast or computer screen.
What do journalists aspire to now? They want to be on the talking head shows. So they slash and call it news, because that is what gets ratings.
Even flip open your paper. There are editorials scattered throughout the paper as columns and news analysis, long before you get to the editorial page.
Then [there is] the absolute incompetence of political reporting at most levels around the country, where writing stories about polls, or receiving planted opposition research from the other side and passing it off as their own “research” is considered respectable.
Stories are driven by what blogs are saying, because the reporter wants a fig leaf argument to write their agenda. I am not saying the agenda is universally liberal, but it is close to universally partisan.
Roll out the cable shows that are shout and spin fests. That is what is leading “political journalism”. The line between commentary, partisan and journalist isn’t blurry. It is GONE in most cases and to the public eye.
Why should ANYONE grant sole discretionary power to journalists — a self-selecting group that delivers partisan viewpoints. The voters don’t trust them now either, which explains why readership is collapsing.
Journalists need to set their own house in order. They can’t go on Chris Matthews or Bill Maher and endorse those shows’ credibility and keep their own.
Then the story often written by journalists in politics are always process and who is up and down. That is OK if that is your mission. But [the] reporting on a host of political issues is way too often through the political lens. That is not what the public wants. There are clear differences and debatable policy differences on countless issues. But the lead cover story is always how this helps or hurts some partisan figure or agenda.
It wasn’t that long ago where a lot of towns had a Republican paper and Democrat[ic] paper. And the local TV affiliates were allied to lesser degrees. Now one paper is gone and the other is struggling, and stories are process-based on what the news people have been told to pay attention to or harassed by staff to report on. But if a reporter thinks a race isn’t going to be exciting they barely go through the exercise of the token article that repeats bios and has two lines on issues. Maybe that is a product of the decimation of the staff. But that leads the news consumers to look elsewhere for the content, so the news business has further declines in revenue.
If journalism wants to cover politics it should say every week we will have one story at least about every political figure in our market at the federal level. And it will include their opponent and it will not be slogan- but issue-based. And every week the story cannot be the same issue (abortion and tea party and Obamacare angle).
So reporting isn’t under assault by the political class. As I have said, political reporters are part of the political class. Gleefully so. They have all the foibles and blind spots of human beings. Now the political operative wing of the political class has a giant load of problems of its own. But journalists should only blame themselves, because they’ve done it to themselves.
..................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Six hearings on the IRS issue-- how many is too many?
..................................................................................................................................
The IRS is a good political issue for Republicans. But are they in danger of overreaching on it?
By Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan, June 3, 2013
Congress returns to Washington this week with a schedule chock full of hearings in the Republican-controlled House focused on the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups.
On Monday, a House Appropriations subcommittee will be in the national spotlight as acting IRS director Danny Werfel testifies before Congress for the first time since being named to the job in the wake of last month’s scandal. On Tuesday, conservative groups flagged by the IRS will testify before the House Ways and Means Committee. On Thursday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold hearings on spending by the IRS.
By the end of the week, there will have been six hearings in the House or Senate regarding the IRS’s scandal, which leads to the question: How many is too many?
“My suspicion is Republicans in Congress will stay too obsessed,” former White House senior adviser David Plouffe predicted in an appearance on ABC’s “This Week” program Sunday. “Kind of surfing scandals, trying to repeal Obamacare for the 40th time, and less on the economy, and doing the job they were sent [to do].”
Karl Rove, the chief political strategist for George W. Bush’s presidency, acknowledged that he worries “a little bit” about the possibility of overreach, particularly if his party loses sight of the need to offer its own vision on the economy.
Rove may be the most visible Republican to admit a bit of concern about the possibility of his side going down a political rabbit hole over the next few years, but he is not the only one. That said, most of the concern in the professional political class is a single-minded focus by their party on Benghazi, not on the IRS. (Rove, too, defended the IRS investigation, calling the actions taken by the agency as “worthy of a third-world country, not the United States.”)
What remains to be seen is how long Congressional GOPers can — and should – continue to focus on the agency and its admitted wrongdoing if no new revelations tying the IRS’s targeting to senior administration officials arise.
At the moment, the American public seems perfectly comfortable with how Republicans are handling the IRS scandal. A CNN poll showed that the majority of Americans believe GOPers have reacted appropriately to the IRS revelations while more than three-quarters of respondents think a special prosecutor should be appointed to further investigate the wrongdoing, according to a Quinnipiac University survey.
Plouffe’s suggestion of overreach is designed to do two things: 1. Raise the image of the late 1990s and impeachment, which backfired for Republicans, in the minds of the political world. 2. Send a signal to Democrats — elected officials, operatives and the like — that the best message going forward is one that focuses on why Republicans continue to take their eye off the economic ball.
So much of how the IRS plays politically depends on whether (and how much) new information comes out from either the hearings this week or in the weeks to come. If Republicans unearth nothing new — or nothing major — there may come a time when it behooves them politically to begin to refocus on other topics. If, however, the IRS and administration continues (as they have) to struggle to get their collective story straight on what happened and why, this could wind up being a deep electoral vein well worth the time spent mining it by Republicans.
..................................................................................................................................
The IRS is a good political issue for Republicans. But are they in danger of overreaching on it?
By Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan, June 3, 2013
Congress returns to Washington this week with a schedule chock full of hearings in the Republican-controlled House focused on the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups.
On Monday, a House Appropriations subcommittee will be in the national spotlight as acting IRS director Danny Werfel testifies before Congress for the first time since being named to the job in the wake of last month’s scandal. On Tuesday, conservative groups flagged by the IRS will testify before the House Ways and Means Committee. On Thursday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold hearings on spending by the IRS.
By the end of the week, there will have been six hearings in the House or Senate regarding the IRS’s scandal, which leads to the question: How many is too many?
“My suspicion is Republicans in Congress will stay too obsessed,” former White House senior adviser David Plouffe predicted in an appearance on ABC’s “This Week” program Sunday. “Kind of surfing scandals, trying to repeal Obamacare for the 40th time, and less on the economy, and doing the job they were sent [to do].”
Karl Rove, the chief political strategist for George W. Bush’s presidency, acknowledged that he worries “a little bit” about the possibility of overreach, particularly if his party loses sight of the need to offer its own vision on the economy.
Rove may be the most visible Republican to admit a bit of concern about the possibility of his side going down a political rabbit hole over the next few years, but he is not the only one. That said, most of the concern in the professional political class is a single-minded focus by their party on Benghazi, not on the IRS. (Rove, too, defended the IRS investigation, calling the actions taken by the agency as “worthy of a third-world country, not the United States.”)
What remains to be seen is how long Congressional GOPers can — and should – continue to focus on the agency and its admitted wrongdoing if no new revelations tying the IRS’s targeting to senior administration officials arise.
At the moment, the American public seems perfectly comfortable with how Republicans are handling the IRS scandal. A CNN poll showed that the majority of Americans believe GOPers have reacted appropriately to the IRS revelations while more than three-quarters of respondents think a special prosecutor should be appointed to further investigate the wrongdoing, according to a Quinnipiac University survey.
Plouffe’s suggestion of overreach is designed to do two things: 1. Raise the image of the late 1990s and impeachment, which backfired for Republicans, in the minds of the political world. 2. Send a signal to Democrats — elected officials, operatives and the like — that the best message going forward is one that focuses on why Republicans continue to take their eye off the economic ball.
So much of how the IRS plays politically depends on whether (and how much) new information comes out from either the hearings this week or in the weeks to come. If Republicans unearth nothing new — or nothing major — there may come a time when it behooves them politically to begin to refocus on other topics. If, however, the IRS and administration continues (as they have) to struggle to get their collective story straight on what happened and why, this could wind up being a deep electoral vein well worth the time spent mining it by Republicans.
..................................................................................................................................
Thankfully, Paul Ryan is not VP! It's bad enough that he sits in Congress
..................................................................................................................................
Paul Ryan Slams Jim McDermott For Calling IRS Investigation 'Political Theater'
By Gabrielle Dunkley, June 4, 2013
During a congressional hearing on Tuesday surrounding the investigation of the Internal Service Revenue targeting conservative groups, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) decided to deviate from his original line of questioning to react to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) calling the IRS scandal "political theater."
At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing, McDermott acknowledged that members from the IRS staff did make mistakes, calling their actions "inept" and "stupid," but he argued that it was not a part of a conspiracy. McDermott claimed that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) did not concern himself with similar targeting of liberal groups during the Bush administration.
"The mistake here was that the staff organizing the organizations used the names of the organizations rather than the work they do and asked improper questions to figure that out," McDermott said. "It's clearly wrong. It was inept, stupid and a whole lot of other things. But let's not get lost. During the Bush administration, liberal groups were targeted without any concern by Mr. Issa or anyone else on this committee. The Republicans were looking for a conspiracy where there isn't one. Mr. Issa says 'he can feel it in his gut' that someone's broken the law."
"Just ask yourself which is more likely," McDermott continued. "That mid-level employees overwhelmed by four-times as many applications as before made stupid, irresponsible shortcuts? Or that there is an administration-wide plot to take down community organizers. Let's not forget that this happened under an IRS commissioner appointed by George Bush and was investigated by a Republican inspector general."
McDermott went on to say that while what happened was an "unfair" and "incredibly inconvenient" mistake, he reaffirmed that he had not "heard a single word" about which questions should be asked regarding tax-exempt requests.
"Anything else like the circus that's happening in the Oversight committee or here is simply political theater," McDermott said. "It is diverting attention from what we ought to be doing on this committee is re-writing the law if it's wrong."
During Ryan's turn to speak, he announced he would address what McDermott said rather than go forward with his original question.
"I'm going to deviate from my original question in response to what I just heard," Ryan said, followed by applause from attendees at the congressional hearing. "Welcome to Washington."
Ryan then criticized former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, saying he knew about the targeting long before Congress was told. He added that Shulman implied that conservative organizations were responsible for being targeted because they chose to apply for tax-exempt status.
"So 'you're to blame' I guess is the message here," Ryan said. "Do you think that you are targeted based upon your political beliefs, your religious beliefs or just because you chose to apply?"
"We do know -- this is one of the facts that we now know -- that people were singled out because of their beliefs," Ryan said.
..................................................................................................................................
Paul Ryan Slams Jim McDermott For Calling IRS Investigation 'Political Theater'
By Gabrielle Dunkley, June 4, 2013
During a congressional hearing on Tuesday surrounding the investigation of the Internal Service Revenue targeting conservative groups, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) decided to deviate from his original line of questioning to react to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) calling the IRS scandal "political theater."
At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing, McDermott acknowledged that members from the IRS staff did make mistakes, calling their actions "inept" and "stupid," but he argued that it was not a part of a conspiracy. McDermott claimed that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) did not concern himself with similar targeting of liberal groups during the Bush administration.
"The mistake here was that the staff organizing the organizations used the names of the organizations rather than the work they do and asked improper questions to figure that out," McDermott said. "It's clearly wrong. It was inept, stupid and a whole lot of other things. But let's not get lost. During the Bush administration, liberal groups were targeted without any concern by Mr. Issa or anyone else on this committee. The Republicans were looking for a conspiracy where there isn't one. Mr. Issa says 'he can feel it in his gut' that someone's broken the law."
"Just ask yourself which is more likely," McDermott continued. "That mid-level employees overwhelmed by four-times as many applications as before made stupid, irresponsible shortcuts? Or that there is an administration-wide plot to take down community organizers. Let's not forget that this happened under an IRS commissioner appointed by George Bush and was investigated by a Republican inspector general."
McDermott went on to say that while what happened was an "unfair" and "incredibly inconvenient" mistake, he reaffirmed that he had not "heard a single word" about which questions should be asked regarding tax-exempt requests.
"Anything else like the circus that's happening in the Oversight committee or here is simply political theater," McDermott said. "It is diverting attention from what we ought to be doing on this committee is re-writing the law if it's wrong."
During Ryan's turn to speak, he announced he would address what McDermott said rather than go forward with his original question.
"I'm going to deviate from my original question in response to what I just heard," Ryan said, followed by applause from attendees at the congressional hearing. "Welcome to Washington."
Ryan then criticized former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, saying he knew about the targeting long before Congress was told. He added that Shulman implied that conservative organizations were responsible for being targeted because they chose to apply for tax-exempt status.
"So 'you're to blame' I guess is the message here," Ryan said. "Do you think that you are targeted based upon your political beliefs, your religious beliefs or just because you chose to apply?"
"We do know -- this is one of the facts that we now know -- that people were singled out because of their beliefs," Ryan said.
..................................................................................................................................
The FLOTUS doesn't take any "$hit"!
..................................................................................................................................
Michelle Obama heckled at DNC event, threatens to leave
By Caroline May, June 4, 2013
First Lady Michelle Obama was met with a heckler Tuesday evening at a Democratic National Committee event in Washington, D.C.
A gay rights activist standing near the front of the audience began shouting for an executive order on gay rights, according to the White House pool report.
“One of the things I don’t do well is this,” Obama responded to approval from the audience.
The pool reported that Obama left the lectern toward the protestor saying that they could “listen to me or you can take the mic, but I’m leaving. You all decide. You have one choice.”
The Democratic audience begged the first lady to stay, with one woman telling the protester,” You need to go.”
The protester was escorted from the proceedings, shouting about federal equality for lesbians.
The official White House transcript of the first lady’s remarks did not include the portion of the event during which Obama threatened to leave, it did include the protester’s remarks.
The official transcript reads:
Cronk added that three other GetEQUAL activists were also at the event, two of whom are college students.
..................................................................................................................................
Michelle Obama heckled at DNC event, threatens to leave
By Caroline May, June 4, 2013
First Lady Michelle Obama was met with a heckler Tuesday evening at a Democratic National Committee event in Washington, D.C.
A gay rights activist standing near the front of the audience began shouting for an executive order on gay rights, according to the White House pool report.
“One of the things I don’t do well is this,” Obama responded to approval from the audience.
The pool reported that Obama left the lectern toward the protestor saying that they could “listen to me or you can take the mic, but I’m leaving. You all decide. You have one choice.”
The Democratic audience begged the first lady to stay, with one woman telling the protester,” You need to go.”
The protester was escorted from the proceedings, shouting about federal equality for lesbians.
The official White House transcript of the first lady’s remarks did not include the portion of the event during which Obama threatened to leave, it did include the protester’s remarks.
The official transcript reads:
So here’s the thing — we cannot wait for the next presidential election to get fired up and ready to go. We cannot wait. Right now, today, we have an obligation to stand up for those kids. And I don’t care what you believe in, we don’t –AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)MRS. OBAMA: Wait, wait, wait. One of the things –AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.) MRS. OBAMA: One of the things that I don’t do well is this. (Applause.) Do you understand? (Applause.) One of the things — now – (Inaudible audience interruption.)MRS. OBAMA: So let me make the point that I was making before: We are here for our kids. (Applause.) So we must recapture that passion, that same urgency and energy that we felt back in 2008 and 2012. Understand this. This is what I want you all to understand, this is not about us — no one back here. It’s not about you or you, or your issue or your thing. This is about our children. (Applause.)Later in the evening, the pool reported that Heather Cronk, co-director of the pro-LGBT rights group GetEQUAL identified the protester as one of their activists, Ellen Sturtz, who was calling for an executive order to prohibit sex discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Cronk added that three other GetEQUAL activists were also at the event, two of whom are college students.
..................................................................................................................................
Monday, June 3, 2013
Gee, getting blood pressures taken at a fire station is good enough for many of us!
..................................................................................................................................
Republican vs. Republican on covering uninsured
By Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar and Bob Christie, June 1, 2013
It's Republican versus Republican in the latest round of political battles over health care.
Conservative Republican legislators in major states are trying to block efforts by more pragmatic governors of their own party to accept health insurance for more low-income residents under President Barack Obama's health care law.
Unlike their congressional counterparts, who've misfired in repeated attempts to torpedo the law, state Republicans may well sink the expansion of Medicaid in populous states such as Florida and Michigan.
That would mean leaving billions of dollars in federal matching funds on the table and hundreds of thousands of the poor uninsured. Expansion opponents say it's an issue that goes to their core beliefs.
"It's an ideological principle piece to us on the conservative side," said state Rep. David Gowan, majority leader in the Arizona House of Representatives. "We don't believe in the expansion of Medicaid itself - it's within the process of mandating health care. We don't believe it's the government's duty to do that. It should be open for people to go get their health care."
Nine Republican governors supported or accepted the Medicaid expansion, a major component of the health care law taking effect Jan. 1. It's designed to provide coverage to about 20 million uninsured people if all states accept. Washington would pick up the full cost for the first three years and 90 percent over the long haul.
Those helped would mainly be low-income adults with no children at home, people working jobs that pay little and don't come with health insurance. For uninsured adults below the poverty line, expanded Medicaid is the only way to get coverage under the new law. But middle-class people will be eligible for subsidized private insurance.
Overall, 23 states plus the District of Columbia, are planning to expand their Medicaid programs. About a dozen are undecided.
The nine GOP governors supporting expansion are Jan Brewer in Arizona, Rick Scott in Florida, Terry Branstad in Iowa, Rick Snyder in Michigan, Brian Sandoval in Nevada, Chris Christie in New Jersey, Susana Martinez in New Mexico, Jack Dalrymple in North Dakota and John Kasich in Ohio.
Initially, some observers saw a shift toward pragmatism among Republicans and predicted the governors would get their way. Now experts are not so sure.
Four of the GOP governors have run into real battles. Expansion prospects are flickering in Florida and Michigan. In Ohio, Kasich's legendary deal-making abilities are being tested. In Arizona, Brewer is trying to stare down Republicans in the state House, and the coming week may determine who prevails.
"In the past, that much federal money has brought reluctant parties to the table," said economist Gail Wilensky, a Republican health policy expert who sees flaws in Obama's law but says covering the uninsured is worthwhile. "It is now looking more likely that a number of states will sit out 2014."
Legislators can dig in more easily than governors, said Alan Weil, executive director of the nonpartisan National Academy for State Health Policy.
"There is a lot of pragmatism involved in the Medicaid decision," Weil explained. "Legislators don't have operational responsibility and tend to adhere more to ideological perspectives."
Arizona's Brewer could be a study in pragmatism.
Once a staunch opponent of "Obamacare," she surprised the political world in January by announcing she would push to expand Medicaid to some 300,000 low-income Arizonans. She called it a fiscally prudent move that would return economic dividends to the state, and stressed that Arizona would back out if Washington reneged on funding.
But Brewer had to battle to get legislation through the Senate, succeeding only with the help of Democrats. The issue could come to a head as early as the coming week in the Arizona House. Brewer seems to have the edge, but her fellow Republicans are unyielding.
"We will continue to fight tooth and nail as far as we can," Gowan said.
In Ohio, Kasich has framed the Medicaid decision as a moral cause, using the language of his Christian beliefs.
The Bible runs his life "not just on Sunday, but just about every day," he said in his annual State of the State address in February.
"I can't look at the disabled, I can't look at the poor, I can't look at the mentally ill, I can't look at the addicted and think we ought to ignore them," he told lawmakers.
But fellow party members don't seem willing to make a leap of faith.
Republicans overwhelmingly control both the Ohio House and Senate. They're leery of expanding government programs and fear being stuck with any long-term costs. The Senate, where Republicans hold 23 of 33 seats, is critical.
The Senate President, Republican Keith Faber, recently told reporters that his members were still divided.
"I have yet to see a proposal that I can tell you there's a majority of my caucus that supports," said Faber.
In Washington, the head of the Catholic Health Association tells the story of a fellow nun who tried to persuade an Ohio GOP legislator to support Kasich's proposal, only to be rebuffed. Sister Carol Keehan, who backs the Medicaid expansion, says the lawmaker told the nun the uninsured could go to community health fairs for basic preventive care.
"He said, 'Sister, they can get their blood pressures taken at the fire station,'" said Keehan, whose organization represents Catholic hospitals. "Would you want your blood pressure taken at the fire station?"
..................................................................................................................................
Republican vs. Republican on covering uninsured
By Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar and Bob Christie, June 1, 2013
It's Republican versus Republican in the latest round of political battles over health care.
Conservative Republican legislators in major states are trying to block efforts by more pragmatic governors of their own party to accept health insurance for more low-income residents under President Barack Obama's health care law.
Unlike their congressional counterparts, who've misfired in repeated attempts to torpedo the law, state Republicans may well sink the expansion of Medicaid in populous states such as Florida and Michigan.
That would mean leaving billions of dollars in federal matching funds on the table and hundreds of thousands of the poor uninsured. Expansion opponents say it's an issue that goes to their core beliefs.
"It's an ideological principle piece to us on the conservative side," said state Rep. David Gowan, majority leader in the Arizona House of Representatives. "We don't believe in the expansion of Medicaid itself - it's within the process of mandating health care. We don't believe it's the government's duty to do that. It should be open for people to go get their health care."
Nine Republican governors supported or accepted the Medicaid expansion, a major component of the health care law taking effect Jan. 1. It's designed to provide coverage to about 20 million uninsured people if all states accept. Washington would pick up the full cost for the first three years and 90 percent over the long haul.
Those helped would mainly be low-income adults with no children at home, people working jobs that pay little and don't come with health insurance. For uninsured adults below the poverty line, expanded Medicaid is the only way to get coverage under the new law. But middle-class people will be eligible for subsidized private insurance.
Overall, 23 states plus the District of Columbia, are planning to expand their Medicaid programs. About a dozen are undecided.
The nine GOP governors supporting expansion are Jan Brewer in Arizona, Rick Scott in Florida, Terry Branstad in Iowa, Rick Snyder in Michigan, Brian Sandoval in Nevada, Chris Christie in New Jersey, Susana Martinez in New Mexico, Jack Dalrymple in North Dakota and John Kasich in Ohio.
Initially, some observers saw a shift toward pragmatism among Republicans and predicted the governors would get their way. Now experts are not so sure.
Four of the GOP governors have run into real battles. Expansion prospects are flickering in Florida and Michigan. In Ohio, Kasich's legendary deal-making abilities are being tested. In Arizona, Brewer is trying to stare down Republicans in the state House, and the coming week may determine who prevails.
"In the past, that much federal money has brought reluctant parties to the table," said economist Gail Wilensky, a Republican health policy expert who sees flaws in Obama's law but says covering the uninsured is worthwhile. "It is now looking more likely that a number of states will sit out 2014."
Legislators can dig in more easily than governors, said Alan Weil, executive director of the nonpartisan National Academy for State Health Policy.
"There is a lot of pragmatism involved in the Medicaid decision," Weil explained. "Legislators don't have operational responsibility and tend to adhere more to ideological perspectives."
Arizona's Brewer could be a study in pragmatism.
Once a staunch opponent of "Obamacare," she surprised the political world in January by announcing she would push to expand Medicaid to some 300,000 low-income Arizonans. She called it a fiscally prudent move that would return economic dividends to the state, and stressed that Arizona would back out if Washington reneged on funding.
But Brewer had to battle to get legislation through the Senate, succeeding only with the help of Democrats. The issue could come to a head as early as the coming week in the Arizona House. Brewer seems to have the edge, but her fellow Republicans are unyielding.
"We will continue to fight tooth and nail as far as we can," Gowan said.
In Ohio, Kasich has framed the Medicaid decision as a moral cause, using the language of his Christian beliefs.
The Bible runs his life "not just on Sunday, but just about every day," he said in his annual State of the State address in February.
"I can't look at the disabled, I can't look at the poor, I can't look at the mentally ill, I can't look at the addicted and think we ought to ignore them," he told lawmakers.
But fellow party members don't seem willing to make a leap of faith.
Republicans overwhelmingly control both the Ohio House and Senate. They're leery of expanding government programs and fear being stuck with any long-term costs. The Senate, where Republicans hold 23 of 33 seats, is critical.
The Senate President, Republican Keith Faber, recently told reporters that his members were still divided.
"I have yet to see a proposal that I can tell you there's a majority of my caucus that supports," said Faber.
In Washington, the head of the Catholic Health Association tells the story of a fellow nun who tried to persuade an Ohio GOP legislator to support Kasich's proposal, only to be rebuffed. Sister Carol Keehan, who backs the Medicaid expansion, says the lawmaker told the nun the uninsured could go to community health fairs for basic preventive care.
"He said, 'Sister, they can get their blood pressures taken at the fire station,'" said Keehan, whose organization represents Catholic hospitals. "Would you want your blood pressure taken at the fire station?"
..................................................................................................................................
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Bye, bye, Michele, don't let the door hit you on the way out
..................................................................................................................................
As goes Bachmann, so goes her challenger
Posted by CNN's Ashley Killough, May 31, 2013
Businessman Jim Graves, the Democrat who came close to defeating Rep. Michele Bachmann last year and who posed another challenge in 2014, has decided to indefinitely suspend his campaign–just two days after the Minnesota congresswoman announced her own decision against running for re-election.
"This was never about Jim Graves; this was about challenging the ineffective leadership and extremist ideology of Michele Bachmann on behalf of those she represents," Graves said of his decision in a statement.
Bachmann, who's been embroiled in an ethics scandal over campaign payments, announced Wednesday in a web video she would not seek a fifth term. While her political career may come to an end, she argued her "future is full" and "limitless."
Bachmann narrowly bested Graves in November by just under 5,000 votes–a surprisingly close finish for an incumbent who had also gained national fame by running for president in the same cycle.
In the video announcement, Bachmann said her decision was not influenced by any concerns about winning re-election.
"I've always, in the past, defeated candidates who were capable, qualified, and well-funded. And I have every confidence that if I ran, I would again defeat the individual who I defeated last year, who recently announced that he is once again running," Bachmann said.
Graves, who had already launched his 2014 campaign bid and was set to take part in another tense, high-profile contest against Bachmann, said Friday his goal of challenging the congresswoman was "accomplished" when she decided to retire.
"As of Wednesday, that goal was accomplished-and our supporters are and should be incredibly proud of that accomplishment," he said in the statement.
A millionaire hotel magnate, Graves started out as an elementary school math teacher when he teamed up with the father of one of his students in a business development. A few investments later, he started the Midwest hotel chain AmericInn. The chain grew to more than 60 hotels across the Midwest, and he later expanded in the luxury hotel and condo development business.
He didn't decide to run for Congress until the spring 2012, when he was watching a cable news show and the host asked why "good people" weren't going into public office.
"My wife and I looked at each other, and I said, 'Why don't we try to help make a change?'" Graves told CNN's Wayne Drash in an interview last fall.
There were two other Democrats in the race already. After meeting with both, he decided to join the race and the other two quickly bowed out.
Though he ultimately failed to topple Bachmann in November's election, he announced in April he'd give it another go.
In a separate interview Thursday about his decision to drop his campaign, Graves told MinnPost, which first reported the story, that Bachmann "wasn't representing the people of the 6th District appropriately, and now she won't be representing them."
"There's no way anyone could run and win who would be worse than Michele Bachmann," he continued. "So we accomplished that task."
Asked for a comment on Graves' decision, Bachmann's campaign office said Graves "has exposed himself as a pathetic fraud who never cared about serving the people of Minnesota."
"The only mission Jim Graves accomplished was wasting $500,000 of his own money on a race that he lost once and he would have lost again," Dan Kotman, a Bachmann spokesman, said.
A spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which works to get Democrats elected to Congress, said the group expects a "bitter Republican primary fight" in the coming months as the district fields candidates for the seat.
"Regardless of whether Michele Bachmann is running, her brand of extremism and obstruction has infected the Republican party – and it will be on the ballot in MN-06 and Republican-held districts across the country where we will fight to elect commonsense problem-solvers," Emily Bittner said in a statement.
..................................................................................................................................
As goes Bachmann, so goes her challenger
Posted by CNN's Ashley Killough, May 31, 2013
Businessman Jim Graves, the Democrat who came close to defeating Rep. Michele Bachmann last year and who posed another challenge in 2014, has decided to indefinitely suspend his campaign–just two days after the Minnesota congresswoman announced her own decision against running for re-election.
"This was never about Jim Graves; this was about challenging the ineffective leadership and extremist ideology of Michele Bachmann on behalf of those she represents," Graves said of his decision in a statement.
Bachmann, who's been embroiled in an ethics scandal over campaign payments, announced Wednesday in a web video she would not seek a fifth term. While her political career may come to an end, she argued her "future is full" and "limitless."
Bachmann narrowly bested Graves in November by just under 5,000 votes–a surprisingly close finish for an incumbent who had also gained national fame by running for president in the same cycle.
In the video announcement, Bachmann said her decision was not influenced by any concerns about winning re-election.
"I've always, in the past, defeated candidates who were capable, qualified, and well-funded. And I have every confidence that if I ran, I would again defeat the individual who I defeated last year, who recently announced that he is once again running," Bachmann said.
Graves, who had already launched his 2014 campaign bid and was set to take part in another tense, high-profile contest against Bachmann, said Friday his goal of challenging the congresswoman was "accomplished" when she decided to retire.
"As of Wednesday, that goal was accomplished-and our supporters are and should be incredibly proud of that accomplishment," he said in the statement.
A millionaire hotel magnate, Graves started out as an elementary school math teacher when he teamed up with the father of one of his students in a business development. A few investments later, he started the Midwest hotel chain AmericInn. The chain grew to more than 60 hotels across the Midwest, and he later expanded in the luxury hotel and condo development business.
He didn't decide to run for Congress until the spring 2012, when he was watching a cable news show and the host asked why "good people" weren't going into public office.
"My wife and I looked at each other, and I said, 'Why don't we try to help make a change?'" Graves told CNN's Wayne Drash in an interview last fall.
There were two other Democrats in the race already. After meeting with both, he decided to join the race and the other two quickly bowed out.
Though he ultimately failed to topple Bachmann in November's election, he announced in April he'd give it another go.
In a separate interview Thursday about his decision to drop his campaign, Graves told MinnPost, which first reported the story, that Bachmann "wasn't representing the people of the 6th District appropriately, and now she won't be representing them."
"There's no way anyone could run and win who would be worse than Michele Bachmann," he continued. "So we accomplished that task."
Asked for a comment on Graves' decision, Bachmann's campaign office said Graves "has exposed himself as a pathetic fraud who never cared about serving the people of Minnesota."
"The only mission Jim Graves accomplished was wasting $500,000 of his own money on a race that he lost once and he would have lost again," Dan Kotman, a Bachmann spokesman, said.
A spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which works to get Democrats elected to Congress, said the group expects a "bitter Republican primary fight" in the coming months as the district fields candidates for the seat.
"Regardless of whether Michele Bachmann is running, her brand of extremism and obstruction has infected the Republican party – and it will be on the ballot in MN-06 and Republican-held districts across the country where we will fight to elect commonsense problem-solvers," Emily Bittner said in a statement.
..................................................................................................................................
It's all McCain's fault!
..................................................................................................................................
Louie Gohmert Fumes: If Not For John McCain ‘Benghazi Would Not Have Happened’
by Evan McMurry, May 31st, 2013
Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert has unearthed a new culprit in the Benghazi saga: fellow Republican John McCain.
Conservative radio host Frank Gaffney asked Gohmert to comment on McCain’s “hobnobbing with jihadists” during his recent trip to Syria. Gohmert brought up a similar trip of McCain’s to Libya, where he feels McCain’s policy to depose Muammar Gaddafi unleashed the Muslim extremist forces that later attacked the American Consulate in Benghazi.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
Louie Gohmert Fumes: If Not For John McCain ‘Benghazi Would Not Have Happened’
by Evan McMurry, May 31st, 2013
Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert has unearthed a new culprit in the Benghazi saga: fellow Republican John McCain.
Conservative radio host Frank Gaffney asked Gohmert to comment on McCain’s “hobnobbing with jihadists” during his recent trip to Syria. Gohmert brought up a similar trip of McCain’s to Libya, where he feels McCain’s policy to depose Muammar Gaddafi unleashed the Muslim extremist forces that later attacked the American Consulate in Benghazi.
If it had not been for Senator John McCain and President Obama being for what we knew at the time included Al Qaida anti-rebel forces, then we would still have a U.S. ambassador and three others alive today, because Benghazi would not have happened. By giving power to the rebel forces that included Al Qaida, that brought that whole mess about and helped create problems in Tunisia and Algeria. So I’m not sure what to think about his going to Syria. If history’s any lesson, the people he met with who wants us to help should be very careful about what Senator McCain’s support could mean for them.McCain recently paid on a surprise visit to Syria, where the increasing presence of al-Qaida and the agitation of Hezbollah across the border in Lebanon is complicating an already precarious civil war between rebel forces and Bashar Al-Assad’s government. McCain supports U.S. intervention into the situation.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
Saturday, June 1, 2013
“Provide versus protect” distinction is at the heart of conflict between liberals and conservatives
..................................................................................................................................
A Different Look at the Political Divide on Morality
By Adam Waytz, May 31, 2013
JZ,
In your last post you talk about the political divide in morality in terms of the groundbreaking Moral Foundations Theory, which demonstrates that political liberals place greater emphasis on the values of fairness and harm avoidance whereas political conservatives place greater emphasis on purity, respect for authority, and loyalty. This pattern of differing preferences for moral foundations between liberals and conservatives in appears to emerge in virtually all societies in the world, from municipal dump inhabitants in Nicaragua to Croatians, Italians, and Chinese individuals surveyed in online studies.
Moral Foundations Theory has provided a tremendously insightful way of conceptualizing the culture wars between liberals and conservatives in terms of liberals’ preferential concerns for the well-being of the individual versus conservatives’ more group-based concerns, respectively. Now, a new paper published by Ronnie Janoff-Bulman and Nate Carnes, provides a different take on how to slice up morality across the political divide by presenting a Model of Moral Motives (MMM). The most distinctive observation of the MMM is that liberals and conservatives care equally about group-based morality (moral concern for the group of people to which they belong), but they show it in different ways.
Whereas conservatives tend to express their concern for group in terms of protecting the social order and keeping the group safe from threats, liberals tend to express their concern for the group in terms of emphasizing communal responsibility to help each other, with an emphasis on social justice. Of course, my simple recapitulation of this theory is an over-generalization of differences in political ideology that fails to capture extensive complexity of how liberals and conservatives express group-based concerns. Nonetheless, this view is undoubtedly useful in identifying common ground between liberals and conservatives.
Rather than painting a picture of liberals as destroying the fabric of America through promoting immigration reform, gay marriage, and assistance programs for low income families, the MMM views liberals as doing what is best for the group through concerns for social justice. Rather than painting a picture of conservatives as unabashedly jingoistic, resistant to outsiders, and hostile toward the rest of the world, the MMM views conservatives as doing what is best for the group through concerns about maintaining the social order. Both sides care about the country, with liberals focusing more on providing for the group and conservatives focusing on protecting the group.
With a new theory on hand, I am wondering how we might use this insight practically to reduce moral disagreement between liberals and conservatives. More generally, I think the “provide versus protect” distinction that Janoff-Bulman and Carnes make is at the heart of much intragroup conflict. We all love the group to which we belong, but when different motives guide the way different group members show that love–actively helping the group versus preventing the group from being harmed–these motives get misconstrued. I wonder how we might resolve these misunderstandings to reduce moral disagreement more broadly.
..................................................................................................................................
A Different Look at the Political Divide on Morality
By Adam Waytz, May 31, 2013
JZ,
In your last post you talk about the political divide in morality in terms of the groundbreaking Moral Foundations Theory, which demonstrates that political liberals place greater emphasis on the values of fairness and harm avoidance whereas political conservatives place greater emphasis on purity, respect for authority, and loyalty. This pattern of differing preferences for moral foundations between liberals and conservatives in appears to emerge in virtually all societies in the world, from municipal dump inhabitants in Nicaragua to Croatians, Italians, and Chinese individuals surveyed in online studies.
Moral Foundations Theory has provided a tremendously insightful way of conceptualizing the culture wars between liberals and conservatives in terms of liberals’ preferential concerns for the well-being of the individual versus conservatives’ more group-based concerns, respectively. Now, a new paper published by Ronnie Janoff-Bulman and Nate Carnes, provides a different take on how to slice up morality across the political divide by presenting a Model of Moral Motives (MMM). The most distinctive observation of the MMM is that liberals and conservatives care equally about group-based morality (moral concern for the group of people to which they belong), but they show it in different ways.
Whereas conservatives tend to express their concern for group in terms of protecting the social order and keeping the group safe from threats, liberals tend to express their concern for the group in terms of emphasizing communal responsibility to help each other, with an emphasis on social justice. Of course, my simple recapitulation of this theory is an over-generalization of differences in political ideology that fails to capture extensive complexity of how liberals and conservatives express group-based concerns. Nonetheless, this view is undoubtedly useful in identifying common ground between liberals and conservatives.
Rather than painting a picture of liberals as destroying the fabric of America through promoting immigration reform, gay marriage, and assistance programs for low income families, the MMM views liberals as doing what is best for the group through concerns for social justice. Rather than painting a picture of conservatives as unabashedly jingoistic, resistant to outsiders, and hostile toward the rest of the world, the MMM views conservatives as doing what is best for the group through concerns about maintaining the social order. Both sides care about the country, with liberals focusing more on providing for the group and conservatives focusing on protecting the group.
With a new theory on hand, I am wondering how we might use this insight practically to reduce moral disagreement between liberals and conservatives. More generally, I think the “provide versus protect” distinction that Janoff-Bulman and Carnes make is at the heart of much intragroup conflict. We all love the group to which we belong, but when different motives guide the way different group members show that love–actively helping the group versus preventing the group from being harmed–these motives get misconstrued. I wonder how we might resolve these misunderstandings to reduce moral disagreement more broadly.
..................................................................................................................................
Why is the division among elected officials sharper than in the electorate?
..................................................................................................................................
Inspired by Bob Dole, political scientists look to reduce political polarization
By Giles Bruce, June 2, 2013
When Bob Dole speaks, people listen.
That was definitely the case last week, when the former senator from Kansas' comments on Fox News sparked a national discussion on bipartisanship and civility in politics.
"It seems to be almost unreal that we can't get together on a budget or legislation," Dole said of today's Congress. "We weren't perfect by a long shot, but at least we got our work done."
But while the 89-year-old Dole's words may carry weight, is there any promise for fixing the partisan strife infecting Washington and many statehouses across America?
"I'm hopeful," said Bill Lacy, director of the Dole Institute of Politics at Kansas University, citing the group of four Democrats and four Republicans attempting to draft a solution to the nation's immigration problem. "The 'Gang of Eight' is a small illustration of the willingness to reach out and work together, but I wish we would see more of it."
Others are less hopeful that the polarization in politics can change any time soon. Analysis of the roll-call voting of every Congress since 1879 shows the current group of lawmakers to be the most polarized since Reconstruction, according to Michael Lynch, an assistant professor of political science at KU.
"Historically there's been big blocks of moderates — that was true when Dole was in the Senate and the majority leader," Lynch said. "But we just don't have moderates right now, and the last few elections you've seen many moderates losing their seats."
Politicians are increasingly urged to toe the party line, and many incumbents are challenged by more ideologically pure candidates, causing them to either lose their seats or have to move farther to the right or left flank to keep them, he explained. The problem is particularly prevalent in the Republican Party, with its ultra-conservative tea party element, he added.
Some experts say the partisan divide is solely a political problem — and not representative of any greater polarization among the citizenry.
"The general public's opinions are not generally so sharply divided as the politician's views," said Paul Johnson, a professor of political science at KU. "It is one of the enduring puzzles in political research that the division among the elected officials is sharper than in the electorate."
But part of the blame can also laid at the feet of voters, who often pine for smaller government as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the government program they support — a point made by Dole in his recent remarks.
"It's definitely a national discussion we need to have: Do we want government to solve problems or do we want them to do exactly what we want as individuals?" said Lynch. "If you really want to compromise, you have to think about what as an individual you would give up."
So what will it take to make politicians less polarized? Unfortunately, many political experts feel it would require a national calamity for Republicans and Democrats to unite in the current environment.
But one reason Dole helped found his namesake institute at KU in the early 2000s was to teach future public officials the importance of working together to solve big problems. Lacy said the leadership at the institute exemplifies that model: While Lacy describes himself as a "conservative Republican with libertarian leanings," the institute's associate director, Barbara Ballard, is a Democratic state representative with a progressive bent.
"Senator Dole isn't saying compromise your philosophies. He isn't saying compromise your principles," Lacy said. "He's simply saying that … if you talk to a person and listen to what they say, you can figure out a win-win. Businesses do that every day. People in personal relationships do that every single day. But our Congress doesn't seem to be able to do that."
..................................................................................................................................
Inspired by Bob Dole, political scientists look to reduce political polarization
By Giles Bruce, June 2, 2013
When Bob Dole speaks, people listen.
That was definitely the case last week, when the former senator from Kansas' comments on Fox News sparked a national discussion on bipartisanship and civility in politics.
"It seems to be almost unreal that we can't get together on a budget or legislation," Dole said of today's Congress. "We weren't perfect by a long shot, but at least we got our work done."
But while the 89-year-old Dole's words may carry weight, is there any promise for fixing the partisan strife infecting Washington and many statehouses across America?
"I'm hopeful," said Bill Lacy, director of the Dole Institute of Politics at Kansas University, citing the group of four Democrats and four Republicans attempting to draft a solution to the nation's immigration problem. "The 'Gang of Eight' is a small illustration of the willingness to reach out and work together, but I wish we would see more of it."
Others are less hopeful that the polarization in politics can change any time soon. Analysis of the roll-call voting of every Congress since 1879 shows the current group of lawmakers to be the most polarized since Reconstruction, according to Michael Lynch, an assistant professor of political science at KU.
"Historically there's been big blocks of moderates — that was true when Dole was in the Senate and the majority leader," Lynch said. "But we just don't have moderates right now, and the last few elections you've seen many moderates losing their seats."
Politicians are increasingly urged to toe the party line, and many incumbents are challenged by more ideologically pure candidates, causing them to either lose their seats or have to move farther to the right or left flank to keep them, he explained. The problem is particularly prevalent in the Republican Party, with its ultra-conservative tea party element, he added.
Some experts say the partisan divide is solely a political problem — and not representative of any greater polarization among the citizenry.
"The general public's opinions are not generally so sharply divided as the politician's views," said Paul Johnson, a professor of political science at KU. "It is one of the enduring puzzles in political research that the division among the elected officials is sharper than in the electorate."
But part of the blame can also laid at the feet of voters, who often pine for smaller government as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the government program they support — a point made by Dole in his recent remarks.
"It's definitely a national discussion we need to have: Do we want government to solve problems or do we want them to do exactly what we want as individuals?" said Lynch. "If you really want to compromise, you have to think about what as an individual you would give up."
So what will it take to make politicians less polarized? Unfortunately, many political experts feel it would require a national calamity for Republicans and Democrats to unite in the current environment.
But one reason Dole helped found his namesake institute at KU in the early 2000s was to teach future public officials the importance of working together to solve big problems. Lacy said the leadership at the institute exemplifies that model: While Lacy describes himself as a "conservative Republican with libertarian leanings," the institute's associate director, Barbara Ballard, is a Democratic state representative with a progressive bent.
"Senator Dole isn't saying compromise your philosophies. He isn't saying compromise your principles," Lacy said. "He's simply saying that … if you talk to a person and listen to what they say, you can figure out a win-win. Businesses do that every day. People in personal relationships do that every single day. But our Congress doesn't seem to be able to do that."
..................................................................................................................................
The GOP is at war with reality and bereft of ideas
..................................................................................................................................
THE GRAND OLD PARTY NEEDS A REBOOT
By Cynthia Tucker, June 1, 2013
The political party of Abraham Lincoln is in trouble, threatened with irrelevance, even extinction. Its weaknesses are legion.
Its congressional leaders are quite unpopular, polls show. So are the party's positions. Its beliefs -- animosity to same-sex marriage, hostility toward saner gun laws, rejection of higher taxes for the wealthy, suspicion of popular entitlement programs -- are not shared by the majority of Americans.
It is bereft of ideas, committed to formulas that don't work (cut taxes, no matter the economic conditions) and to a rejection of reasoned analysis (climate change is a hoax). It has alienated the nation's voters of color, who represent growing blocs of influence.
As if those deficiencies were not enough, the party is falling into a civil war, its internal feuds increasingly loud and obstreperous. The only thing that still unites all parts of the Republican Party is an irrational hatred of President Barack Obama.
That's not good for the country. To meet the challenges of the 21st century, the United States needs at least two competitive political parties dedicated to solving problems. Their solutions will differ, of course, but each should offer them. At the moment, the Republicans have no solutions -- to anything.
It hasn't been so long ago, a couple of decades back, that the GOP prided itself on being the party of ideas. Its wealthy funders had created a network of research institutions to funnel their policies into Congress and state legislatures. There's little doubt that those wealthy donors were looking to protect their own interests by emphasizing low taxes and less government regulation.
But it's also true that GOP thinkers came up with some good ideas. The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, widely known as Obamacare, was one of them. The earned income tax credit, which reduces the federal income tax burden of lower-earning families to zero or less, was also born of conservative thinking. Unfortunately, the current GOP has either renounced or distanced itself from both of those programs.
Some of the party's more practical members have begun to plead with their fellow partisans to change course. Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, has openly fretted about the GOP's future. Maine senator Susan Collins has expressed frustration with her party.
And last week (May 26), Bob Dole, well-respected former senator and onetime presidential nominee, gave GOP leaders a bit of advice: "I think they ought to put a sign on the national committee doors that says 'closed for repairs' until New Year's Day next year and spend that time going over ideas and positive agendas."
Here's hoping Republican strategists do as Dole suggested -- figuratively, anyway. The GOP needs to reinvent itself as a party dedicated to policies that offer solutions to current problems. That's what Democratic leaders did back in the mid-1980s, when they finally came to terms with their growing obsolescence.
The Democratic Party was in a similar slough then. It was riven with competing factions, saddled with unpopular positions and tainted by the perception that it coddled criminals and deadbeats. It was only when the Democratic Leadership Council assiduously reinvented the party, with Bill Clinton as its standard-bearer, that it emerged from the political wilderness. And it emerged with ideas, such as a new fiscal responsibility, that gave it gravitas.
At the moment, Republicans are still at war with ideas -- at least those that grow from a rational grasp of facts. There is no way, for example, to cut the deficit without raising taxes, but GOP congressional leaders insist on a voodoo math that defies that. They are obsessed with their belief that Obama has "covered up" his responsibility in the deaths of four Americans at a diplomatic post in Benghazi, though countless hearings have found no evidence of any such cover-up. They insist that Obamacare will kill jobs, though they present no evidence.
In a larger sense, the GOP is at war with reality -- a reality of fewer white voters, myriad family structures and challenges that demand scientific solutions. Until it makes peace with reality, it cannot re-create itself as a winning party.
..................................................................................................................................
THE GRAND OLD PARTY NEEDS A REBOOT
By Cynthia Tucker, June 1, 2013
The political party of Abraham Lincoln is in trouble, threatened with irrelevance, even extinction. Its weaknesses are legion.
Its congressional leaders are quite unpopular, polls show. So are the party's positions. Its beliefs -- animosity to same-sex marriage, hostility toward saner gun laws, rejection of higher taxes for the wealthy, suspicion of popular entitlement programs -- are not shared by the majority of Americans.
It is bereft of ideas, committed to formulas that don't work (cut taxes, no matter the economic conditions) and to a rejection of reasoned analysis (climate change is a hoax). It has alienated the nation's voters of color, who represent growing blocs of influence.
As if those deficiencies were not enough, the party is falling into a civil war, its internal feuds increasingly loud and obstreperous. The only thing that still unites all parts of the Republican Party is an irrational hatred of President Barack Obama.
That's not good for the country. To meet the challenges of the 21st century, the United States needs at least two competitive political parties dedicated to solving problems. Their solutions will differ, of course, but each should offer them. At the moment, the Republicans have no solutions -- to anything.
It hasn't been so long ago, a couple of decades back, that the GOP prided itself on being the party of ideas. Its wealthy funders had created a network of research institutions to funnel their policies into Congress and state legislatures. There's little doubt that those wealthy donors were looking to protect their own interests by emphasizing low taxes and less government regulation.
But it's also true that GOP thinkers came up with some good ideas. The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, widely known as Obamacare, was one of them. The earned income tax credit, which reduces the federal income tax burden of lower-earning families to zero or less, was also born of conservative thinking. Unfortunately, the current GOP has either renounced or distanced itself from both of those programs.
Some of the party's more practical members have begun to plead with their fellow partisans to change course. Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, has openly fretted about the GOP's future. Maine senator Susan Collins has expressed frustration with her party.
And last week (May 26), Bob Dole, well-respected former senator and onetime presidential nominee, gave GOP leaders a bit of advice: "I think they ought to put a sign on the national committee doors that says 'closed for repairs' until New Year's Day next year and spend that time going over ideas and positive agendas."
Here's hoping Republican strategists do as Dole suggested -- figuratively, anyway. The GOP needs to reinvent itself as a party dedicated to policies that offer solutions to current problems. That's what Democratic leaders did back in the mid-1980s, when they finally came to terms with their growing obsolescence.
The Democratic Party was in a similar slough then. It was riven with competing factions, saddled with unpopular positions and tainted by the perception that it coddled criminals and deadbeats. It was only when the Democratic Leadership Council assiduously reinvented the party, with Bill Clinton as its standard-bearer, that it emerged from the political wilderness. And it emerged with ideas, such as a new fiscal responsibility, that gave it gravitas.
At the moment, Republicans are still at war with ideas -- at least those that grow from a rational grasp of facts. There is no way, for example, to cut the deficit without raising taxes, but GOP congressional leaders insist on a voodoo math that defies that. They are obsessed with their belief that Obama has "covered up" his responsibility in the deaths of four Americans at a diplomatic post in Benghazi, though countless hearings have found no evidence of any such cover-up. They insist that Obamacare will kill jobs, though they present no evidence.
In a larger sense, the GOP is at war with reality -- a reality of fewer white voters, myriad family structures and challenges that demand scientific solutions. Until it makes peace with reality, it cannot re-create itself as a winning party.
..................................................................................................................................
Are there any "honest" conservatives available to speak at commencements?
..................................................................................................................................
"The goal of higher education should be to champion the airing of all honest viewpoints." -- Bill O'Reilly
Well, Bill, that is where you err. The far-right conservatives have trouble with espousing HONEST viewpoints!
..................................................................................................................................
A Wrong Against the Right
By Bill O'Reilly, June 1, 2013
Once again, graduation time is upon us, and a new study by the Los Angeles Times says plenty about the state of higher education in America. The paper looked at the invited commencement speakers for 150 colleges and universities. There are just four conservative speakers, as opposed to at least 69 liberal speakers.
In fact, Newark (N.J.) Mayor Cory Booker, a very liberal guy, has as many campus addresses as all elected Republicans combined.
There is no shortage of intellect or accomplishment on the right. The reason few conservative speakers are invited is that college administrators are frightened by radical-left students and faculty. Last month, Karl Rove's speech at the University of Massachusetts was disrupted, and so was the address by Sen. Rand Paul at Howard University. Nobody wants a graduation ceremony turned into an ideological circus, and that's what often happens when perceived conservatives are invited to speak on certain campuses.
Last year, I headed up a benefit for the It Happened to Alexa Foundation at Boston University, where I received a master's degree in broadcast journalism. As a freshman, Alexa Branchini was raped in a BU dorm and had to withdraw from the school. She eventually founded, with her parents, an organization to help victims of violent crime. I felt the campus of Boston University would be the perfect place to hold a fundraiser for this fine charity. How wrong I was.
A number of far-left professors and administrators, including a university vice president, boycotted the event. The school did little to promote it and essentially folded under the pressure of zealots. It was an absolute disgrace and an insult to Alexa and her family. That tells you all you need to know about the mentality of fanatical college professors and the cowardly administrators who enable them.
There is no question that liberal indoctrination is a fact of life on most American college campuses. Tenure means never having to say you're sorry or you're wrong. And, overwhelmingly, tenured college teachers are liberal. They dominate and intimidate their students. If you go up against them, your grade often suffers. There is a tyranny in higher education that is gravely harming this nation.
When a distinguished medical doctor and author such as Ben Carson has to withdraw as a commencement speaker at Johns Hopkins University because some loons don't like his conservative point of view, you know there is trouble in River City. And little is being done about it.
It is long past time to call out America's colleges, especially those funded by taxpayers, and demand that they be fair in their hiring practices and speaking forums. I give a nice annual donation to Marist College, where I obtained a degree in history, because it is fair. But I've stopped giving to Boston U. and to Harvard (where I received a master's in public administration), because those schools are not fair. All college grads should evaluate their contributions.
That's the only way the liberal higher-education stranglehold will be broken. Many of those pinhead professors espouse socialistic tenets -- but, believe me, they want the money. The goal of higher education should be to champion the airing of all honest viewpoints. Nothing less is acceptable.
..................................................................................................................................
"The goal of higher education should be to champion the airing of all honest viewpoints." -- Bill O'Reilly
Well, Bill, that is where you err. The far-right conservatives have trouble with espousing HONEST viewpoints!
..................................................................................................................................
A Wrong Against the Right
By Bill O'Reilly, June 1, 2013
Once again, graduation time is upon us, and a new study by the Los Angeles Times says plenty about the state of higher education in America. The paper looked at the invited commencement speakers for 150 colleges and universities. There are just four conservative speakers, as opposed to at least 69 liberal speakers.
In fact, Newark (N.J.) Mayor Cory Booker, a very liberal guy, has as many campus addresses as all elected Republicans combined.
There is no shortage of intellect or accomplishment on the right. The reason few conservative speakers are invited is that college administrators are frightened by radical-left students and faculty. Last month, Karl Rove's speech at the University of Massachusetts was disrupted, and so was the address by Sen. Rand Paul at Howard University. Nobody wants a graduation ceremony turned into an ideological circus, and that's what often happens when perceived conservatives are invited to speak on certain campuses.
Last year, I headed up a benefit for the It Happened to Alexa Foundation at Boston University, where I received a master's degree in broadcast journalism. As a freshman, Alexa Branchini was raped in a BU dorm and had to withdraw from the school. She eventually founded, with her parents, an organization to help victims of violent crime. I felt the campus of Boston University would be the perfect place to hold a fundraiser for this fine charity. How wrong I was.
A number of far-left professors and administrators, including a university vice president, boycotted the event. The school did little to promote it and essentially folded under the pressure of zealots. It was an absolute disgrace and an insult to Alexa and her family. That tells you all you need to know about the mentality of fanatical college professors and the cowardly administrators who enable them.
There is no question that liberal indoctrination is a fact of life on most American college campuses. Tenure means never having to say you're sorry or you're wrong. And, overwhelmingly, tenured college teachers are liberal. They dominate and intimidate their students. If you go up against them, your grade often suffers. There is a tyranny in higher education that is gravely harming this nation.
When a distinguished medical doctor and author such as Ben Carson has to withdraw as a commencement speaker at Johns Hopkins University because some loons don't like his conservative point of view, you know there is trouble in River City. And little is being done about it.
It is long past time to call out America's colleges, especially those funded by taxpayers, and demand that they be fair in their hiring practices and speaking forums. I give a nice annual donation to Marist College, where I obtained a degree in history, because it is fair. But I've stopped giving to Boston U. and to Harvard (where I received a master's in public administration), because those schools are not fair. All college grads should evaluate their contributions.
That's the only way the liberal higher-education stranglehold will be broken. Many of those pinhead professors espouse socialistic tenets -- but, believe me, they want the money. The goal of higher education should be to champion the airing of all honest viewpoints. Nothing less is acceptable.
..................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)