...................................................................................................................................................................
Republican Volunteers Quit in Anger
By Jason Salzman, August 5, 2014
Pueblo County Republican Chair Becky Mizel told KVOR's Jimmy Lakey over the weekend that Republican volunteers in Pueblo have been quitting in response to the revelation that the Republican Governors Association apparently funded a campaign to defeat Colorado gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo in the June primary.
"I've had a lot of people call and say, 'Take my name off," Mizel told Lakey. "We've had about five that have withdrawn from precinct chair because they're so ticked off at some of the things going on at the governor level.... But it really does hurt us. It's hurt us a lot."
The Republican Governor's Association (RGA) donated $175,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which, in turn, contributed $155,000 to attack Tancredo during the GOP primary in Colorado. The indirect money path appears to have been an effort by the RGA to conceal its involvement in Colorado's Republican primary.
The revelation of the RGA's furtive meddling angered not only Tancredo but Republicans statewide. Mark Baisley, the Vice Chair of the Colorado GOP has called for an investigation.
Mizel's statement on the radio is an indication that the controversy is affecting morale of Republican activists who, as Lakey points out below, are critical to GOP electoral efforts this fall.
"We had two, a husband-and-wife team, drop out because of that one just yesterday," Mizel told Lakey. "It's dramatic, and people just don't realize what they are doing to the local party, and to the party in general.
In response, Lakey pointed out: "These candidates, they need the local party, as localized as possible, to have strong organization to help get out the vote. And when they're chasing away your precinct chairs, they're kind of cutting off their nose despite their face."
"Jimmy," Mizel responded. "I hate to sound a bit skeptical. I think they just think they need the money of the establishment. And I don't think they necessarily think they need the grassroots. I hate to be so skeptical, but after being in this game a while, I'm beginning to feel that way. I hope I'm wrong.
Lakey: I hope you're wrong too. I'm afraid you're not that wrong Becky.
Listen: https://soundcloud.com/bigmedia-org/co-republican-activists-quitting-over-gop-attacks-on-fellow-republican-tancredo
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
"... Brooks is trying to carve a message that points racism in the direction of Democrats, instead of Republicans. ... it comes from a man whose party hasn't had the best reputation when it comes to race relations."
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP Rep. continues to push theory that Democrats are waging a 'war on whites'
By Robert Sobel, August 4, 2014
Republicans often get hit with the stigma of being racist, and while not all Republicans fit that label, one is doing a good job of bringing race into the conversation.
Immigration reform is one of the most talked about topics around the political water-cooler, but not much has actually gotten done in Washington. Knowing that immigration is a political hot potato, Republicans often deflect from the issue. Republicans could use a more liberal stance on the issue if they plan to gain much needed Hispanic votes, but they also risk alienating southern whites, who are a core of their base.
As the border crisis continues to make both political parties scratch their heads with wonder, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) has not held back with his own personal thoughts. During an interview with AI.com, Brooks accused Democrats of waging a "war on whites."
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP Rep. continues to push theory that Democrats are waging a 'war on whites'
By Robert Sobel, August 4, 2014
Republicans often get hit with the stigma of being racist, and while not all Republicans fit that label, one is doing a good job of bringing race into the conversation.
Immigration reform is one of the most talked about topics around the political water-cooler, but not much has actually gotten done in Washington. Knowing that immigration is a political hot potato, Republicans often deflect from the issue. Republicans could use a more liberal stance on the issue if they plan to gain much needed Hispanic votes, but they also risk alienating southern whites, who are a core of their base.
As the border crisis continues to make both political parties scratch their heads with wonder, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) has not held back with his own personal thoughts. During an interview with AI.com, Brooks accused Democrats of waging a "war on whites."
"What the Democrats are doing with their dividing America by race is they are waging a war on whites and I find that repugnant...They're attacking, by the Democrats' opening soliciting votes of people based on skin color, they in turn are attacking whites based on skin color and that's wrong. Nobody should be attacked based on skin color."Brooks also appeared on The Laura Ingraham show Monday, and continued with his "war on whites" theory.
"This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else."In an apparent attempt of reverse psychology, Brooks is trying to carve a message that points racism in the direction of Democrats, instead of Republicans. Brooks claims he "does not believe in racism" and that "everyone should be treated equally as American citizens." While his statements are noble, it comes from a man whose party hasn't had the best reputation when it comes to race relations. Democrats have had a long history of racism, but following World War 2, the parties essentially switched much of their voting base. The southern white base that has proven to have racist overtones was once a strong Democratic strong hold, but has been solidly in favor of the Republican party for over 50 years.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
"For Fox News to label themselves as the 'fair and balanced' news source for millions of Americans, it says a lot about their credibility to have Michael Scheuer as a repeated guest." Actually, it's their lack of credibility!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Fox News continues employment of analyst who endorsed Obama's assassination
By Robert Sobel, August 4, 2014
After endorsing the assassination of President Obama, Fox News has continued to employee [sic] a controversial conservative figure.
It seems as if the American people are more politically divided today than ever before in history. While a good healthy debate from both sides is encourages [sic], some people have a tendency to cross the line in ways that shouldn't be acceptable. Case in point one Michael Scheuer, former former CIA officer and analyst for CBS News. Scheuer has said many controversial statements in the past, with none getting as much negative press as the December 23, 2013 column he wrote for his website Non-Intervention.com. In his piece, Media Matter highlights Scheuer labeling both President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron as "tyrants," and endorsed their assassination.
What does this say about a news organization to continue to employee [sic] someone as a regular guest who has such an extreme view. It's no secret that Fox News is a right wing, conservative leaning news station. On the flip side, MSNBC is a left leaning news outlet, but MSNBC has and continues to promote itself as such. For Fox News to label themselves as the "fair and balanced" news source for millions of Americans, it says a lot about their credibility to have Michael Scheuer as a repeated guest.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Fox News continues employment of analyst who endorsed Obama's assassination
By Robert Sobel, August 4, 2014
After endorsing the assassination of President Obama, Fox News has continued to employee [sic] a controversial conservative figure.
It seems as if the American people are more politically divided today than ever before in history. While a good healthy debate from both sides is encourages [sic], some people have a tendency to cross the line in ways that shouldn't be acceptable. Case in point one Michael Scheuer, former former CIA officer and analyst for CBS News. Scheuer has said many controversial statements in the past, with none getting as much negative press as the December 23, 2013 column he wrote for his website Non-Intervention.com. In his piece, Media Matter highlights Scheuer labeling both President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron as "tyrants," and endorsed their assassination.
"As they head further down the road of losing wars and wrecking Anglo-American liberties, Messrs Obama and Cameron and their supporters in all parties would do well to read the words of the great 17th century English republican Algernon Sidney, a man who was revered on both sides of the Atlantic, who greatly influenced America's founders, and who was executed by the British Crown for what it described as sedition. 'There must therefore be a right,' Sidney wrote...Media Matter reports that Scheuer has been a guest analyst for multiple Fox News shows through out the summer, most recently the August 1 edition of "Fox and Friends." During an appearance on Fox Business' "Lou Dobbs Tonight" in January, Scheuer accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of essentially murdering Americans during the attack on the U.S. in Benghazi, Libya.
...If he [a political leader] be justly accounted an enemy of all, who injures all; he above all must be the publick enemy of a nation, who by usurping power over them, does the greatest and most publick injury that a people can suffer. For which reason, by an established law among the most virtuous nations, every man might kill a tyrant; and no names are recorded in history with more honor, than of those who did it."
What does this say about a news organization to continue to employee [sic] someone as a regular guest who has such an extreme view. It's no secret that Fox News is a right wing, conservative leaning news station. On the flip side, MSNBC is a left leaning news outlet, but MSNBC has and continues to promote itself as such. For Fox News to label themselves as the "fair and balanced" news source for millions of Americans, it says a lot about their credibility to have Michael Scheuer as a repeated guest.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... the NFIB's political spending has not been representative of the small business owners it claims to represent. Its [Koch-provided] political donations go almost entirely to Republicans."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch-Backed Small Business Front Group Added to ALEC Board
By Brendan Fischer, August 1, 2014
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a big business-funded group that claims to be the "nation's leading small business association," has joined the corporate board of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or "ALEC." It marks perhaps the final step towards the NFIB abandoning any pretense of being a nonpartisan representative of small business owners.
ALEC has been described as a "corporate bill mill" that allows big business interests to peddle influence with ALEC's legislative members -- who are almost entirely Republican -- and push "model" legislation that tends to benefit the corporate bottom line or advance an ideological agenda. The NFIB has long been an ALEC member, and this week joined the ALEC corporate governing board, which meets jointly with the ALEC legislative board and helps set the agenda and fundraise for the organization.
The announcement of the NFIB's board membership came the same day the New York Times revealed that the the health insurance lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), laundered $1.6 million through the NFIB's dark money advocacy arm in 2012 to attack Democratic Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas. This is on top of the $850,000 that the insurance group gave to NFIB the year before.
The New York Times wrote:
"It is relevant to understanding who is sponsoring the message," he said.
AHIP represents dozens of insurance companies, some of which are ALEC members, such as Guarantee Trust (which chairs ALEC's Health & Human Services Task Force) and State Farm (which is also part of the ALEC corporate board).
Yet the insurance lobby donation wasn't the NFIB's biggest grant in 2012, which is the most recent year that records are available. The biggest donor to NFIB and its affiliated groups was the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners, an outfit that Politico described as "the Koch brothers' secret bank." Freedom Partners gave NFIB and its affiliates $2.5 million in 2012. NFIB received an additional $135,000 that year from another Koch funding outfit, the Center to Protect Patient Rights.
A Koch representative also sits on the ALEC corporate board.
A small business owner who joins the NFIB pays $195. Which means the Koch network's donations to NFIB in 2012 was the equivalent of over 13,500 individual memberships. AHIP's money amounted to more than 8,200 memberships.
Which raises the question, who does the NFIB speak for?
Small business owners run the gamut politically. Around a third say they are Republican, one-third Democrats, and one-third independent. Yet the NFIB's political spending has not been representative of the small business owners it claims to represent. Its political donations go almost entirely to Republicans. And the NFIB's funding sources place it squarely within the right-wing infrastructure.
The NFIB's partisan and big business ties became evident in 2010, when it launched the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act that eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. That year, Karl Rove's dark money outfit Crossroads GPS gave the NFIB $3.7 million. The Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation (which also donates to ALEC) chipped-in an additional $100,000.
Prior to the healthcare lawsuit, the biggest contribution to the NFIB from an outside source was $21,000.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch-Backed Small Business Front Group Added to ALEC Board
By Brendan Fischer, August 1, 2014
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a big business-funded group that claims to be the "nation's leading small business association," has joined the corporate board of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or "ALEC." It marks perhaps the final step towards the NFIB abandoning any pretense of being a nonpartisan representative of small business owners.
ALEC has been described as a "corporate bill mill" that allows big business interests to peddle influence with ALEC's legislative members -- who are almost entirely Republican -- and push "model" legislation that tends to benefit the corporate bottom line or advance an ideological agenda. The NFIB has long been an ALEC member, and this week joined the ALEC corporate governing board, which meets jointly with the ALEC legislative board and helps set the agenda and fundraise for the organization.
The announcement of the NFIB's board membership came the same day the New York Times revealed that the the health insurance lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), laundered $1.6 million through the NFIB's dark money advocacy arm in 2012 to attack Democratic Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas. This is on top of the $850,000 that the insurance group gave to NFIB the year before.
The New York Times wrote:
“The largely hidden role of the for-profit health insurers highlights the increasingly confusing world of campaign finance, as nonprofit groups such as the National Federation of Independent Business and its Voice of Free Enterprise program can keep their donor lists secret and then present their carefully fashioned message, financed in large part by big business, as if it is coming from, perhaps, a more sympathetic voice.”Even the small business owner featured in the NFIB's ad, John Parke of Little Rock, Ark., said he didn't know the message was being bankrolled by the insurance industry -- but says he should have been told.
"It is relevant to understanding who is sponsoring the message," he said.
AHIP represents dozens of insurance companies, some of which are ALEC members, such as Guarantee Trust (which chairs ALEC's Health & Human Services Task Force) and State Farm (which is also part of the ALEC corporate board).
Yet the insurance lobby donation wasn't the NFIB's biggest grant in 2012, which is the most recent year that records are available. The biggest donor to NFIB and its affiliated groups was the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners, an outfit that Politico described as "the Koch brothers' secret bank." Freedom Partners gave NFIB and its affiliates $2.5 million in 2012. NFIB received an additional $135,000 that year from another Koch funding outfit, the Center to Protect Patient Rights.
A Koch representative also sits on the ALEC corporate board.
A small business owner who joins the NFIB pays $195. Which means the Koch network's donations to NFIB in 2012 was the equivalent of over 13,500 individual memberships. AHIP's money amounted to more than 8,200 memberships.
Which raises the question, who does the NFIB speak for?
Small business owners run the gamut politically. Around a third say they are Republican, one-third Democrats, and one-third independent. Yet the NFIB's political spending has not been representative of the small business owners it claims to represent. Its political donations go almost entirely to Republicans. And the NFIB's funding sources place it squarely within the right-wing infrastructure.
The NFIB's partisan and big business ties became evident in 2010, when it launched the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act that eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. That year, Karl Rove's dark money outfit Crossroads GPS gave the NFIB $3.7 million. The Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation (which also donates to ALEC) chipped-in an additional $100,000.
Prior to the healthcare lawsuit, the biggest contribution to the NFIB from an outside source was $21,000.
...................................................................................................................................................................
So why didn't the dog's owner either run for the office himself or recruit a truly viable candidate?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bellingham Dog Makes Mockery of Political Process, Wins Our Hearts In the Process
By Matt Driscoll, August 5, 2014
Elections are serious stuff. Our democracy depends on them. So when someone - or some ridiculously cute four-legged animal, as the case may be - makes a mockery of an election, it’s no laughing matter.
That seems to be the stance being taken by Whatcom County Auditor Debbie Adelstein, the locally elected official whose probably been asked more dog-related questions in the last few days than she’d care to remember. Faced with the increasingly popular write-in candidacy of Nyima, a Tibetan terrier that’s looking to oust longtime Bellingham County Prosecutor David McEachran, Adelstein has maintained that the dog is “not a viable candidate,” and that any votes cast for the pooch will not be counted.
So there.
Like all great dogs, Nyima seems to be following the directions of its master. According to reports, Frank James is a family doctor and an assistant professor at the University of Washington, and he also happens to be the man responsible for pushing Nyima has a write-in candidate. The Democrat has been frustrated by the fact that the Bellingham County Prosecutor, a Republican, hasn’t had a political challenger in ten terms. As ABC News notes, James believes that “if no one ever runs against the current politician, important questions will never get talked about,” and that “the strongest way to hold public officials accountable is for people to run against them.”
Or, in this case, a dog.
“It’s no brilliant political strategy,” James tells ABC. “But a number of people have told me that they are registering to vote for my dog.”
Brilliance, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. While McEachran has maintained that he’s too busy with his work to comment on Nyima’s candidacy, The Bellingham Herald, ABC News, KOMO, KIRO, and Jezebel (to name but a few media outlets) have picked up on Nyima’s story.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bellingham Dog Makes Mockery of Political Process, Wins Our Hearts In the Process
By Matt Driscoll, August 5, 2014
Elections are serious stuff. Our democracy depends on them. So when someone - or some ridiculously cute four-legged animal, as the case may be - makes a mockery of an election, it’s no laughing matter.
That seems to be the stance being taken by Whatcom County Auditor Debbie Adelstein, the locally elected official whose probably been asked more dog-related questions in the last few days than she’d care to remember. Faced with the increasingly popular write-in candidacy of Nyima, a Tibetan terrier that’s looking to oust longtime Bellingham County Prosecutor David McEachran, Adelstein has maintained that the dog is “not a viable candidate,” and that any votes cast for the pooch will not be counted.
So there.
Like all great dogs, Nyima seems to be following the directions of its master. According to reports, Frank James is a family doctor and an assistant professor at the University of Washington, and he also happens to be the man responsible for pushing Nyima has a write-in candidate. The Democrat has been frustrated by the fact that the Bellingham County Prosecutor, a Republican, hasn’t had a political challenger in ten terms. As ABC News notes, James believes that “if no one ever runs against the current politician, important questions will never get talked about,” and that “the strongest way to hold public officials accountable is for people to run against them.”
Or, in this case, a dog.
“It’s no brilliant political strategy,” James tells ABC. “But a number of people have told me that they are registering to vote for my dog.”
Brilliance, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. While McEachran has maintained that he’s too busy with his work to comment on Nyima’s candidacy, The Bellingham Herald, ABC News, KOMO, KIRO, and Jezebel (to name but a few media outlets) have picked up on Nyima’s story.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... for most people most of the time, the political controversies which so agitate television news reporters, internet bloggers and radio screamers, are merely background noise."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Politics are not that important
By Steve Hochstadt, August 5, 2014
Here in the northern Wisconsin woods, life seems simpler. Perhaps the woods and the lake and the birds allow me to see some things more clearly. Here’s a woodsy insight – politics are not so important.
Certainly for some people, politics make all the difference. Gay couples waiting to get married, people unable to get health insurance before the Affordable Care Act, and the long-term unemployed – the quality of their lives are directly affected by political decisions at the national level. Members of the armed forces are crucially concerned with our interventions in foreign wars. The continuing uncertainty about federal economic policy affects business decision-makers big and small.
But for most people most of the time, the political controversies which so agitate television news reporters, internet bloggers and radio screamers, are merely background noise. For example, many political commentators write obsessively about taxes. They claim that people’s most significant decisions, such as where they will live, are based on tax rates. Over my lifetime, I have talked with hundreds of people, young, mature, and old, about where they will live and to where they might want to move. People move to be near relatives, to take a new job, to go to college, and to seek a different climate. Financial considerations often play a role. But I have never had a conversation about moving that involved tax rates.
Guns are another political issue which occupies outsized territory in our public lives. A small minority of Americans appears to believe that their happiness depends on being able to carry guns everywhere, even in schools and churches. A smaller number of our fellow citizens have lost their lives to heavily armed crazies. For most of us, however, the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment is a mainly theoretical question.
Our daily lives won’t be influenced by gun laws until the weapons enthusiasts start showing up everywhere we go ready to shoot anything that moves. Maybe by that time the majority, who would feel safer if guns were kept at home, will regain control of this debate.
The issues which do affect us most closely are rarely discussed and barely seem political. Filling potholes, fixing bridges and keeping parks open can make our daily routines safer and more enjoyable. Because they are less susceptible to partisan passions, they get less attention. If polls were taken about whether we want our roads kept in good repair, the left-right divisions would seem less important.
The things we wake up thinking about are rarely political. In daily life, politics fall far behind meal planning, job tasks, recreation, or school activities. We’ll ask ourselves whether we need to put gas in the car a hundred times more often than what we think about gasoline taxes. Most people’s lives are barely affected by Supreme Court decisions, Congressional debates or presidential decrees.
So why do we get so exercised about politics? Why let the things that divide us take up so much emotional space?
I don’t have good answers. I do have a suggestion, drawn from my experience of being called every name in the book by people who only know a little about my politics and nothing about me. Let’s focus more on what is really important in our lives and recognize that politics can be a noisy distraction.
We’ll find more agreement and get more done.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Politics are not that important
By Steve Hochstadt, August 5, 2014
Here in the northern Wisconsin woods, life seems simpler. Perhaps the woods and the lake and the birds allow me to see some things more clearly. Here’s a woodsy insight – politics are not so important.
Certainly for some people, politics make all the difference. Gay couples waiting to get married, people unable to get health insurance before the Affordable Care Act, and the long-term unemployed – the quality of their lives are directly affected by political decisions at the national level. Members of the armed forces are crucially concerned with our interventions in foreign wars. The continuing uncertainty about federal economic policy affects business decision-makers big and small.
But for most people most of the time, the political controversies which so agitate television news reporters, internet bloggers and radio screamers, are merely background noise. For example, many political commentators write obsessively about taxes. They claim that people’s most significant decisions, such as where they will live, are based on tax rates. Over my lifetime, I have talked with hundreds of people, young, mature, and old, about where they will live and to where they might want to move. People move to be near relatives, to take a new job, to go to college, and to seek a different climate. Financial considerations often play a role. But I have never had a conversation about moving that involved tax rates.
Guns are another political issue which occupies outsized territory in our public lives. A small minority of Americans appears to believe that their happiness depends on being able to carry guns everywhere, even in schools and churches. A smaller number of our fellow citizens have lost their lives to heavily armed crazies. For most of us, however, the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment is a mainly theoretical question.
Our daily lives won’t be influenced by gun laws until the weapons enthusiasts start showing up everywhere we go ready to shoot anything that moves. Maybe by that time the majority, who would feel safer if guns were kept at home, will regain control of this debate.
The issues which do affect us most closely are rarely discussed and barely seem political. Filling potholes, fixing bridges and keeping parks open can make our daily routines safer and more enjoyable. Because they are less susceptible to partisan passions, they get less attention. If polls were taken about whether we want our roads kept in good repair, the left-right divisions would seem less important.
The things we wake up thinking about are rarely political. In daily life, politics fall far behind meal planning, job tasks, recreation, or school activities. We’ll ask ourselves whether we need to put gas in the car a hundred times more often than what we think about gasoline taxes. Most people’s lives are barely affected by Supreme Court decisions, Congressional debates or presidential decrees.
So why do we get so exercised about politics? Why let the things that divide us take up so much emotional space?
I don’t have good answers. I do have a suggestion, drawn from my experience of being called every name in the book by people who only know a little about my politics and nothing about me. Let’s focus more on what is really important in our lives and recognize that politics can be a noisy distraction.
We’ll find more agreement and get more done.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obama "doesn’t crow about his diplomatic victories, so all we hear is the cable news cacophony, and consequently half the country now thinks he’s doing a lousy job with international relations."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obama’s Secret Diplomatic Victories
By Jason Stanford, August 4, 2014
I get it. When foreigners challenge America, we want our President to scream bloody murder and then send in the Marines to make sure it happens. Forget about talking softly. Go straight for the big stick. By contrast, diplomacy looks weak, like some tin-pot dictator from a nothing-burger country is pushing us around. But in case anyone cares to notice, the world may be falling apart, but Barack Obama has put together a string of surprising diplomatic victories.
The extension of the negotiating window with Iran came and went with little notice. The nuclear freeze in Iran should be a big deal. Thanks to our negotiations and economic sanctions, Iran has diluted its highly enriched uranium, agreed to in-person inspections and video surveillance, and ceased work on its heavy water plutonium reactor. But this progress is less well known than some state secrets, a mystery not just to Americans at large but most political insiders as well.
Another recent—and oddly secret—diplomatic victory took place in Syria. Of course, with Syria in the middle of a civil war, it looks like the country’s main export is bad news. And when Obama leveraged Russia’s relationship with Syria to broker a deal to get rid of the latter’s chemical weapons, Republicans said Vladimir Putin made Obama look weak.
A funny thing happened on the way to the GOP’s deification of Putin: While Syrians were busy shooting each other, the country’s last supplies of chemical weapons—600 metric tons of it—left Syria on a Danish ship under the supervision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. This is probably the best news you’ve never heard.
“Never before has an entire arsenal of a category of weapons of mass destruction been removed from a country experiencing a state of internal armed conflict,” said OPCW chief Ahmet Uzumcu.
The one diplomatic success that Americans share a vague awareness of is how Obama has corralled the European Union into imposing tough economic sanctions on Russia, isolating Putin. By getting Europeans to put the screws to Russia’s banking, oil and gas, and military sectors, Obama can play his brand of strong-arm diplomatic ball, forcing Putin to choose between his country’s economic wellbeing and his fantasies of restoring the Russian Empire.
All of this is exactly the opposite of what Republican critics predicted when Putin invaded Crimea. They said Obama’s weakness in Syrian emboldened Putin to wreak havoc in Ukraine. Now—not that Obama’s been good at telling the story—America got rid of Syria’s chemical weapons and surrounded himself with Russia’s closest trading partners. Putin looks politically injured, snarling not like a mighty czar but like a wounded bear caught in a trap.
We should not be surprised that when it comes to foreign affairs, Obama has been more Graham Greene than Michael Bay. In the 2008 Democratic primary, he shocked many, me included, when he said he would negotiate with Iran “without precondition.” He had a 62 percent approval rating for his handling of international affairs two months into his first term, and he won the Nobel Peace Price largely because he promised to end the wars that George W. Bush started.
But he never articulated a grand vision for American leadership in the world, which leaves observers puzzled and frustrated when he approaches each world crisis pragmatically, trying to coax workable solutions from civil wars and downed airliners. He doesn’t crow about his diplomatic victories, so all we hear is the cable news cacophony, and consequently half the country now thinks he’s doing a lousy job with international relations.
But Obama is the president he said he’d be. He speaks softly and carries Seal Team Six, but the most effective weapons in his foreign policy arsenal have proven to be economic sanctions and negotiation. Obama has learned the lessons from Iraq. This time we’re using diplomacy—and it’s working.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obama’s Secret Diplomatic Victories
By Jason Stanford, August 4, 2014
I get it. When foreigners challenge America, we want our President to scream bloody murder and then send in the Marines to make sure it happens. Forget about talking softly. Go straight for the big stick. By contrast, diplomacy looks weak, like some tin-pot dictator from a nothing-burger country is pushing us around. But in case anyone cares to notice, the world may be falling apart, but Barack Obama has put together a string of surprising diplomatic victories.
The extension of the negotiating window with Iran came and went with little notice. The nuclear freeze in Iran should be a big deal. Thanks to our negotiations and economic sanctions, Iran has diluted its highly enriched uranium, agreed to in-person inspections and video surveillance, and ceased work on its heavy water plutonium reactor. But this progress is less well known than some state secrets, a mystery not just to Americans at large but most political insiders as well.
Another recent—and oddly secret—diplomatic victory took place in Syria. Of course, with Syria in the middle of a civil war, it looks like the country’s main export is bad news. And when Obama leveraged Russia’s relationship with Syria to broker a deal to get rid of the latter’s chemical weapons, Republicans said Vladimir Putin made Obama look weak.
A funny thing happened on the way to the GOP’s deification of Putin: While Syrians were busy shooting each other, the country’s last supplies of chemical weapons—600 metric tons of it—left Syria on a Danish ship under the supervision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. This is probably the best news you’ve never heard.
“Never before has an entire arsenal of a category of weapons of mass destruction been removed from a country experiencing a state of internal armed conflict,” said OPCW chief Ahmet Uzumcu.
The one diplomatic success that Americans share a vague awareness of is how Obama has corralled the European Union into imposing tough economic sanctions on Russia, isolating Putin. By getting Europeans to put the screws to Russia’s banking, oil and gas, and military sectors, Obama can play his brand of strong-arm diplomatic ball, forcing Putin to choose between his country’s economic wellbeing and his fantasies of restoring the Russian Empire.
All of this is exactly the opposite of what Republican critics predicted when Putin invaded Crimea. They said Obama’s weakness in Syrian emboldened Putin to wreak havoc in Ukraine. Now—not that Obama’s been good at telling the story—America got rid of Syria’s chemical weapons and surrounded himself with Russia’s closest trading partners. Putin looks politically injured, snarling not like a mighty czar but like a wounded bear caught in a trap.
We should not be surprised that when it comes to foreign affairs, Obama has been more Graham Greene than Michael Bay. In the 2008 Democratic primary, he shocked many, me included, when he said he would negotiate with Iran “without precondition.” He had a 62 percent approval rating for his handling of international affairs two months into his first term, and he won the Nobel Peace Price largely because he promised to end the wars that George W. Bush started.
But he never articulated a grand vision for American leadership in the world, which leaves observers puzzled and frustrated when he approaches each world crisis pragmatically, trying to coax workable solutions from civil wars and downed airliners. He doesn’t crow about his diplomatic victories, so all we hear is the cable news cacophony, and consequently half the country now thinks he’s doing a lousy job with international relations.
But Obama is the president he said he’d be. He speaks softly and carries Seal Team Six, but the most effective weapons in his foreign policy arsenal have proven to be economic sanctions and negotiation. Obama has learned the lessons from Iraq. This time we’re using diplomacy—and it’s working.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, August 4, 2014
The Koch brothers' "Freedom Partners is investing in this [Oregon] election because its 'billionaire members' believe Wehby’s tax plans would benefit them."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch brothers wade into Oregon
Ads show Republican hopes for turning Merkley’s Senate seat red
By Lily Raff McCaulou, July 23, 2014
An organization with ties to the Koch brothers — billionaire businessmen renowned for bankrolling conservative causes and tea party candidates — has waded into Oregon’s U.S. Senate race.
Freedom Partners, a group closely linked to Charles and David Koch, is reportedly buying millions of dollars in television advertising to boost Republican challenger Dr. Monica Wehby’s chances of ousting Democratic incumbent Jeff Merkley.
A spokesman from Freedom Partners confirmed to The Bulletin on Monday that this is the first time the group has spent money in Oregon, but he declined to give details on how much the group plans to spend here.
The advertising purchase was first reported by Politico last week, on the heels of the candidates’ quarterly fundraising filings with the Federal Election Commission. Filings show that Merkley raised about twice as much money from April through June as Wehby did.
But news of Freedom Partners’ decision to spend money here indicates that at least some Republicans believe one of Oregon’s Senate seats could turn from blue to red.
Freedom Partners is a membership organization, similar to a chamber of commerce but with annual dues of at least $100,000. In 2012, the Virginia-based group raised and spent roughly $250 million to back candidates and influence policy debate.
The group’s website states: “We seek to build support for a fiscally responsible government, and policies that support entrepreneurship, spur job creation, and increase opportunities for all.” It focuses spending on four areas: “health care reform, federal spending, energy policy and cronyism.”
Election laws do not limit the amount of money that groups such as Freedom Partners may spend. But laws do prohibit a candidate’s official campaign from coordinating with such groups.
Dean Petrone, a spokesman for Wehby’s campaign, said Wehby learned of Freedom Partners’ television ads “the same way you guys did — through news outlets. … I think Merkley’s crew might have known before we did.”
Merkley’s deputy campaign director, Andrew Zucker, said Monday that campaign workers were tracking the Freedom Partners’ ad buy and on Monday it had topped $3.1 million.
A spokesman for Merkley said Freedom Partners is investing in this election because its “billionaire members” believe Wehby’s tax plans would benefit them.
“These Koch brothers, they’ve made billions of dollars through oil and coal,” spokesman Jamal Raad said. “They’ve said they’d spend $290 million this election cycle. … Two million dollars is a lot of money in Oregon. But for them, it’s like going out for coffee.”
Raad said Merkley’s campaign was not surprised to hear the Koch brothers had turned their eyes to Oregon.
“Jeff has really taken on some powerful institutions in Washington — big oil, Wall Street. … And Monica Wehby has pretty much endorsed the Republican line that … could save them hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said.
Petrone, of Wehby’s campaign, said Merkley’s campaign recently bought $2 million worth of television advertising, to air during the last five weeks of the race.
“It speaks volumes to the fact that Monica Wehby’s candidacy is being taken seriously,” Petrone said. “That’s two-thirds of the cash they have on hand. They wouldn’t be spending that if they weren’t feeling threatened.”
Petrone said the Freedom Partners ads won’t change anything within Wehby’s campaign.
“I truly think that money isn’t going to be a factor in this race,” he said. “Since 2008, the top issues have been jobs and the economy. Those are two things that Jeff Merkley just hasn’t delivered on.”
According to FEC filings this month, Merkley’s campaign has about $3.5 million cash on hand, and Wehby’s has about $646,831. In this election cycle, Merkley has raised about $8.7 million and Wehby has raised about $2.05 million.
The fundraising gap is significant — but also reminiscent of the 2008 Senate race in Oregon. By July, Merkley had raised $2.5 million and had $500,000 in cash. Republican incumbent Gordon Smith had raised $9.4 million and had $4.5 million in cash.
But money doesn’t always translate into votes. That November, Merkley went on to win.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch brothers wade into Oregon
Ads show Republican hopes for turning Merkley’s Senate seat red
By Lily Raff McCaulou, July 23, 2014
An organization with ties to the Koch brothers — billionaire businessmen renowned for bankrolling conservative causes and tea party candidates — has waded into Oregon’s U.S. Senate race.
Freedom Partners, a group closely linked to Charles and David Koch, is reportedly buying millions of dollars in television advertising to boost Republican challenger Dr. Monica Wehby’s chances of ousting Democratic incumbent Jeff Merkley.
A spokesman from Freedom Partners confirmed to The Bulletin on Monday that this is the first time the group has spent money in Oregon, but he declined to give details on how much the group plans to spend here.
The advertising purchase was first reported by Politico last week, on the heels of the candidates’ quarterly fundraising filings with the Federal Election Commission. Filings show that Merkley raised about twice as much money from April through June as Wehby did.
But news of Freedom Partners’ decision to spend money here indicates that at least some Republicans believe one of Oregon’s Senate seats could turn from blue to red.
Freedom Partners is a membership organization, similar to a chamber of commerce but with annual dues of at least $100,000. In 2012, the Virginia-based group raised and spent roughly $250 million to back candidates and influence policy debate.
The group’s website states: “We seek to build support for a fiscally responsible government, and policies that support entrepreneurship, spur job creation, and increase opportunities for all.” It focuses spending on four areas: “health care reform, federal spending, energy policy and cronyism.”
Election laws do not limit the amount of money that groups such as Freedom Partners may spend. But laws do prohibit a candidate’s official campaign from coordinating with such groups.
Dean Petrone, a spokesman for Wehby’s campaign, said Wehby learned of Freedom Partners’ television ads “the same way you guys did — through news outlets. … I think Merkley’s crew might have known before we did.”
Merkley’s deputy campaign director, Andrew Zucker, said Monday that campaign workers were tracking the Freedom Partners’ ad buy and on Monday it had topped $3.1 million.
A spokesman for Merkley said Freedom Partners is investing in this election because its “billionaire members” believe Wehby’s tax plans would benefit them.
“These Koch brothers, they’ve made billions of dollars through oil and coal,” spokesman Jamal Raad said. “They’ve said they’d spend $290 million this election cycle. … Two million dollars is a lot of money in Oregon. But for them, it’s like going out for coffee.”
Raad said Merkley’s campaign was not surprised to hear the Koch brothers had turned their eyes to Oregon.
“Jeff has really taken on some powerful institutions in Washington — big oil, Wall Street. … And Monica Wehby has pretty much endorsed the Republican line that … could save them hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said.
Petrone, of Wehby’s campaign, said Merkley’s campaign recently bought $2 million worth of television advertising, to air during the last five weeks of the race.
“It speaks volumes to the fact that Monica Wehby’s candidacy is being taken seriously,” Petrone said. “That’s two-thirds of the cash they have on hand. They wouldn’t be spending that if they weren’t feeling threatened.”
Petrone said the Freedom Partners ads won’t change anything within Wehby’s campaign.
“I truly think that money isn’t going to be a factor in this race,” he said. “Since 2008, the top issues have been jobs and the economy. Those are two things that Jeff Merkley just hasn’t delivered on.”
According to FEC filings this month, Merkley’s campaign has about $3.5 million cash on hand, and Wehby’s has about $646,831. In this election cycle, Merkley has raised about $8.7 million and Wehby has raised about $2.05 million.
The fundraising gap is significant — but also reminiscent of the 2008 Senate race in Oregon. By July, Merkley had raised $2.5 million and had $500,000 in cash. Republican incumbent Gordon Smith had raised $9.4 million and had $4.5 million in cash.
But money doesn’t always translate into votes. That November, Merkley went on to win.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Voters think lawmakers from humble beginnings are more likely to stick up for the little guy. They’re not."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Working-Class Politicians Aren’t Always Best for the Working Class
Voters think lawmakers from humble beginnings are more likely to stick up for the little guy. They’re not.
By Avital Andrews, August 4, 2014
If you live in an area that votes Democrats into office, you’ve likely heard politicians go on ad nauseam about their humble beginnings. That’s because when voters hear that a candidate has working-class roots, they assume that candidate is progressive on economic issues.
In reality, though, there’s no difference between how a mill worker’s child and a doctor’s child behaves once elected.
That’s according to research soon to be published in the Journal of Politics. The study, by Duke’s Nicholas Carnes and Princeton’s Meredith Sadin, asked, “What, if anything, do voters infer when they learn whether a candidate was raised in a more or less privileged family?” and “Should voters believe what they hear about politicians raised in working-class families?”
To answer those questions, they amassed biographical data for every legislator in the 106th through 110th congresses (1999 to 2008), including their parents’ professions. After identifying which ones came from working-class backgrounds, the researchers looked at the kinds of votes those lawmakers garnered in the previous election. To measure how the politicians acted while in office, the researchers examined those legislators’ voting records on a variety of issues, especially those related to the working class.
Carnes and Sadin found that invoking a proletarian upbringing does work if you’re after votes from the left. Not surprising, then, that these candidates—those that brandished modest upbringings—fared better in progressive districts.
What was more surprising is that once these candidates were elected, their legislation wasn’t in line with voters’ expectations. There was no difference in the ideological positions of legislators who were raised by factory workers versus those raised by lawyers. As the researchers conclude: “Some lawmakers raised in working-class families may be genuine working-class heroes. However, they appear to be the exceptions, not the rule. Once we know a legislator’s party, knowing what their parents did for a living doesn’t help us predict how they will vote on economic issues.”
Carnes warns that voters need to be careful when candidates talk about their harsh childhood. “Some politicians from privileged families care a lot about the less fortunate, like FDR or Ted Kennedy,” he says. “Voters should pay more attention to what the candidate did for a living herself, or what the candidate has already done in office. When a candidate flashes a parent’s working-class credentials, it should set off a little alarm in the voter’s mind that says, ‘This candidate is playing up an aspect of their background that doesn’t usually predict how politicians behave in office.’ It should give voters even more motivation to take a hard look at the candidate’s actual record on the issues.”
“Even smart people,” Carnes says, “can be taken in by myths about mill workers’ sons.” In a follow-up analysis, the researchers found that people who scored highest on a political-knowledge test were more likely to make assumptions based on how a candidate was brought up. “It appears to be a misleading shortcut,” Carnes says, “a cue that leads voters to make faulty inferences about candidates’ political priorities.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Working-Class Politicians Aren’t Always Best for the Working Class
Voters think lawmakers from humble beginnings are more likely to stick up for the little guy. They’re not.
By Avital Andrews, August 4, 2014
If you live in an area that votes Democrats into office, you’ve likely heard politicians go on ad nauseam about their humble beginnings. That’s because when voters hear that a candidate has working-class roots, they assume that candidate is progressive on economic issues.
In reality, though, there’s no difference between how a mill worker’s child and a doctor’s child behaves once elected.
That’s according to research soon to be published in the Journal of Politics. The study, by Duke’s Nicholas Carnes and Princeton’s Meredith Sadin, asked, “What, if anything, do voters infer when they learn whether a candidate was raised in a more or less privileged family?” and “Should voters believe what they hear about politicians raised in working-class families?”
To answer those questions, they amassed biographical data for every legislator in the 106th through 110th congresses (1999 to 2008), including their parents’ professions. After identifying which ones came from working-class backgrounds, the researchers looked at the kinds of votes those lawmakers garnered in the previous election. To measure how the politicians acted while in office, the researchers examined those legislators’ voting records on a variety of issues, especially those related to the working class.
Carnes and Sadin found that invoking a proletarian upbringing does work if you’re after votes from the left. Not surprising, then, that these candidates—those that brandished modest upbringings—fared better in progressive districts.
What was more surprising is that once these candidates were elected, their legislation wasn’t in line with voters’ expectations. There was no difference in the ideological positions of legislators who were raised by factory workers versus those raised by lawyers. As the researchers conclude: “Some lawmakers raised in working-class families may be genuine working-class heroes. However, they appear to be the exceptions, not the rule. Once we know a legislator’s party, knowing what their parents did for a living doesn’t help us predict how they will vote on economic issues.”
Carnes warns that voters need to be careful when candidates talk about their harsh childhood. “Some politicians from privileged families care a lot about the less fortunate, like FDR or Ted Kennedy,” he says. “Voters should pay more attention to what the candidate did for a living herself, or what the candidate has already done in office. When a candidate flashes a parent’s working-class credentials, it should set off a little alarm in the voter’s mind that says, ‘This candidate is playing up an aspect of their background that doesn’t usually predict how politicians behave in office.’ It should give voters even more motivation to take a hard look at the candidate’s actual record on the issues.”
“Even smart people,” Carnes says, “can be taken in by myths about mill workers’ sons.” In a follow-up analysis, the researchers found that people who scored highest on a political-knowledge test were more likely to make assumptions based on how a candidate was brought up. “It appears to be a misleading shortcut,” Carnes says, “a cue that leads voters to make faulty inferences about candidates’ political priorities.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"This fight is about whether we will govern or continue to let the grifters profit off of the dysfunction in Washington."
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Grifting Wing vs.The Governing Wing
While the Tea Party is busy lining their pockets, the rest of the Republicans are actually trying to get things done.
By Steve LaTourette, August 3, 2014
Vocabulary.com defines a grifter as: A grifter is a con artist—someone who swindles people out of money through fraud. If there’s one type of person you don’t want to trust, it’s a grifter: Someone who cheats someone out of money.
Historically, grifters have taken many shapes. They were the snake-oil salesmen who rolled into town promising a magical, cure-all elixir at a price. The grifter was long gone by the time people discovered the magical elixir was no more magical than water. They were the sideshow con men offering fantastic prizes in games that were rigged so that no one could actually win them. They were the Ponzi scheme operators who got rich promising fantastically high investment returns but returning nothing for those sorry investors at the bottom of the pyramid.
Over the last few years we have seen the rise of a new grifter—the political grifter. And the most important battle being waged today isn’t the one about which party controls the House or the Senate, it’s about who controls the Republican Party: the grifting wing or the governing wing.
Today’s political grifters are a lot like the grifters of old—lining their pockets with the hard-earned money of working men and women be promising things in return that they know they can’t deliver.
Political grifting is a lucrative business. Groups like the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Patriots are run by men and women who have made millions by playing on the fears and anger about the dysfunction in Washington. My former House colleague Chris Chocola is pocketing a half-million dollars a year heading the Club for Growth; same for Matt Kibbe heading up FreedomWorks (and I don’t think Kibbe’s salary includes the infamous craft beer bar that FreedomWorks donors ended up paying for). The Tea Party Patriots pay their head, Jenny Beth Martin, almost as much. These people have lined their pockets by promising that if you send them money, they will send men and women to Washington who can “fix it.” Of course, in the ultimate con, the always extreme and often amateurish candidates these groups back either end up losing to Democrats or they come to Washington and actually make the process even more dysfunctional.
Just look at what happened this past week, when hard-right House members with extensive ties to these outside groups, egged on by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, snarled up a sensible effort to pass a bill that would at least begin to address the crisis of undocumented children at the U.S.-Mexico border. It was an embarrassing display of congressional dysfunction, and it showed that the grifting wing has learned nothing from last fall’s shutdown fiasco.
The grifting wing of the party promises that you can have ideological purity—that you don’t have to compromise—and, of course, all you have to do is send them money to make it happen. The governing wing of the Republican Party knows that’s a damn lie. Our Founding Fathers set up a system of government that by its very nature excludes the possibility of one party or one ideological wing of one party getting everything it wants. Ted Cruz, who quotes the founders almost every chance he gets, ought to know this.
Even Ronald Reagan—who won in two of the biggest landslides in American history—was forced to compromise. It was President Reagan who cut deals with Democrats to extend the solvency of Social Security and put the federal budget on a sounder footing. It was Reagan who famously said that someone who votes with him 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally. Reagan’s record and rhetoric stands in marked contrast to the grifting win[g] of the party today, even as the grifters invoke his memory in their disingenuous appeals.
The governing wing of the Republican Party understands that compromise is not the root of all evil in Washington—indeed, it is the essential ingredient in moving forward any set of conservative policies like those that Reagan fought for.
While the grifters hold a great deal of sway over the Republican Party for now, they are not the majority—not by a long shot. As with any good Ponzi scheme, there are relatively few grifters; the challenge is exposing their scam.
Exposing the grifters is exactly what is happening in the Republican Party today. Groups like the organization that I head, groups like the Chamber of Commerce, business groups and traditional Republican organizations are working to run the political snake-oil salesman out of town—or at least out of our party.
This isn’t about ideology. The Republican Party is a conservative party. This fight is about whether we will govern or continue to let the grifters profit off of the dysfunction in Washington.
Our beef isn’t with the rank and file Tea Party members, either. We understand their justifiable frustration with Washington. Our beef is with the grifters who run the organizations in Washington that are fleecing these hardworking men and women.
We face serious challenges in this country today. America is piling up mountains of debt that threaten the long-term solvency of our country. Our economy continues to struggle to create enough jobs to keep pace with population growth. We have a broken, overly complicated tax code. We face serious, dangerous threats abroad from old enemies and new ones. If the Republican Party is going to be a part of finding solutions to these challenges—and I know it can be—then it is time for grassroots Republicans to say no to the grifters and yes to governing again.
The good news is that it appears that the grifters are running short on time. Unlike in previous election cycles, in primary after primary— from Ohio to Idaho to Kentucky to Mississippi—rank-and-file Republicans haven’t bought what the grifters are selling.
If we are to have a shot at winning the White House in 2016 and actually implementing conservative policies – rather than just fundraising off of talking about them—then this is a trend that must continue. It’s time to run the grifters out of our town.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Grifting Wing vs.The Governing Wing
While the Tea Party is busy lining their pockets, the rest of the Republicans are actually trying to get things done.
By Steve LaTourette, August 3, 2014
Vocabulary.com defines a grifter as: A grifter is a con artist—someone who swindles people out of money through fraud. If there’s one type of person you don’t want to trust, it’s a grifter: Someone who cheats someone out of money.
Historically, grifters have taken many shapes. They were the snake-oil salesmen who rolled into town promising a magical, cure-all elixir at a price. The grifter was long gone by the time people discovered the magical elixir was no more magical than water. They were the sideshow con men offering fantastic prizes in games that were rigged so that no one could actually win them. They were the Ponzi scheme operators who got rich promising fantastically high investment returns but returning nothing for those sorry investors at the bottom of the pyramid.
Over the last few years we have seen the rise of a new grifter—the political grifter. And the most important battle being waged today isn’t the one about which party controls the House or the Senate, it’s about who controls the Republican Party: the grifting wing or the governing wing.
Today’s political grifters are a lot like the grifters of old—lining their pockets with the hard-earned money of working men and women be promising things in return that they know they can’t deliver.
Political grifting is a lucrative business. Groups like the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Patriots are run by men and women who have made millions by playing on the fears and anger about the dysfunction in Washington. My former House colleague Chris Chocola is pocketing a half-million dollars a year heading the Club for Growth; same for Matt Kibbe heading up FreedomWorks (and I don’t think Kibbe’s salary includes the infamous craft beer bar that FreedomWorks donors ended up paying for). The Tea Party Patriots pay their head, Jenny Beth Martin, almost as much. These people have lined their pockets by promising that if you send them money, they will send men and women to Washington who can “fix it.” Of course, in the ultimate con, the always extreme and often amateurish candidates these groups back either end up losing to Democrats or they come to Washington and actually make the process even more dysfunctional.
Just look at what happened this past week, when hard-right House members with extensive ties to these outside groups, egged on by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, snarled up a sensible effort to pass a bill that would at least begin to address the crisis of undocumented children at the U.S.-Mexico border. It was an embarrassing display of congressional dysfunction, and it showed that the grifting wing has learned nothing from last fall’s shutdown fiasco.
The grifting wing of the party promises that you can have ideological purity—that you don’t have to compromise—and, of course, all you have to do is send them money to make it happen. The governing wing of the Republican Party knows that’s a damn lie. Our Founding Fathers set up a system of government that by its very nature excludes the possibility of one party or one ideological wing of one party getting everything it wants. Ted Cruz, who quotes the founders almost every chance he gets, ought to know this.
Even Ronald Reagan—who won in two of the biggest landslides in American history—was forced to compromise. It was President Reagan who cut deals with Democrats to extend the solvency of Social Security and put the federal budget on a sounder footing. It was Reagan who famously said that someone who votes with him 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally. Reagan’s record and rhetoric stands in marked contrast to the grifting win[g] of the party today, even as the grifters invoke his memory in their disingenuous appeals.
The governing wing of the Republican Party understands that compromise is not the root of all evil in Washington—indeed, it is the essential ingredient in moving forward any set of conservative policies like those that Reagan fought for.
While the grifters hold a great deal of sway over the Republican Party for now, they are not the majority—not by a long shot. As with any good Ponzi scheme, there are relatively few grifters; the challenge is exposing their scam.
Exposing the grifters is exactly what is happening in the Republican Party today. Groups like the organization that I head, groups like the Chamber of Commerce, business groups and traditional Republican organizations are working to run the political snake-oil salesman out of town—or at least out of our party.
This isn’t about ideology. The Republican Party is a conservative party. This fight is about whether we will govern or continue to let the grifters profit off of the dysfunction in Washington.
Our beef isn’t with the rank and file Tea Party members, either. We understand their justifiable frustration with Washington. Our beef is with the grifters who run the organizations in Washington that are fleecing these hardworking men and women.
We face serious challenges in this country today. America is piling up mountains of debt that threaten the long-term solvency of our country. Our economy continues to struggle to create enough jobs to keep pace with population growth. We have a broken, overly complicated tax code. We face serious, dangerous threats abroad from old enemies and new ones. If the Republican Party is going to be a part of finding solutions to these challenges—and I know it can be—then it is time for grassroots Republicans to say no to the grifters and yes to governing again.
The good news is that it appears that the grifters are running short on time. Unlike in previous election cycles, in primary after primary— from Ohio to Idaho to Kentucky to Mississippi—rank-and-file Republicans haven’t bought what the grifters are selling.
If we are to have a shot at winning the White House in 2016 and actually implementing conservative policies – rather than just fundraising off of talking about them—then this is a trend that must continue. It’s time to run the grifters out of our town.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The heck of it is that they have their heads buried in the sand year round!
..................................................................................................
Sunday, August 3, 2014
"Voters, return to your senses. ... Do not give your precious vote to anyone who labels the other side evil, treasonous, demonic or stupid. ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Without compromise, politics is meaningless
By Ann McFeatters, August 3, 2014
The boys and girls of Congress are returning from summer camp — er, Capitol Hill — to their real homes where they will 1) raise money and plead to be returned to camp; 2) stress how much they hate the nation’s political polarization; and 3) pledge never to compromise their beliefs.
Folks, there is no way to escape their blandishments unless you do not go out in public, especially to a county fair, parade or political rally. You’ll also have to refuse to answer your phone or open your front door. And do not power up your TV or car radio until the middle of November.
“Midterm election” may sound innocuous. This year it is a synonym for blood sport.
When President Barack Obama assumed office in 2009, he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House. In 2010, Democrats lost the House, and gleeful Republicans decided to make Obama’s life miserable.
House Republicans attempted to block anything he proposed. They did very well. They shut down the government at a cost of $24 billion. They proudly have passed the fewest number of bills in recent history, even those that 90 percent of Americans want, such as keeping guns out of schools.
They voted to repeal Obamacare at least 50 times. They are hoping to sue Obama successfully for not enforcing Obamacare to the letter of the law even though, obviously, they don’t really want him to enforce it.
Chafing to kick Obama around even harder, Republicans have vowed to win control of the Senate this November. They may succeed.
Upset at the prospect of being a lame duck for two more years, the president of the United States is counterattacking. That means he will attend just about any Democratic fundraiser White House aides can locate by GPS. (Word to church groups and PTAs: Now might be the time to invite POTUS to your next gathering.)
Republicans had a field day pointing out that Obama refused to go to the southern border to see the plight of unaccompanied children streaming across, going instead to Colorado to play pool and raise money.
Never mind that Republicans have blocked every Obama attempt to try to fix the broken immigration system. So guess what is going to be a big rallying cry for Republicans this November? The broken immigration system.
And guess what the second GOP battle cry will be? The need to get all those millions of Americans who now have health insurance to agree they should give it up.
Everybody is angry with the political system because it is broken, results in the tyranny of the few over the majority, fails to help people who really need it, fills the coffers of the richest and preserves the status quo.
Oddly, the tea partyers who hate government the most are clamoring the loudest to be given government paychecks so they can cause more havoc such as refusing to raise the debt limit (thus destroying what remaining good faith the United States has). They also want to cut off more aid to the working poor and refuse to fix crumbling roads and bridges.
Millions of voters fed up with the impasse in Washington (where nothing of strategic importance is being done) will elect and re-elect the cogs in the wheel. The lost battle for civility only got more hopeless when tea partyers realized that dumping vitriol (and untruths) on moderate opponents is one of the best ways to get a hand in the public till.
Voters, return to your senses. Do not elect or re-elect anyone who wants to refuse to pay debts America already has incurred. Do not pull any lever for someone who proudly promises never to compromise (without it, politics is meaningless). Do not send to Washington anyone who tells you how much he or she hates government. Do not give your precious vote to anyone who labels the other side evil, treasonous, demonic or stupid. (Well, stupid is OK.)
And it’s OK, too, this August to shake hands with a politician with sticky cotton candy on your palm.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Without compromise, politics is meaningless
By Ann McFeatters, August 3, 2014
The boys and girls of Congress are returning from summer camp — er, Capitol Hill — to their real homes where they will 1) raise money and plead to be returned to camp; 2) stress how much they hate the nation’s political polarization; and 3) pledge never to compromise their beliefs.
Folks, there is no way to escape their blandishments unless you do not go out in public, especially to a county fair, parade or political rally. You’ll also have to refuse to answer your phone or open your front door. And do not power up your TV or car radio until the middle of November.
“Midterm election” may sound innocuous. This year it is a synonym for blood sport.
When President Barack Obama assumed office in 2009, he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House. In 2010, Democrats lost the House, and gleeful Republicans decided to make Obama’s life miserable.
House Republicans attempted to block anything he proposed. They did very well. They shut down the government at a cost of $24 billion. They proudly have passed the fewest number of bills in recent history, even those that 90 percent of Americans want, such as keeping guns out of schools.
They voted to repeal Obamacare at least 50 times. They are hoping to sue Obama successfully for not enforcing Obamacare to the letter of the law even though, obviously, they don’t really want him to enforce it.
Chafing to kick Obama around even harder, Republicans have vowed to win control of the Senate this November. They may succeed.
Upset at the prospect of being a lame duck for two more years, the president of the United States is counterattacking. That means he will attend just about any Democratic fundraiser White House aides can locate by GPS. (Word to church groups and PTAs: Now might be the time to invite POTUS to your next gathering.)
Republicans had a field day pointing out that Obama refused to go to the southern border to see the plight of unaccompanied children streaming across, going instead to Colorado to play pool and raise money.
Never mind that Republicans have blocked every Obama attempt to try to fix the broken immigration system. So guess what is going to be a big rallying cry for Republicans this November? The broken immigration system.
And guess what the second GOP battle cry will be? The need to get all those millions of Americans who now have health insurance to agree they should give it up.
Everybody is angry with the political system because it is broken, results in the tyranny of the few over the majority, fails to help people who really need it, fills the coffers of the richest and preserves the status quo.
Oddly, the tea partyers who hate government the most are clamoring the loudest to be given government paychecks so they can cause more havoc such as refusing to raise the debt limit (thus destroying what remaining good faith the United States has). They also want to cut off more aid to the working poor and refuse to fix crumbling roads and bridges.
Millions of voters fed up with the impasse in Washington (where nothing of strategic importance is being done) will elect and re-elect the cogs in the wheel. The lost battle for civility only got more hopeless when tea partyers realized that dumping vitriol (and untruths) on moderate opponents is one of the best ways to get a hand in the public till.
Voters, return to your senses. Do not elect or re-elect anyone who wants to refuse to pay debts America already has incurred. Do not pull any lever for someone who proudly promises never to compromise (without it, politics is meaningless). Do not send to Washington anyone who tells you how much he or she hates government. Do not give your precious vote to anyone who labels the other side evil, treasonous, demonic or stupid. (Well, stupid is OK.)
And it’s OK, too, this August to shake hands with a politician with sticky cotton candy on your palm.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"After browsing the channel’s website, McCain was less than impressed." Hmmmph, I wouldn't have bothered in the first place.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Meghan McCain: No more Sarah Palin
By Kendall Breitman, July 29, 2014
[For video see here]
Meghan McCain won’t be tuning into the Sarah Palin Channel any time soon.
“I am not going to subscribe to Sarah Palin’s $9.95 per month,” McCain said on Monday during her Pivot show TakePart Live. “I got all the Sarah Palin I need for one lifetime.”
Palin, the 2008 running mate of McCain’s father Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), announced Sunday that she will be starting her own Internet television news channel, the Sarah Palin Channel.
“This is a news channel that really is a lot more than news,” Palin said in a video posted to Facebook on Sunday. “This is a community where we’re going to be able to share ideas and discuss the issues of the day. And we’re going to find solutions.”
After browsing the channel’s website, McCain was less than impressed.
“I don’t know how this is different than a blog with video posts,” McCain said. “It didn’t look like a video channel. Glenn Beck has the Blaze, which is an actual channel you can turn to on television.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Meghan McCain: No more Sarah Palin
By Kendall Breitman, July 29, 2014
[For video see here]
Meghan McCain won’t be tuning into the Sarah Palin Channel any time soon.
“I am not going to subscribe to Sarah Palin’s $9.95 per month,” McCain said on Monday during her Pivot show TakePart Live. “I got all the Sarah Palin I need for one lifetime.”
Palin, the 2008 running mate of McCain’s father Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), announced Sunday that she will be starting her own Internet television news channel, the Sarah Palin Channel.
“This is a news channel that really is a lot more than news,” Palin said in a video posted to Facebook on Sunday. “This is a community where we’re going to be able to share ideas and discuss the issues of the day. And we’re going to find solutions.”
After browsing the channel’s website, McCain was less than impressed.
“I don’t know how this is different than a blog with video posts,” McCain said. “It didn’t look like a video channel. Glenn Beck has the Blaze, which is an actual channel you can turn to on television.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
More about Ted Nugent: "... Nugent sucks and people are really starting to dislike the ancient rock-relic."
...................................................................................................................................................................
TED NUGENT IS JUST A RIGHT-WING WHINER
By Joshua De Leon, July 28, 2014
Venues that booked right-wing, bigot-monster Ted Nugent for performances have started cancelling them. Hopefully, it will continue. It will also, no doubt give the Motor City Madman something else to whine and complain about, which should be entertaining.
One of the first places to axe Nugent was the Coeur d’Aleve [sic] Tribe in Worley, Idaho. Nugent was scheduled to play on August 4 at the tribe’s casino. However, due to Nugent’s “history of racist and hate-filled remarks,” the tribe decided to cancel the date. Delightfully, other venues have started to follow suit.
Another Native American-run casino has canceled two Nugent concerts. The Emerald Queen Casino run by the Puyallup Tribe in Tacoma, Washington dropped the August 2 and 3 dates, and, like the Coeur d’Aleve Tribe, they cited Nugent’s hateful and racist rhetoric.
“The first amendment gives people the right to free speech, but I think racism is intolerable and not acceptable here,” said Puyallup Tribal Council Vice President Lawrence W. LaPointe. “We’ve been getting lots complaints from the community and other organizations. I don’t want to take away his right to say what he wants to say, but we don’t need it here.”
Nugent performed at Waterfest in Oshkosh, Wisconsin this past weekend. But even that performance met with harsh criticism. Critics started a petition to have the festival promoters drop Nugent from the lineup. In return, Nugent responded saying, “I take it as a badge of honor that such unclean vermin are upset.”
Because Nugent is such an unwanted presence, some organizers have even paid Nugent to keep him from performing a scheduled event. Show promoters in Texas paid Nugent $16,000 to keep him from playing at a Fourth of July Festival.
In short, Nugent sucks and people are really starting to dislike the ancient rock-relic.
Cancel all of his shows.
...................................................................................................................................................................
TED NUGENT IS JUST A RIGHT-WING WHINER
By Joshua De Leon, July 28, 2014
Venues that booked right-wing, bigot-monster Ted Nugent for performances have started cancelling them. Hopefully, it will continue. It will also, no doubt give the Motor City Madman something else to whine and complain about, which should be entertaining.
One of the first places to axe Nugent was the Coeur d’Aleve [sic] Tribe in Worley, Idaho. Nugent was scheduled to play on August 4 at the tribe’s casino. However, due to Nugent’s “history of racist and hate-filled remarks,” the tribe decided to cancel the date. Delightfully, other venues have started to follow suit.
Another Native American-run casino has canceled two Nugent concerts. The Emerald Queen Casino run by the Puyallup Tribe in Tacoma, Washington dropped the August 2 and 3 dates, and, like the Coeur d’Aleve Tribe, they cited Nugent’s hateful and racist rhetoric.
“The first amendment gives people the right to free speech, but I think racism is intolerable and not acceptable here,” said Puyallup Tribal Council Vice President Lawrence W. LaPointe. “We’ve been getting lots complaints from the community and other organizations. I don’t want to take away his right to say what he wants to say, but we don’t need it here.”
Nugent performed at Waterfest in Oshkosh, Wisconsin this past weekend. But even that performance met with harsh criticism. Critics started a petition to have the festival promoters drop Nugent from the lineup. In return, Nugent responded saying, “I take it as a badge of honor that such unclean vermin are upset.”
Because Nugent is such an unwanted presence, some organizers have even paid Nugent to keep him from performing a scheduled event. Show promoters in Texas paid Nugent $16,000 to keep him from playing at a Fourth of July Festival.
In short, Nugent sucks and people are really starting to dislike the ancient rock-relic.
Cancel all of his shows.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Cruz is nothing more than a circus act, a hotheaded spectacle that encourages the extreme right, and does it to suck up airtime and attention."
...................................................................................................................................................................
WHERE STUPID ENDS, TED CRUZ BEGINS
By Joshua De Leon, July 29, 2014
To hear the right-wing blindly-faithful speak, Ted Cruz is a pretty smart guy. Cruz is a U.S. Senator who graduated with honors from Harvard Law School. But does something like that really make him smart? Nathan Robinson doesn’t think so, and does a pretty good job of punching holes in the idea that Ted Cruz is sharp as a tack.
Robinson points out the fact that supporters, and even some opposers, of Cruz will tell you that the man has a brilliant mind; it’s just that 21-hour faux-filibusters and constant incorrectness about national issues muddles all that truth.
Cruz is nothing more than a circus act, a hotheaded spectacle that encourages the extreme right, and does it to suck up airtime and attention.
Contrary to the argument that Cruz possesses a keen intelligence, Robinson notes that “Cruz has become notorious for using distortive, misleading rhetoric that no sober-minded individual could apply.”
He’s referring to Cruz’s 21-hour long yammer-fest. During that monotonous diatribe, he charged that campaign finance reform impedes, or rather, “repeals” the First Amendment, and fictitious claims about the Affordable Care Act and gun control laws (Cruz said the ACA increases premiums and gun control laws increase gun murders).
Cruz’s backward politics and viewpoints haven’t changed since college. Robinson noted that Cruz’s law school roommate and debating partner, David Panton, said that Cruz hasn’t changed much since the good ol’ college days.
“Ted’s views today are almost identical to when I met him,” said Panton. “There’s nothing he says today that I didn’t hear in college.”
It’s hard to decide what would be worse, actually being Ted Cruz’s college roommate, or that Cruz still possesses the same beliefs he held as a grossly misinformed, overly passionate, can’t-wait-to-use-the-stuff-I-learned-in-class-on-someone college student.
Robinson wraps up by discussing how people think Cruz’s mindless rants are actually the cloak-and-dagger attempts of an intellectual assassin designed to throw off his opponents. Astutely, Robinson questions where the alleged tactic has worked.
He couldn’t find any instances, because they don’t exist.
Check out Nathan Robinson’s article here.
....................................................................................................................................................................
WHERE STUPID ENDS, TED CRUZ BEGINS
By Joshua De Leon, July 29, 2014
To hear the right-wing blindly-faithful speak, Ted Cruz is a pretty smart guy. Cruz is a U.S. Senator who graduated with honors from Harvard Law School. But does something like that really make him smart? Nathan Robinson doesn’t think so, and does a pretty good job of punching holes in the idea that Ted Cruz is sharp as a tack.
Robinson points out the fact that supporters, and even some opposers, of Cruz will tell you that the man has a brilliant mind; it’s just that 21-hour faux-filibusters and constant incorrectness about national issues muddles all that truth.
Cruz is nothing more than a circus act, a hotheaded spectacle that encourages the extreme right, and does it to suck up airtime and attention.
Contrary to the argument that Cruz possesses a keen intelligence, Robinson notes that “Cruz has become notorious for using distortive, misleading rhetoric that no sober-minded individual could apply.”
He’s referring to Cruz’s 21-hour long yammer-fest. During that monotonous diatribe, he charged that campaign finance reform impedes, or rather, “repeals” the First Amendment, and fictitious claims about the Affordable Care Act and gun control laws (Cruz said the ACA increases premiums and gun control laws increase gun murders).
Cruz’s backward politics and viewpoints haven’t changed since college. Robinson noted that Cruz’s law school roommate and debating partner, David Panton, said that Cruz hasn’t changed much since the good ol’ college days.
“Ted’s views today are almost identical to when I met him,” said Panton. “There’s nothing he says today that I didn’t hear in college.”
It’s hard to decide what would be worse, actually being Ted Cruz’s college roommate, or that Cruz still possesses the same beliefs he held as a grossly misinformed, overly passionate, can’t-wait-to-use-the-stuff-I-learned-in-class-on-someone college student.
Robinson wraps up by discussing how people think Cruz’s mindless rants are actually the cloak-and-dagger attempts of an intellectual assassin designed to throw off his opponents. Astutely, Robinson questions where the alleged tactic has worked.
He couldn’t find any instances, because they don’t exist.
Check out Nathan Robinson’s article here.
....................................................................................................................................................................
"The NAACP needs to get itself back on the right side of history and stop siding with the likes of the Koch brothers."
...................................................................................................................................................................
HAS THE NAACP TURNED INTO KOCH BROTHER MINSTRELS?
By Joshua Schwitzerlett, August 1, 2014
What is the NAACP doing? I’ll go ahead and save everyone time. Net Neutrality is the right path. Tiered access, data caps, throttled usage: none of these are the internet of the future. So when the NAACP comes out and sides with the major telecommunication companies and claim that it stands with them on the issue of Net Neutrality, it definitely looks like they’re lining up on the wrong side. Are they starting to take their cues from the Koch brothers?
If you don’t know what Net Neutrality is, it’s the basic principle that all traffic on the web should be treated equally by internet service providers (ISPs). It’s currently not the standard but the FCC is considering changing rules to ban the practice of showing preference to certain traffic and effectively throttling others.
Currently, the practice of showing traffic preference or requiring content sources to pay for guaranteed transfer rates is legal.
The Koch Brothers have come out against Net Neutrality and on the side of the major telecoms. That makes sense since the opposition is just an effort for the telecoms to keep doing what they have always done. It’s in their best, corporate interests to charge higher prices for diminishing service and continue squeezing more and more blood from the stone.
The NAACP though has a legacy of advocating on the behalf of oppressed populations. The effects of the telcom’s opposition to net neutrality would be an internet where not all content is created equal. The information that the downtrodden would have access to could be filtered and tailored to fit the agenda of the corporations. It makes sense for the Kochs; it doesn’t for the NAACP.
There’s no debate really. Strong Net Neutrality is the route to protect American consumers. Opposing Net Neutrality is the way of continued and increasing corporate oppression. The NAACP needs to get itself back on the right side of history and stop siding with the likes of the Koch brothers.
...................................................................................................................................................................
HAS THE NAACP TURNED INTO KOCH BROTHER MINSTRELS?
By Joshua Schwitzerlett, August 1, 2014
What is the NAACP doing? I’ll go ahead and save everyone time. Net Neutrality is the right path. Tiered access, data caps, throttled usage: none of these are the internet of the future. So when the NAACP comes out and sides with the major telecommunication companies and claim that it stands with them on the issue of Net Neutrality, it definitely looks like they’re lining up on the wrong side. Are they starting to take their cues from the Koch brothers?
If you don’t know what Net Neutrality is, it’s the basic principle that all traffic on the web should be treated equally by internet service providers (ISPs). It’s currently not the standard but the FCC is considering changing rules to ban the practice of showing preference to certain traffic and effectively throttling others.
Currently, the practice of showing traffic preference or requiring content sources to pay for guaranteed transfer rates is legal.
The Koch Brothers have come out against Net Neutrality and on the side of the major telecoms. That makes sense since the opposition is just an effort for the telecoms to keep doing what they have always done. It’s in their best, corporate interests to charge higher prices for diminishing service and continue squeezing more and more blood from the stone.
The NAACP though has a legacy of advocating on the behalf of oppressed populations. The effects of the telcom’s opposition to net neutrality would be an internet where not all content is created equal. The information that the downtrodden would have access to could be filtered and tailored to fit the agenda of the corporations. It makes sense for the Kochs; it doesn’t for the NAACP.
There’s no debate really. Strong Net Neutrality is the route to protect American consumers. Opposing Net Neutrality is the way of continued and increasing corporate oppression. The NAACP needs to get itself back on the right side of history and stop siding with the likes of the Koch brothers.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... the most fundamental difference between the Tea Party and Occupy is that only one is truly a grassroots movement." I think we know which one is which.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Occupy the Tea Party
By Dave Pruett, August 1, 2014
At first blush, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street appear as bookends: opposing grass-roots movements on the political right and left, respectively. At second blush, the Tea Party seems the more successful. In the 2010 mid-term elections, one-third of Tea Party-backed candidates won, reclaiming the House for Republicans. And an unknown Tea Party libertarian just defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in Virginia's GOP primary. Occupy's one obvious success is searing the 99 percent meme into the national consciousness. But a look under the hood of each is instructive.
The Faces
Rank-and-file Tea Partiers are mostly white, Christian, older, and fearful. The faces of Occupiers, during the movement's heyday at least, were rainbow colored: diverse in age, religion, and economic status, and mostly hopeful. Indeed, Occupy arose from Arab Spring protests -- against economic and social injustice -- that ignited in 2010 in Tunisia and spread like wildfire to Egypt's Tahrir Square, Spain's Indignados, and New York's Zuccotti Park. Because the forces of oppression are so adept, these hopes have been temporarily crushed, here and abroad. But hope springs eternal.
The public faces of the Tea Party and Occupy are familiar. For the former: Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Michele Bachman, and Ted Cruz, among many. No prominent politicians or pundits, to my knowledge, identify openly as Occupiers. However, in word and deed those who align closely with Occupy's values include Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and UC Berkeley public-policy professor Robert Reich, whose documentary Inequality for All rocked the 2013 Sundance Film Festival. All three in the latter camp are tireless advocates for a vibrant middle class.
The Similarities
Interestingly, the movements share some common gripes: a sense of betrayal at the government's bailout of big banks following the 2008 financial meltdown and wariness that the constitutional rights of ordinary citizens are eroding. Equally suspicious of Big Brother, the groups hold sacred differing amendments of the Constitution. Occupiers, subjected to heavy-handed police suppression and forcible evictions, keenly regard the rights of lawful assembly and free speech, including Internet freedom. For Tea Partiers, Second Amendment rights may trump those of the First. According to TruthOut, in a recent Tea Party convention address, Faith and Freedom Coalition's Ralph Reed warned that, should government fail its constitutional role to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, "there is moral obligation to overthrow the government, by force if necessary." Whereas Occupy has been expressly non-violent from the get-go, the hint of violence lurks just beneath the surface of the Tea Party. "Don't retreat; reload," Sarah Palin is fond of saying.
What Do They Want?
What the movements want mirrors what they most fear. Tea Partiers take to heart Ronald Reagan's maxim: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Tea Partiers cut their teeth by noisily opposing national health care. They fear the intrusion of government into all aspects of American life. Although there is no official Tea Party agenda, by and large Partiers are ultra-libertarians who demand small, decentralized government; a balanced federal budget; minimal taxes; and across-the-board federal deregulation -- environmental, industrial, and financial. Their ultimate aim might best be summed in the mantra of Grover Norquist: to shrink government "until we can drown it in the bathtub." Unfortunately, Partiers remain oblivious to the role deregulation played in the 2008 financial crisis and are willfully ignorant of a foundational economic principle: that public and private sector spending are complementary. The time to balance the budget is when the private sector is strong, not when the economy lies in shambles. Consequently, when the Tea Party gets its way, things only get worse.
In contrast, Occupiers most fear the excesses of Wall Street, corporate America, and multinational corporations: the kinds of excesses that culminated in the economic crash of 2008 and have since produced the greatest income inequality since the Great Depression. Occupiers see government as the only entity with sufficient power to hold too-big-too-fail banks and corporate greed in check. To most Occupiers, Citizens United is an egregious affront to constitutional rights. By granting "personhood" to corporations, further empowering the powerful, the Supreme Court gutted the Constitution and effectively silenced the voices of ordinary citizens. What do Occupiers want? An economy that works for all, not just elites. A government that fulfills its inviolate constitutional obligation to protect the less powerful from exploitation by the more powerful. And government with enough oversight and restraint to avoid the ever-present temptations to wage perpetual war and spy wholesale on its own citizenry.
Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the Tea Party and Occupy is that only one is truly a grassroots movement. A wise friend quips: "The Tea Party isn't grassroots; it's Astroturf." The Tea Party receives substantial support from front organizations like Americans for Prosperity, one of many funded by the billionaire Koch brothers to insinuate their extreme libertarian agenda into all corners of our lives.
Do No Harm
Although the Tea Party may seem more successful than Occupy, I'd argue the converse. "Do no harm" is the first premise of the ethical healer. Every Tea Party "success" has damaged the nation. By choosing as its spokespersons flame-throwers like Michele Bachman and Sarah Palin, who have scant regard for truth, the Tea Party has stifled dialogue critical to addressing real problems. By electing demagogues like Ted Cruz, whose scorched-earth antics disgust the saner members of his own party, the Tea Party has thrown sand in the gears of democracy, grinding Congress to a legislative halt. By its naïve insistence on budgetary austerity and "no new taxes"-- not even for millionaires -- the Tea Party has hamstrung economic recovery and perpetuated historic levels of economic disparity. Worse, by carrying water for oligarchs like the Koch's [sic], the Tea Party has weakened governance "of, by, and for the people," undermining the very Constitution it purports to cherish.
On the other hand, largely out of sight, Occupy has done the heavy intellectual lifting necessary to genuinely address the nation's vexing problems. As an Occupier, I found it gratifying to read Robert Rubin's Washington Post op-ed of July 27: "How ignoring climate change could sink the U.S. economy." Rubin, former treasury secretary, now echoes several economic fixes proposed in an Occupy white paper of 2012, among them that the nation's economic health and environmental health cannot be separated. Here's Rubin's punchline:
The Tea Party fell from public favor following the debt-limit debacle of 2013, and Occupy has gone underground. It would be a mistake, however, to regard either down for the count. The sense of betrayal -- of having been sold out to special interests -- remains raw in both camps. The systemic problems that created the meltdown of 2008 remain unaddressed. And in the six years hence, the middle class has shrunk significantly, the lower class has grown dramatically, and the wealthiest 1 percent has run off with 95 percent of income growth.
If America is to pull out of its tailspin before there's revolution, it may require the cooperation of Tea Partiers and Occupiers. Given the differences in style and substance, this seems unlikely -- unless vast numbers of Partiers awaken to the reality they've been duped. Still, such improbable synergy is the gist of Ralph Nader's new book Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State. I've not read it, but Nader could be right. On April 26, Cowboys and Indians (i.e., ranchers and Native Americans) convened on the National Mall to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline in a stunning display of conservative-liberal unity. And in Atlanta, Tea Partiers and Sierra Clubbers have aligned to form the Green Tea Coalition, advocating together for solar energy.
Divided we fall; united we stand.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Occupy the Tea Party
By Dave Pruett, August 1, 2014
At first blush, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street appear as bookends: opposing grass-roots movements on the political right and left, respectively. At second blush, the Tea Party seems the more successful. In the 2010 mid-term elections, one-third of Tea Party-backed candidates won, reclaiming the House for Republicans. And an unknown Tea Party libertarian just defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in Virginia's GOP primary. Occupy's one obvious success is searing the 99 percent meme into the national consciousness. But a look under the hood of each is instructive.
The Faces
Rank-and-file Tea Partiers are mostly white, Christian, older, and fearful. The faces of Occupiers, during the movement's heyday at least, were rainbow colored: diverse in age, religion, and economic status, and mostly hopeful. Indeed, Occupy arose from Arab Spring protests -- against economic and social injustice -- that ignited in 2010 in Tunisia and spread like wildfire to Egypt's Tahrir Square, Spain's Indignados, and New York's Zuccotti Park. Because the forces of oppression are so adept, these hopes have been temporarily crushed, here and abroad. But hope springs eternal.
The public faces of the Tea Party and Occupy are familiar. For the former: Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Michele Bachman, and Ted Cruz, among many. No prominent politicians or pundits, to my knowledge, identify openly as Occupiers. However, in word and deed those who align closely with Occupy's values include Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and UC Berkeley public-policy professor Robert Reich, whose documentary Inequality for All rocked the 2013 Sundance Film Festival. All three in the latter camp are tireless advocates for a vibrant middle class.
The Similarities
Interestingly, the movements share some common gripes: a sense of betrayal at the government's bailout of big banks following the 2008 financial meltdown and wariness that the constitutional rights of ordinary citizens are eroding. Equally suspicious of Big Brother, the groups hold sacred differing amendments of the Constitution. Occupiers, subjected to heavy-handed police suppression and forcible evictions, keenly regard the rights of lawful assembly and free speech, including Internet freedom. For Tea Partiers, Second Amendment rights may trump those of the First. According to TruthOut, in a recent Tea Party convention address, Faith and Freedom Coalition's Ralph Reed warned that, should government fail its constitutional role to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, "there is moral obligation to overthrow the government, by force if necessary." Whereas Occupy has been expressly non-violent from the get-go, the hint of violence lurks just beneath the surface of the Tea Party. "Don't retreat; reload," Sarah Palin is fond of saying.
What Do They Want?
What the movements want mirrors what they most fear. Tea Partiers take to heart Ronald Reagan's maxim: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Tea Partiers cut their teeth by noisily opposing national health care. They fear the intrusion of government into all aspects of American life. Although there is no official Tea Party agenda, by and large Partiers are ultra-libertarians who demand small, decentralized government; a balanced federal budget; minimal taxes; and across-the-board federal deregulation -- environmental, industrial, and financial. Their ultimate aim might best be summed in the mantra of Grover Norquist: to shrink government "until we can drown it in the bathtub." Unfortunately, Partiers remain oblivious to the role deregulation played in the 2008 financial crisis and are willfully ignorant of a foundational economic principle: that public and private sector spending are complementary. The time to balance the budget is when the private sector is strong, not when the economy lies in shambles. Consequently, when the Tea Party gets its way, things only get worse.
In contrast, Occupiers most fear the excesses of Wall Street, corporate America, and multinational corporations: the kinds of excesses that culminated in the economic crash of 2008 and have since produced the greatest income inequality since the Great Depression. Occupiers see government as the only entity with sufficient power to hold too-big-too-fail banks and corporate greed in check. To most Occupiers, Citizens United is an egregious affront to constitutional rights. By granting "personhood" to corporations, further empowering the powerful, the Supreme Court gutted the Constitution and effectively silenced the voices of ordinary citizens. What do Occupiers want? An economy that works for all, not just elites. A government that fulfills its inviolate constitutional obligation to protect the less powerful from exploitation by the more powerful. And government with enough oversight and restraint to avoid the ever-present temptations to wage perpetual war and spy wholesale on its own citizenry.
Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the Tea Party and Occupy is that only one is truly a grassroots movement. A wise friend quips: "The Tea Party isn't grassroots; it's Astroturf." The Tea Party receives substantial support from front organizations like Americans for Prosperity, one of many funded by the billionaire Koch brothers to insinuate their extreme libertarian agenda into all corners of our lives.
Do No Harm
Although the Tea Party may seem more successful than Occupy, I'd argue the converse. "Do no harm" is the first premise of the ethical healer. Every Tea Party "success" has damaged the nation. By choosing as its spokespersons flame-throwers like Michele Bachman and Sarah Palin, who have scant regard for truth, the Tea Party has stifled dialogue critical to addressing real problems. By electing demagogues like Ted Cruz, whose scorched-earth antics disgust the saner members of his own party, the Tea Party has thrown sand in the gears of democracy, grinding Congress to a legislative halt. By its naïve insistence on budgetary austerity and "no new taxes"-- not even for millionaires -- the Tea Party has hamstrung economic recovery and perpetuated historic levels of economic disparity. Worse, by carrying water for oligarchs like the Koch's [sic], the Tea Party has weakened governance "of, by, and for the people," undermining the very Constitution it purports to cherish.
On the other hand, largely out of sight, Occupy has done the heavy intellectual lifting necessary to genuinely address the nation's vexing problems. As an Occupier, I found it gratifying to read Robert Rubin's Washington Post op-ed of July 27: "How ignoring climate change could sink the U.S. economy." Rubin, former treasury secretary, now echoes several economic fixes proposed in an Occupy white paper of 2012, among them that the nation's economic health and environmental health cannot be separated. Here's Rubin's punchline:
We do not face a choice between protecting our environment or protecting our economy. We face a choice between protecting our economy by protecting our environment -- or allowing environmental havoc to create economic havoc.The Future
The Tea Party fell from public favor following the debt-limit debacle of 2013, and Occupy has gone underground. It would be a mistake, however, to regard either down for the count. The sense of betrayal -- of having been sold out to special interests -- remains raw in both camps. The systemic problems that created the meltdown of 2008 remain unaddressed. And in the six years hence, the middle class has shrunk significantly, the lower class has grown dramatically, and the wealthiest 1 percent has run off with 95 percent of income growth.
If America is to pull out of its tailspin before there's revolution, it may require the cooperation of Tea Partiers and Occupiers. Given the differences in style and substance, this seems unlikely -- unless vast numbers of Partiers awaken to the reality they've been duped. Still, such improbable synergy is the gist of Ralph Nader's new book Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State. I've not read it, but Nader could be right. On April 26, Cowboys and Indians (i.e., ranchers and Native Americans) convened on the National Mall to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline in a stunning display of conservative-liberal unity. And in Atlanta, Tea Partiers and Sierra Clubbers have aligned to form the Green Tea Coalition, advocating together for solar energy.
Divided we fall; united we stand.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Poor excuse for a lawsuit
...................................................................................
Saturday, August 2, 2014
The Kansas GOP sent "a new generation of Republicans committed to smaller government, freer markets and less corporate welfare" to Congress. Did they really mean it?
...................................................................................................................................................................
A Crony Capitalism Showdown
GOP voters overhauled their party in 2010, sending to the House a new generation of Republicans committed to smaller government, freer markets and less corporate welfare. We're about to find out if those voters really meant it.
A big decision comes Tuesday in the Kansas GOP primary. The Sunflower State is in the throes of political upheaval, with most of the attention on the fortunes of Gov. Sam Brownback and Sen. Pat Roberts. But the race that may say far more about the direction of the GOP is taking place in Wichita, the state's Fourth District, in the standoff between Rep. Mike Pompeo and challenger Todd Tiahrt.
The 50-year-old Mr. Pompeo—an Army veteran, Harvard Law grad and businessman—was elected in the 2010 tea party surge, with a particular focus on liberating private enterprise. He's made a name for himself as a leader in the fight to end corporate welfare and pork, and to cut back on strangling regulations.
He ran against earmarks in his 2010 campaign and then pushed for the GOP's earmark ban. He's annually led a charge to power down the federal wind subsidy, and he's the author of a bill to eliminate all energy rent-seeking. "Companies should have customers, not political patrons," he likes to quip. He opposes the renewable fuel standard, and he voted in February against Congress's farm bill—which was a return to government subsidies and more food stamps.
He's also been a critic of the Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration, a Great Society-era slush fund that shovels grants to politically connected communities. (See its 2008 grant for the Harry Reid Research and Technology Park in Las Vegas.) Mr. Pompeo calls it the Earmark Distribution Agency. As recently as May he got a vote on an amendment to eliminate EDA's $250 million in funding, rightly noting that the agency uses taxpayer dollars to "pick winners and losers," and that such unprioritized porking has helped create a spending culture that built $17 trillion in debt. (The vote unfortunately failed.)
Such principles are precisely what conservative voters claim to demand from their representatives. Yet the antisubsidy line has hardly been an easy one, even in conservative Kansas—which collects its share of federal largess. And Mr. Tiahrt knows it. The longtime politician held the district for eight terms, until 2010, when he made an unsuccessful bid for the Senate. He endorsed Mr. Pompeo for Congress, twice, but now wants his old job back.
His opening has been Kansas' overall sluggish business climate, and more specifically Wichita's struggling aviation sector. While jobs have been steady in the Fourth District, a number of its mainstay aviation companies have closed or moved out—unnerving locals. Plenty of this happened when Mr. Tiahrt was in Congress, but he's now centering his campaign (announced, without subtlety, at the Kansas Aviation Museum) on the claim that Mr. Pompeo is robbing his district and corporate constituents of federal handouts, and thereby hurting local jobs.
He certainly knows this game. In his 13 years as an appropriator, Mr. Tiahrt never saw an earmark he didn't love—mule museums, aquariums, wine initiatives. He directed endless earmarks to companies; the Weekly Standard's Mark Hemingway notes, in "His last two years in office, [he] doled out $33 million in earmarks to aviation companies alone." Mr. Tiahrt is not defensive about this. He brags about pork that he sent to companies operating in his district (Boeing, Beechcraft, Cessna), claiming he created local aviation jobs and rapping Mr. Pompeo for failing to join him at the trough.
Mr. Tiahrt similarly whacked the incumbent on the EDA, noting that the day before the Pompeo amendment vote, the agency had declared Wichita and south Kansas a "manufacturing community" eligible for a portion of $1.3 billion in federal funds. "Considering the size of the federal budget," Mr. Tiahrt complained in June, "it is odd that Mr. Pompeo would strike funding for a program so vital to Kansas' Fourth District." He's also in favor of wind subsidies, which has earned him financial backing from the American Wind Energy Association.
Mr. Pompeo's supporters note that their candidate—who once ran an aviation company—has focused on reducing government's role overall in the private sector, rather than benefiting one company over another. In 2013 he got both Houses of Congress to pass—and President Obama to sign—an aviation reform modernizing regulations and cutting costs for light-aircraft makers. It was a boon to that entire industry, but a particular bonus to South-Central Kansas, home to many such companies. That's a model Mr. Pompeo has sought to replicate with bills to reform pipeline permitting or to kill, equally, all energy subsidies (oil, gas and renewables).
The choice voters fundamentally face on Tuesday is whether they want a congressman who works to get government smaller for everyone and to end corporate welfare, or a congressman who grabs what he can of big government to funnel to his district, and embraces crony capitalism. The latter is a return to the unreformed GOP, a groove plenty of Republicans would happily slide back into—if only voters gave the nod. We'll see if Kansas conservatives do.
...................................................................................................................................................................
A Crony Capitalism Showdown
A congressional primary in Kansas' Fourth District will signal the direction of the GOP.
By Kimberley A. Strassel, July 31, 2014GOP voters overhauled their party in 2010, sending to the House a new generation of Republicans committed to smaller government, freer markets and less corporate welfare. We're about to find out if those voters really meant it.
A big decision comes Tuesday in the Kansas GOP primary. The Sunflower State is in the throes of political upheaval, with most of the attention on the fortunes of Gov. Sam Brownback and Sen. Pat Roberts. But the race that may say far more about the direction of the GOP is taking place in Wichita, the state's Fourth District, in the standoff between Rep. Mike Pompeo and challenger Todd Tiahrt.
The 50-year-old Mr. Pompeo—an Army veteran, Harvard Law grad and businessman—was elected in the 2010 tea party surge, with a particular focus on liberating private enterprise. He's made a name for himself as a leader in the fight to end corporate welfare and pork, and to cut back on strangling regulations.
He ran against earmarks in his 2010 campaign and then pushed for the GOP's earmark ban. He's annually led a charge to power down the federal wind subsidy, and he's the author of a bill to eliminate all energy rent-seeking. "Companies should have customers, not political patrons," he likes to quip. He opposes the renewable fuel standard, and he voted in February against Congress's farm bill—which was a return to government subsidies and more food stamps.
He's also been a critic of the Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration, a Great Society-era slush fund that shovels grants to politically connected communities. (See its 2008 grant for the Harry Reid Research and Technology Park in Las Vegas.) Mr. Pompeo calls it the Earmark Distribution Agency. As recently as May he got a vote on an amendment to eliminate EDA's $250 million in funding, rightly noting that the agency uses taxpayer dollars to "pick winners and losers," and that such unprioritized porking has helped create a spending culture that built $17 trillion in debt. (The vote unfortunately failed.)
Such principles are precisely what conservative voters claim to demand from their representatives. Yet the antisubsidy line has hardly been an easy one, even in conservative Kansas—which collects its share of federal largess. And Mr. Tiahrt knows it. The longtime politician held the district for eight terms, until 2010, when he made an unsuccessful bid for the Senate. He endorsed Mr. Pompeo for Congress, twice, but now wants his old job back.
His opening has been Kansas' overall sluggish business climate, and more specifically Wichita's struggling aviation sector. While jobs have been steady in the Fourth District, a number of its mainstay aviation companies have closed or moved out—unnerving locals. Plenty of this happened when Mr. Tiahrt was in Congress, but he's now centering his campaign (announced, without subtlety, at the Kansas Aviation Museum) on the claim that Mr. Pompeo is robbing his district and corporate constituents of federal handouts, and thereby hurting local jobs.
He certainly knows this game. In his 13 years as an appropriator, Mr. Tiahrt never saw an earmark he didn't love—mule museums, aquariums, wine initiatives. He directed endless earmarks to companies; the Weekly Standard's Mark Hemingway notes, in "His last two years in office, [he] doled out $33 million in earmarks to aviation companies alone." Mr. Tiahrt is not defensive about this. He brags about pork that he sent to companies operating in his district (Boeing, Beechcraft, Cessna), claiming he created local aviation jobs and rapping Mr. Pompeo for failing to join him at the trough.
Mr. Tiahrt similarly whacked the incumbent on the EDA, noting that the day before the Pompeo amendment vote, the agency had declared Wichita and south Kansas a "manufacturing community" eligible for a portion of $1.3 billion in federal funds. "Considering the size of the federal budget," Mr. Tiahrt complained in June, "it is odd that Mr. Pompeo would strike funding for a program so vital to Kansas' Fourth District." He's also in favor of wind subsidies, which has earned him financial backing from the American Wind Energy Association.
Mr. Pompeo's supporters note that their candidate—who once ran an aviation company—has focused on reducing government's role overall in the private sector, rather than benefiting one company over another. In 2013 he got both Houses of Congress to pass—and President Obama to sign—an aviation reform modernizing regulations and cutting costs for light-aircraft makers. It was a boon to that entire industry, but a particular bonus to South-Central Kansas, home to many such companies. That's a model Mr. Pompeo has sought to replicate with bills to reform pipeline permitting or to kill, equally, all energy subsidies (oil, gas and renewables).
The choice voters fundamentally face on Tuesday is whether they want a congressman who works to get government smaller for everyone and to end corporate welfare, or a congressman who grabs what he can of big government to funnel to his district, and embraces crony capitalism. The latter is a return to the unreformed GOP, a groove plenty of Republicans would happily slide back into—if only voters gave the nod. We'll see if Kansas conservatives do.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Insist that each political candidate define what they would do to make this a better community — not a more bigoted one."
...................................................................................................................................................................
LTE: Political Ads Need Integrity
By Andy Crossfield, August 3, 2014
A recent letter urged voters not to tolerate ugly political ads.
I'm all for that.
The problem I have with the writer is in their definition of ugly.
According to the letter, the primary race of Colleen Burton and her opponent John Shannon had gone too far.
In print and TV ads, charges of "liberal" were made about Mrs. Burton.
Let's examine this issue a little closer.
Are these ads motivated by a cold, calculated, lust for power?
Yes, but there is much more to it than that.
What does the group that conceived of and spent its contributors' money to buy these ads think of their target market?
Do they really have such a low opinion of us that they think this will get them votes?
And what does it say about someone who thinks the most vile, repugnant thing they can say about somebody is that they're a liberal?
Do we really live in a society that hates liberals more than anyone else?
Are the folks that fight each day for safe working conditions, fair wages, clean air, security for seniors, civil rights for minorities and demand respect for a woman's vote and choice really vile?
If some Republicans bristle over being thought greedy and callous to the working people's pain, then stop adopting the causes of those who are.
Reject these ads for what they are, a thinly veiled attempt to widen the gap between classes, where those pushing for increased rights for all people, not just a select few, are rebuked for no other reason than that silly labels have won votes in the past.
Don't be manipulated by fear.
Insist that each political candidate define what they would do to make this a better community — not a more bigoted one.
...................................................................................................................................................................
LTE: Political Ads Need Integrity
By Andy Crossfield, August 3, 2014
A recent letter urged voters not to tolerate ugly political ads.
I'm all for that.
The problem I have with the writer is in their definition of ugly.
According to the letter, the primary race of Colleen Burton and her opponent John Shannon had gone too far.
In print and TV ads, charges of "liberal" were made about Mrs. Burton.
Let's examine this issue a little closer.
Are these ads motivated by a cold, calculated, lust for power?
Yes, but there is much more to it than that.
What does the group that conceived of and spent its contributors' money to buy these ads think of their target market?
Do they really have such a low opinion of us that they think this will get them votes?
And what does it say about someone who thinks the most vile, repugnant thing they can say about somebody is that they're a liberal?
Do we really live in a society that hates liberals more than anyone else?
Are the folks that fight each day for safe working conditions, fair wages, clean air, security for seniors, civil rights for minorities and demand respect for a woman's vote and choice really vile?
If some Republicans bristle over being thought greedy and callous to the working people's pain, then stop adopting the causes of those who are.
Reject these ads for what they are, a thinly veiled attempt to widen the gap between classes, where those pushing for increased rights for all people, not just a select few, are rebuked for no other reason than that silly labels have won votes in the past.
Don't be manipulated by fear.
Insist that each political candidate define what they would do to make this a better community — not a more bigoted one.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"'Republicans figured they'd let one particularly important ambassadorial nominee go through in the hopes that it will relieve some of the building anger over their obstruction,' one senior Democratic Senate aide said." ~~BHD~~
...................................................................................................................................................................
White House Adviser Goes Ballistic After Republicans Block Russian Ambassador Nominee
By Brett Logiurato, August 1, 2014
The Senate on Thursday night eventually confirmed John Tefft to be the U.S. Ambassador to Russia late Thursday night, after an initial blocking of his confirmation by Senate Republicans prompted an unusually public outburst by a senior White House adviser.
U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sought Thursday night to confirm a bloc of 25 nominees to ambassadorships, including Tefft and the U.S. ambassador to Guatemala.
On the Senate floor, Menendez asked for unanimous consent to bring the nominees up for a mass vote. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) objected, something that drew the ire of Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.
Rhodes fired off a spree of tweets aimed at Senate Republicans and congressional Republicans in general, who had earlier in the day crumbled bills in both chambers of Congress aimed at addressing the U.S.-Mexico border crisis. Rhodes blasted congressional Republicans for blocking Tefft's confirmation while criticizing President Barack Obama for being "disengaged" on the Ukrainian crisis.
Here are his tweets:
Whatever the case, something quickly changed. In the Senate's last order of business before most of its members headed home for a five-week August recess, it confirmed Tefft's confirmation by voice vote.
"Republicans figured they'd let one particularly important ambassadorial nominee go through in the hopes that it will relieve some of the building anger over their obstruction," one senior Democratic Senate aide said.
The U.S. hasn't had an ambassador in Moscow throughout the entirety of the Ukrainian crisis, which has produced the biggest chill in U.S.-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War.
...................................................................................................................................................................
White House Adviser Goes Ballistic After Republicans Block Russian Ambassador Nominee
By Brett Logiurato, August 1, 2014
The Senate on Thursday night eventually confirmed John Tefft to be the U.S. Ambassador to Russia late Thursday night, after an initial blocking of his confirmation by Senate Republicans prompted an unusually public outburst by a senior White House adviser.
U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sought Thursday night to confirm a bloc of 25 nominees to ambassadorships, including Tefft and the U.S. ambassador to Guatemala.
On the Senate floor, Menendez asked for unanimous consent to bring the nominees up for a mass vote. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) objected, something that drew the ire of Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.
Rhodes fired off a spree of tweets aimed at Senate Republicans and congressional Republicans in general, who had earlier in the day crumbled bills in both chambers of Congress aimed at addressing the U.S.-Mexico border crisis. Rhodes blasted congressional Republicans for blocking Tefft's confirmation while criticizing President Barack Obama for being "disengaged" on the Ukrainian crisis.
Here are his tweets:
Whatever the case, something quickly changed. In the Senate's last order of business before most of its members headed home for a five-week August recess, it confirmed Tefft's confirmation by voice vote.
"Republicans figured they'd let one particularly important ambassadorial nominee go through in the hopes that it will relieve some of the building anger over their obstruction," one senior Democratic Senate aide said.
The U.S. hasn't had an ambassador in Moscow throughout the entirety of the Ukrainian crisis, which has produced the biggest chill in U.S.-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Journal wrote, "Let's hope they spend August planning how to return in the fall like a party that looks ready to do something other than fight with each other." Sorry, but they don't know HOW to plan that!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wall Street Journal Editorial Reams Into GOP's 'Deportation Caucus' For Causing 'Border Spectacle'
By Brett LoGiurato, August 2, 2014
The conservative editorial board of The Wall Street Journal reamed into congressional Republicans in an editorial published in Saturday's paper, after the House passed a bill Friday night that effectively would put the status of nearly 700,000 young undocumented immigrants in limbo.
House Republicans passed legislation Friday night to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program established unilaterally by President Barack Obama in 2012. The program shields hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation.
House leadership added the legislation to a package that included a $694 million bill to address the humanitarian crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border. The DACA legislation was meant as an enhancement to the package to sweeten conservative support.
The WSJ editorial board wrote, however, that the adding on of the DACA legislation to the package only provided "another spectacle of internal disarray" on what should be a path to a Senate majority in November.
From the editorial:
"The episode is also sure to raise doubts among swing voters about whether Republicans would be prepared to govern if they do win control of the entire Congress," the Journal's editorial board wrote. "Let's hope they spend August planning how to return in the fall like a party that looks ready to do something other than fight with each other."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wall Street Journal Editorial Reams Into GOP's 'Deportation Caucus' For Causing 'Border Spectacle'
By Brett LoGiurato, August 2, 2014
The conservative editorial board of The Wall Street Journal reamed into congressional Republicans in an editorial published in Saturday's paper, after the House passed a bill Friday night that effectively would put the status of nearly 700,000 young undocumented immigrants in limbo.
House Republicans passed legislation Friday night to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program established unilaterally by President Barack Obama in 2012. The program shields hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation.
House leadership added the legislation to a package that included a $694 million bill to address the humanitarian crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border. The DACA legislation was meant as an enhancement to the package to sweeten conservative support.
The WSJ editorial board wrote, however, that the adding on of the DACA legislation to the package only provided "another spectacle of internal disarray" on what should be a path to a Senate majority in November.
From the editorial:
"The bill should have been a moment to redirect attention to President Obama's cynical handling of the border problem and to the Democratic Party's immigration divisions. Instead the GOP again gave the country the impression that its highest policy priority is to deport as many children as rapidly as possible back from wherever they came. [...]The vote on the DACA legislation indeed provided Democrats with fodder to claim Republicans were still the same party that had endorsed "self-deportation" as an immigration policy in 2012. The Journal argued it detracted from what should have been the messaging — noting how the Democratic-led Senate and Majority Leader Harry Reid had failed to act on President Barack Obama's request for border funding.
The GOP's Deportation Caucus—led by Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz of Texas—lobbied House conservatives to resist any immigration compromise and pick a fight with Mr. Boehner. The dissenters demanded an array of policy changes, most notably new restrictions on the President's executive order allowing some undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children to remain in the country.
Readers may recall that the last Republican in an election year to support deporting immigrant children brought here through no fault of their own was Mitt Romney. A splendid voter attraction that was."
"The episode is also sure to raise doubts among swing voters about whether Republicans would be prepared to govern if they do win control of the entire Congress," the Journal's editorial board wrote. "Let's hope they spend August planning how to return in the fall like a party that looks ready to do something other than fight with each other."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Friday, August 1, 2014
A Hall of Shame needed for politicians who run away from answering questions
...................................................................................................................................................................
When politicians literally run away from questions
By Steve Benen, July 31, 2014
It’s hard not to marvel at political candidates and officeholders who literally flee from reporters’ questions. It’s one thing to dodge uncomfortable inquiries – an acquired skill for politicians of every stripe – but it’s something altogether different when politicians literally run away.
I’m beginning to think a Hall of Shame might be in order. We talked recently, for example, about former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), now running in New Hampshire, who “took shelter in the bathroom” to avoid questions about contraception access. But Brown’s hardly alone.
Remember when Nevada’s Sharron Angle ran away from a reporter asking about her “Second Amendment remedies”? Or how about the time Illinois’ Mark Kirk literally ran through a hotel kitchen to evade journalists asking about his serial exaggerations? Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) once ran into an elevator to hide from a reporter; Mitt Romney once “fled down a hallway and escaped up an escalator” to avoid questions about Libya; and Texas Greg Abbott recently fled a reporter’s questions about public information on dangerous chemicals.
And now we appear to have a new inductee.
David Wasserman reported yesterday that he recently sat down with state Rep. Lenar Whitney, a Republican congressional candidate in Louisiana’s 6th congressional district, though their interview didn’t go well.
And then Wasserman asked about President Obama’s birthplace.
...................................................................................................................................................................
When politicians literally run away from questions
By Steve Benen, July 31, 2014
It’s hard not to marvel at political candidates and officeholders who literally flee from reporters’ questions. It’s one thing to dodge uncomfortable inquiries – an acquired skill for politicians of every stripe – but it’s something altogether different when politicians literally run away.
I’m beginning to think a Hall of Shame might be in order. We talked recently, for example, about former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), now running in New Hampshire, who “took shelter in the bathroom” to avoid questions about contraception access. But Brown’s hardly alone.
Remember when Nevada’s Sharron Angle ran away from a reporter asking about her “Second Amendment remedies”? Or how about the time Illinois’ Mark Kirk literally ran through a hotel kitchen to evade journalists asking about his serial exaggerations? Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) once ran into an elevator to hide from a reporter; Mitt Romney once “fled down a hallway and escaped up an escalator” to avoid questions about Libya; and Texas Greg Abbott recently fled a reporter’s questions about public information on dangerous chemicals.
And now we appear to have a new inductee.
David Wasserman reported yesterday that he recently sat down with state Rep. Lenar Whitney, a Republican congressional candidate in Louisiana’s 6th congressional district, though their interview didn’t go well.
As a House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, I’ve personally interviewed over 300 congressional candidates over the course of seven years, both to get to know them and evaluate their chances of winning. I’ve been impressed by just as many Republicans as Democrats, and underwhelmed by equal numbers, too. Most are accustomed to tough questions.Whitney, who reportedly likes the “Palin of the South” nickname, “froze” when asked to substantiate her claims that climate change is the “greatest deception in the history of mankind.”
But never have I met any candidate quite as frightening or fact-averse as Louisiana state Rep. Lenar Whitney, 55, who visited my office last Wednesday.
And then Wasserman asked about President Obama’s birthplace.
…I asked whether she believed Obama was born in the United States. When she replied that it was a matter of some controversy, her two campaign consultants quickly whisked her out of the room, accusing me of conducting a “Palin-style interview.”A tip for candidates everywhere: if you literally run away from questions, you’re doing it wrong.
It was the first time in hundreds of Cook Political Report meetings that a candidate has fled the room.
...................................................................................................................................................................
True or not? Don't know but it wouldn't surprise us
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Bros. Group Accused of Defamation
By Andrew Thompson, August 1, 2014
Americans for Prosperity, a Koch brothers organization, defamed a union leader by accusing him and other union members of puncturing tires, burning a Quaker meeting house, and threatening, bullying and beating nonunion businesses, a union leader claims in court.
Frank Bankard, organizing director of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 542, sued Americans for Prosperity-Pennsylvania, and Jennifer Stefano aka Jennifer Turner, on Monday in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
Bankard claims he attended a Feb. 24, 2013 town hall meeting, sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, to discuss the Paycheck Protection Act. The act would prohibit unions from deducting dues from public employees' paychecks.
After the meeting, Americans for Prosperity uploaded two clips to YouTube, which show a few men appearing to loudly argue with someone off-screen. Bankard claims videos show his likeness.
The complaints states: "Subsequent to the meeting, Jennifer Stefano and the Americans for Prosperity of Pennsylvania posted the above referenced video and under it stated that 'unions in Philadelphia burn a Quaker Meeting House, unions were threating [sic], bulling [sic] and even beating open shop contractors,' and other indications that unions and Mr. Bankard were law violators."
The YouTube videos, checked Thursday, had no captions.
Bankard claims the captions stated: "We had to call the police to escort us out of the building. When I got to my car two of my tires were flat."
He attributes the comments to Stefano, the state director for Americans for Prosperity.
"The fact is that Jennifer Stefano lied about that the tires were slashed and put them right over Frank Bankard's picture, and that's libel in PA," Bankard's attorney Louis Agre told Courthouse News.
Neither the state nor national offices of Americans for Prosperity responded to requests for comment.
Americans for Prosperity, founded by the brothers William and Donald Koch, has provided millions of dollars to Tea Party insurgents running for state and congressional positions. It spent $34 million in campaigns against Democratic candidates in the 2012 election cycle. In May, David Koch promised a $125 million campaign against Democrats and Republicans unaligned with the Tea Party, an unprecedented amount for a midterm election.
Bankard seeks more than $50,000 in damages for defamation.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Bros. Group Accused of Defamation
By Andrew Thompson, August 1, 2014
Americans for Prosperity, a Koch brothers organization, defamed a union leader by accusing him and other union members of puncturing tires, burning a Quaker meeting house, and threatening, bullying and beating nonunion businesses, a union leader claims in court.
Frank Bankard, organizing director of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 542, sued Americans for Prosperity-Pennsylvania, and Jennifer Stefano aka Jennifer Turner, on Monday in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
Bankard claims he attended a Feb. 24, 2013 town hall meeting, sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, to discuss the Paycheck Protection Act. The act would prohibit unions from deducting dues from public employees' paychecks.
After the meeting, Americans for Prosperity uploaded two clips to YouTube, which show a few men appearing to loudly argue with someone off-screen. Bankard claims videos show his likeness.
The complaints states: "Subsequent to the meeting, Jennifer Stefano and the Americans for Prosperity of Pennsylvania posted the above referenced video and under it stated that 'unions in Philadelphia burn a Quaker Meeting House, unions were threating [sic], bulling [sic] and even beating open shop contractors,' and other indications that unions and Mr. Bankard were law violators."
The YouTube videos, checked Thursday, had no captions.
Bankard claims the captions stated: "We had to call the police to escort us out of the building. When I got to my car two of my tires were flat."
He attributes the comments to Stefano, the state director for Americans for Prosperity.
"The fact is that Jennifer Stefano lied about that the tires were slashed and put them right over Frank Bankard's picture, and that's libel in PA," Bankard's attorney Louis Agre told Courthouse News.
Neither the state nor national offices of Americans for Prosperity responded to requests for comment.
Americans for Prosperity, founded by the brothers William and Donald Koch, has provided millions of dollars to Tea Party insurgents running for state and congressional positions. It spent $34 million in campaigns against Democratic candidates in the 2012 election cycle. In May, David Koch promised a $125 million campaign against Democrats and Republicans unaligned with the Tea Party, an unprecedented amount for a midterm election.
Bankard seeks more than $50,000 in damages for defamation.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The IRS, "... already in hot water over allegations it unfairly targeted conservative nonprofits seeking tax exemptions, has agreed to investigate churches and pastors who preach politics from the pulpit ..." It's about time!
...................................................................................................................................................................
IRS agrees to probe churches preaching politics, says settlement to atheist lawsuit
A recent IRS settlement with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, an atheist lobbying group, has the tax agency pledging to investigate religious groups and pastors who preach politics from the pulpit.
By Mark A. Kellnar, August 1, 2014
America's tax collector, already in hot water over allegations it unfairly targeted conservative nonprofits seeking tax exemptions, has agreed to investigate churches and pastors who preach politics from the pulpit, reports show.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit group of atheists and agnostics who aim "to keep religion and government separate," filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in 2012, claiming the tax agency didn't pursue investigations of religious organizations — specifically churches — that participated in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." The event is organized through the law firm Alliance Defending Freedom, which urged pastors to violate a 60-year-old IRS rule banning such speech.
Passed in 1954, the so-called Johnson Amendment bars non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing a candidate. The measure, at the behest of then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, was meant to target specific political opponents, The Washington Times noted last year, but its use of Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code extended the prohibition to tax-exempt religious groups.
The FFRF is also tax-exempt under the same IRS provision, according to its latest available Form 990 filing. That 2012 filing noted the FFRF had an income of just over $3 million in 2012.
According to a FFRF statement, "Pulpit Freedom Sunday, in fact, has become an annual occasion for churches to violate the law with impunity. The IRS, meanwhile, admittedly was not enforcing the restrictions against churches." The group had previously sued the IRS in 2009 over the matter, with the agency pledging to appoint someone to monitor churches, but, FFRF alleged, the IRS didn't follow through.
The latest IRS settlement — which is contained in a joint motion to dismiss filed in federal court for the Western District of Wisconsin — "is a victory, and we’re pleased with this development in which the IRS has proved to our satisfaction that it now has in place a protocol to enforce its own anti-electioneering provisions,” Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the FFRF, said in the statement.
However, the ADF wants the IRS to detail what went into the settlement and what the agency's plans are to enforce the Johnson Amendment.
"Secrecy breeds mistrust, and the IRS should know this in light of its recent scandals involving the investigation of conservative groups," Christiana Holcomb, a litigation counsel for the group, said in a statement. "We are asking the IRS to disclose the new protocols and procedures it apparently adopted for determining whether to investigate churches. What it intends to do to churches must be brought into the light of day."
Over the years, repeated attempts have been made to repeal the Johnson Amendment. In 2013, the Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations, responding to a request from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, endorsed ending the ban on political speech in pulpits along with accepting a prohibition on non-profits giving money to candidates.
"It is both disturbing and chilling that the federal government regulates the speech of religious organizations," Michael E. Batts, who chaired the panel, wrote. "The prohibition against participation or intervention in a political campaign (by non-profits) … is the only law of its type on the books."
The group noted, "For some faith communities, engagement in political communications is inextricably steeped in their history and culture. For example, a 2012 Pew Research Center study reveals black Protestant churchgoers are eight times as likely to hear about political candidates at church as their white mainline counterparts."
For the time being, any IRS probes over ideology are on hold, Christianity Today reports, noting tax authorities aren't "free to investigate churches until a moratorium related to the agency's controversial scrutiny of tea party organizations is lifted after a congressional investigation closes."
...................................................................................................................................................................
IRS agrees to probe churches preaching politics, says settlement to atheist lawsuit
A recent IRS settlement with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, an atheist lobbying group, has the tax agency pledging to investigate religious groups and pastors who preach politics from the pulpit.
By Mark A. Kellnar, August 1, 2014
America's tax collector, already in hot water over allegations it unfairly targeted conservative nonprofits seeking tax exemptions, has agreed to investigate churches and pastors who preach politics from the pulpit, reports show.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit group of atheists and agnostics who aim "to keep religion and government separate," filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in 2012, claiming the tax agency didn't pursue investigations of religious organizations — specifically churches — that participated in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." The event is organized through the law firm Alliance Defending Freedom, which urged pastors to violate a 60-year-old IRS rule banning such speech.
Passed in 1954, the so-called Johnson Amendment bars non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing a candidate. The measure, at the behest of then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, was meant to target specific political opponents, The Washington Times noted last year, but its use of Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code extended the prohibition to tax-exempt religious groups.
The FFRF is also tax-exempt under the same IRS provision, according to its latest available Form 990 filing. That 2012 filing noted the FFRF had an income of just over $3 million in 2012.
According to a FFRF statement, "Pulpit Freedom Sunday, in fact, has become an annual occasion for churches to violate the law with impunity. The IRS, meanwhile, admittedly was not enforcing the restrictions against churches." The group had previously sued the IRS in 2009 over the matter, with the agency pledging to appoint someone to monitor churches, but, FFRF alleged, the IRS didn't follow through.
The latest IRS settlement — which is contained in a joint motion to dismiss filed in federal court for the Western District of Wisconsin — "is a victory, and we’re pleased with this development in which the IRS has proved to our satisfaction that it now has in place a protocol to enforce its own anti-electioneering provisions,” Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the FFRF, said in the statement.
However, the ADF wants the IRS to detail what went into the settlement and what the agency's plans are to enforce the Johnson Amendment.
"Secrecy breeds mistrust, and the IRS should know this in light of its recent scandals involving the investigation of conservative groups," Christiana Holcomb, a litigation counsel for the group, said in a statement. "We are asking the IRS to disclose the new protocols and procedures it apparently adopted for determining whether to investigate churches. What it intends to do to churches must be brought into the light of day."
Over the years, repeated attempts have been made to repeal the Johnson Amendment. In 2013, the Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations, responding to a request from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, endorsed ending the ban on political speech in pulpits along with accepting a prohibition on non-profits giving money to candidates.
"It is both disturbing and chilling that the federal government regulates the speech of religious organizations," Michael E. Batts, who chaired the panel, wrote. "The prohibition against participation or intervention in a political campaign (by non-profits) … is the only law of its type on the books."
The group noted, "For some faith communities, engagement in political communications is inextricably steeped in their history and culture. For example, a 2012 Pew Research Center study reveals black Protestant churchgoers are eight times as likely to hear about political candidates at church as their white mainline counterparts."
For the time being, any IRS probes over ideology are on hold, Christianity Today reports, noting tax authorities aren't "free to investigate churches until a moratorium related to the agency's controversial scrutiny of tea party organizations is lifted after a congressional investigation closes."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)