PDA

View Full Version : Tales of Your New Republican Majority!


bjkeefe
11-14-2010, 07:25 PM
Here's a fresh thread for GOPtalk (previous general one here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5563); a more narrowly focused one here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5064)).

To start it off, I recommend an article by Brian Friel (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14friel.html?pagewanted=all), a staff writer at Congressional Quarterly, appearing in today's NYT. Here's how it starts:

Where Will the G.O.P. Go Digging?

WITH the Republican takeover of the House, Representative Darrell Issa of California will become the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Capitol Hill’s top watchdog panel. As the lead Republican on the panel the last two years, Mr. Issa, a hard-charging, quick-witted former car-alarm company owner, has been the Obama administration’s most aggressive antagonist on spending under the $787 billion economic stimulus package. Starting in January, armed with the power to call hearings and issue subpoenas, he will play lead conductor to the new majority’s other committee chairmen in investigating what he says is a “long list” of oversight targets.

Below, I’ve taken an educated guess as to nine of the issues that Mr. Issa and his colleagues are most likely to look into. While some of those investigations are appropriate, others will be seen as attempts to rack up headlines that could embarrass the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.

And no matter which party is in control of the House, there are always questions about whether the oversight panel and other committees aren’t missing issues crying out for additional scrutiny. So I conducted an informal poll of 14 good-government watchdogs — veterans of the oversight process, former public officials and academics — to propose an alternative set of targets that have been largely ignored by both parties. A steady focus on these issues could reap benefits for taxpayers that would last well beyond the next news cycle.

==========

[Added] Shameless (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22GOPtalk%22) self-congratulations department.

operative
11-14-2010, 07:39 PM
Here's a fresh thread for GOPtalk (previous general one here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5563); a more narrowly focused one here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5064)).

To start it off, I recommend an article by Brian Friel (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14friel.html?pagewanted=all), a staff writer at Congressional Quarterly, appearing in today's NYT. Here's how it starts:



==========

[Added] Shameless (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22GOPtalk%22) self-congratulations department.

Just going off what I've read on a few conservative blogs etc., I think that he's correct on the job offers, Angelo, NBP, possibly on ACORN. Maybe the stimulus. It looks like he overlooked the firing of Gerald Walpin, which will probably come up. I don't know if they'll spend much time on the oil spill.

bjkeefe
11-14-2010, 08:04 PM
Just going off what I've read on a few conservative blogs etc., ... I don't know if they'll spend much time on the oil spill.

Not if Joe Barton (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=007432832765683203066%3Aw5evdpfzlks&ie=UTF-8&q=barton+apologizes+to+BP&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D0074328 32765683203066%253Aw5evdpfzlks) has anything to say about it, that's for sure.

P.S. I am astounded that you think it's worth Congress's time to investigate the New Black Panthers.

operative
11-14-2010, 08:27 PM
Not if Joe Barton (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=007432832765683203066%3Aw5evdpfzlks&ie=UTF-8&q=barton+apologizes+to+BP&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D0074328 32765683203066%253Aw5evdpfzlks) has anything to say about it, that's for sure.

P.S. I am astounded that you think it's worth Congress's time to investigate the New Black Panthers.

It's not investigating the NBP, really--it's investigating why the Obama administration felt compelled to intervene, as well as the broader issue of whether or not the Obama DOJ is behaving in a race-neutral way. I think it's actually the most potentially damaging topic, in terms of election consequences.

bjkeefe
11-14-2010, 08:33 PM
It's not investigating the NBP, really--it's investigating why the Obama administration felt compelled to intervene, as well as the broader issue of whether or not the Obama DOJ is behaving in a race-neutral way. I think it's actually the most potentially damaging topic, in terms of election consequences.

So, you're saying it's worth doing purely or primarily from the point of view of trying to gain an edge for the 2012 election?

operative
11-14-2010, 08:36 PM
So, you're saying it's worth doing purely or primarily from the point of view of trying to gain an edge for the 2012 election?

No, I'm just saying that purely from the perspective of the potential effects of investigations, that's the one I'd be most worried about if I were the Obama WH.

bjkeefe
11-14-2010, 08:39 PM
No, I'm just saying that purely from the perspective of the potential effects of investigations, that's the one I'd be most worried about if I were the Obama WH.

Okay. But you're kind of ducking my original question: do you feel investigating the NBP is worth Congress's time?

operative
11-14-2010, 08:41 PM
Okay. But you're kind of ducking my original question: do you feel investigating the NBP is worth Congress's time?

Investigating the NBP? Probably not. We know what they are--a racist hate group. Investigating the DOJ's involvement in the case and the broader issue of race-neutrality in the DOJ? Yes.

bjkeefe
11-14-2010, 08:42 PM
Investigating the NBP? Probably not. We know what they are--a racist hate group. Investigating the DOJ's involvement in the case and the broader issue of race-neutrality in the DOJ? Yes.

Okay, thanks.

chiwhisoxx
11-14-2010, 09:33 PM
Okay. But you're kind of ducking my original question: do you feel investigating the NBP is worth Congress's time?

Congress already spends enough time investigating topics of colossal importance to government like...baseball

bjkeefe
11-15-2010, 02:40 AM
See also: Wonderment's thread, "The New Republican Congress and its livestock policy (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6304)."

bjkeefe
11-15-2010, 02:50 AM
Here is something that will get absolutely no attention in the House for the next two years, at least: new (worse) projections on rising sea levels (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html?pagewanted=all).

Recent research (http://giotto.casaccia.enea.it/staff/antonioli/Articoli/29.pdf) suggests that the volume of the ocean may have been stable for thousands of years as human civilization has developed. But it began to rise in the 19th century, around the same time that advanced countries began to burn large amounts of coal and oil.

The sea has risen (http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf) about eight inches since then, on average. That sounds small, but on a gently sloping shoreline, such an increase is enough to cause substantial erosion unless people intervene. Governments have spent billions in recent decades pumping sand onto disappearing beaches and trying to stave off the loss of coastal wetlands.

Scientists have been struggling for years to figure out if a similar pace of sea-level rise is likely to continue in this century — or whether it will accelerate. In its last big report, in 2007, the United Nations group that assesses climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that sea level would rise at least seven more inches, and might rise as much as two feet, in the 21st century.

But the group warned that these estimates did not fully incorporate “ice dynamics,” the possibility that the world’s big ice sheets, as well as its thousands of smaller glaciers and ice caps, would start spitting ice into the ocean at a much faster rate than it could melt on land. Scientific understanding of this prospect was so poor, the climate panel said, that no meaningful upper limit could be put on the potential rise of sea level.

That report prompted fresh attempts by scientists to calculate the effect of ice dynamics, leading to the recent, revised projections of sea-level rise.

Satellite evidence suggests that the rise of the sea accelerated late in the 20th century, so that the level is now increasing a little over an inch per decade, on average — about a foot per century. Increased melting of land ice appears to be a major factor. Another is that most of the extra heat being trapped by human greenhouse emissions is going not to warm the atmosphere but to warm the ocean, and as it warms, the water expands.

With the study of the world’s land ice still in its early stages, scientists have lately been trying crude methods to figure out how much the pace might accelerate in coming decades.

One approach, pioneered by a German climate researcher named Stefan Rahmstorf, entails looking at the past relationship between the temperature of the earth and sea level, then making projections (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.full). Another, developed by a University of Colorado glaciologist named Tad Pfeffer, involves calculations (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;321/5894/1340) about how fast the glaciers, if they keep speeding up, might be able to dump ice into the sea.

Those two methods yield approximately the same answer: that sea level could rise by 2 1/2 to 6 1/2 feet between now and 2100. A developing consensus among climate scientists holds that the best estimate is a little over three feet.

Calculations about the effect of a three-foot increase suggest that it would cause shoreline erosion to accelerate markedly. In places that once flooded only in a large hurricane, the higher sea would mean that a routine storm could do the trick. In the United States, an estimated 5,000 square miles of dry land and 15,000 square miles of wetlands would be at risk of permanent inundation, though the actual effect would depend on how much money was spent protecting the shoreline.

[...]

Moreover, scientists point out that if their projections prove accurate, the sea will not stop rising in 2100. By that point, the ice sheets could be undergoing extensive melting.

“Beyond a hundred years out, it starts to look really challenging,” said Richard B. Alley, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University. “You start thinking about every coastal city on the planet hiding behind a wall, with storms coming.”

Bring on the ostriches!

After a decade of budget cuts and shifting space priorities in Washington, several satellites vital to monitoring the ice sheets and other aspects of the environment are on their last legs, with no replacements at hand. A replacement for ICESat will not be launched until 2015 at the earliest.

“We are slowly going blind in space,” said Robert Bindschadler, a polar researcher at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, who spent 30 years with NASA studying ice.

Several federal agencies and two presidential administrations, Democratic and Republican, have made decisions that contributed to the problems.

For instance, an attempt by the Clinton and Bush administrations to combine certain military and civilian satellites ate up $5 billion before it was labeled a “horrendous and costly failure” by a Congressional committee.

A plan by President George W. Bush to return to the moon without allocating substantial new money squeezed budgets at NASA.

Now, the Obama administration is seeking to chart a new course, abandoning the goal of returning to the moon and seeking a substantial increase in financing for earth sciences. It is also promising an overall strategy for improving the country’s environmental observations.

Major elements of the administration’s program won support from both parties on Capitol Hill and were signed into law recently, but amid a larger budget impasse, Congress has not allocated the money President Obama requested.

[...]

The satellite difficulties are one symptom of a broader problem: because no scientifically advanced country has made a strategic priority of studying land ice, scientists lack elementary information that they need to make sense of what is happening.

They do not know the lay of the land beneath most of the world’s glaciers, including many in Greenland, in sufficient detail to calculate how fast the ice might retreat. They have only haphazard readings of the depth and temperature of the ocean near Greenland, needed to figure out why so much warm water seems to be attacking the ice sheet.

The information problems are even more severe in Antarctica. Much of that continent is colder than Greenland, and its ice sheet is believed to be more stable, over all. But in recent years, parts of the ice sheet have started to flow rapidly, raising the possibility that it will destabilize in the same way that much of the world’s other ice has.

Certain measurements are so spotty for Antarctica that scientists have not been able to figure out whether the continent is losing or gaining ice. Scientists do not have good measurements of the water temperature beneath the massive, floating ice shelves that are helping to buttress certain parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica. Since the base of the ice sheet sits below sea level in that region, it has long been thought especially vulnerable to a warming ocean.

But the cavities beneath ice shelves and floating glaciers are difficult to reach, and scientists said that too little money had been spent to develop technologies that could provide continuing measurements.

Figuring out whether Antarctica is losing ice over all is essential, because that ice sheet contains enough water to raise global sea level by nearly 200 feet. The parts that appear to be destabilizing contain water sufficient to raise it perhaps 10 feet.

Daniel Schrag (http://schraglab.unix.fas.harvard.edu/index.html), a Harvard geochemist and head of that university’s Center for the Environment, praised the scientists who do difficult work studying ice, but he added, “The scale of what they can do, given the resources available, is just completely out of whack with what is required.”

Climate scientists note that while the science of studying ice may be progressing slowly, the world’s emissions of heat-trapping gases are not. They worry that the way things are going, extensive melting of land ice may become inevitable before political leaders find a way to limit the gases, and before scientists even realize such a point of no return has been passed.

“The past clearly shows that sea-level rise is getting faster and faster the warmer it gets,” Dr. Rahmstorf said. “Why should that process stop? If it gets warmer, ice will melt faster.”

bjkeefe
11-15-2010, 06:54 AM
Richard Posner (http://crookedtimber.org/2009/05/12/richard-posner-on-the-conservative-intellectual-collapse/) as quoted on Crooked Timber, 12 May 2009:

The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the surge of prosperity worldwide that marked the global triumph of capitalism, the essentially conservative policies, especially in economics, of the Clinton administration, and finally the election and early years of the Bush Administration, marked the apogee of the conservative movement. But there were signs that it had not only already peaked, but was beginning to decline. Leading conservative intellectual figures grew old and died (Friedman, Hayek, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Buckley, etc.) and others as they aged became silent or less active (such as Robert Bork, Irving Kristol, and Gertrude Himmelfarb), and their successors lacked equivalent public prominence, as conservatism grew strident and populist.

By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of “originalism,” the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.

My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising … By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.

Remember, that was before he'd likely heard of two-thirds of the Republicans who ran for Congress this time around.

bjkeefe
11-16-2010, 05:24 AM
Some guy from Jersey named John R. Bohrer (http://www.theawl.com/2010/11/why-chris-christie-will-not-run-or-jog-for-president-in-2012) simply does not care for his governor.

bjkeefe
11-16-2010, 06:52 AM
Some guy from Jersey named John R. Bohrer (http://www.theawl.com/2010/11/why-chris-christie-will-not-run-or-jog-for-president-in-2012) simply does not care for his governor.

More about Chris Christie (http://blog.nj.com/njv_bob_braun/2010/11/braun_heroic_nj_teacher_was_sa.html) (via (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/15/monday_link_dump/index.html)): apparently, he is a big fan of Andrew Breitbart's lying videotaper, James O'Keefe.

chiwhisoxx
11-16-2010, 11:57 AM
More about Chris Christie (http://blog.nj.com/njv_bob_braun/2010/11/braun_heroic_nj_teacher_was_sa.html) (via (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/15/monday_link_dump/index.html)): apparently, he is a big fan of Andrew Breitbart's lying videotaper, James O'Keefe.

The article hit a high note early on with the Springsteen quote, then went downhill pretty fast.

bjkeefe
11-17-2010, 06:40 AM
Politico (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=55183B45-DF7B-D74A-159B16362C76476F):

Top RNC aide quits, blasts Steele
By: Jonathan Martin
November 16, 2010 01:06 PM EST

Republican National Committee political director Gentry Collins resigned from his post Tuesday morning with a stinging indictment of Chairman Michael Steele’s two-year tenure at the committee.

In a four-page letter to Steele and the RNC’s executive committee obtained by POLITICO, Collins lays out inside details, previously only whispered, about the disorganization that plagues the party. He asserts that the RNC’s financial shortcomings limited GOP gains this year and reveals that the committee is deeply in debt entering the 2012 presidential election cycle.

[...]

The short version of the RNC's 2010 troubles as described by Collins: The committee couldn’t afford to run an independent expenditure ad campaign on behalf of their candidates, didn’t fund a paid voter turnout operation for Senate and gubernatorial races, left its vaunted 72-Hour turnout program effectively unfunded, offered only a fraction of the direct-to-candidate financial contributions they made four years ago and dramatically scaled back its support of state parties.

Steele has not indicated whether he will seek another term at the helm of the committee and an array of Republicans are already maneuvering to ensure that he does not win re-election in the event he runs. The depth of the party’s problems his political director reveals is likely to make it considerably more difficult for the embattled chairman if he does pursue a second term.

That’s in part because Collins is not one of the committee’s persistent Steele critics but a respected operative and senior staffer inside the RNC building who was given authority over the $15 million line of credit the party took out this fall. In addition to the normal duties of his job, Collins spent much of the summer and fall quietly travelling the country and meeting with major donors in an effort to boost the party’s lackluster fundraising. It was a highly unusual task for a political director and, coupled with his primary job responsibilities, effectively made the Iowa native the operational head of the party.

The letter is even more damaging because the aide doesn’t just lay out a bill of particulars about the troubled committee but specifically rebuts the pushback deployed by Steele to defend his tenure.

[...]

Collins’ parting blast is also damning simply by virtue of the sheer volume of data the aide reveals and the degree of precision he uses to paint a picture of a dysfunctional RNC.

The rest. (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=55183B45-DF7B-D74A-159B16362C76476F)

The letter is here (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM170_101116_gentrycollins.html) (via (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45193.html)), ostensibly, but I'm seeing a blank page at the moment. [Added: also tried Scribd (http://www.scribd.com/doc/42820305/Gentry-Collins-Letter), but getting an internal server error.]

Of course, this could be a puppet show. For all we know, the real money will be funneled through outfits like American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/us/politics/01groups.html?pagewanted=all). Yeah, Karl Rove again. Him.

bjkeefe
11-17-2010, 04:55 PM
Not sure it applies in this case, though. But have you seen Dick Cheney's new look (http://wonkette.com/430448/newly-thin-dick-cheney-going-to-continue-to-cheat-death)?

bjkeefe
11-17-2010, 06:33 PM
Or maybe it's just ... the Republicans were for meeting with Obama before they were against it (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/11/thats_the_story_galacticfail_edition.php)?

The Politico has a story (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45257.html) up tonight about how and why the bipartisan, everybody-get-along summit between President Obama and congressional Republicans ended up getting postponed. And a key part of it, according to Hill Republicans, is the GOP's distrust of Obama after he "crashed" their caucus retreat last January. You'll remember, this is when President Obama went and spoke at the House GOP retreat (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/obama-does-question-time-with-the-house-gop.php) in Maryland and actually took pretty free-ranging questions from House Republicans -- somewhat akin to 'Question Time' in the UK parliament.

Oh, wait. I think I remember that. That's where they invited him to come so they could make him squirm and thereby provide them with video clips for the YouTube and campaign commercials and so forth, and what ended up happening was he made them look like the clowns that they are, by answering their questions? No wonder the Republican Revisionist History Machine now spits out "Obamar crashed our seekrit meeting!!!1!"

(The rest of the post has a slew of links to news reports from that time, attesting to what actually happened, if for some reason you're still on the fence about the House GOP and their relationship with the truth.)

(h/t: Riley Waggaman (http://wonkette.com/430348/rude-republican-leadership-postpones-first-date-with-obama))

operative
11-17-2010, 06:39 PM
Not sure it applies in this case, though. But have you seen Dick Cheney's new look (http://wonkette.com/430448/newly-thin-dick-cheney-going-to-continue-to-cheat-death)?

Love the comments

I propose that the next shovel-ready project should be 'digging this guy's grave'


This is a deeply-disturbing photo. Now he looks like a Nazi doctor who conducts medical experiments on twins for fun.



perhaps he can share his weight loss secrets with Bristol....



So that's what Augusto Pinochet has been up to lately.



Oooo Dick, what's your weight-loss secret? Twinkie diet? No longer feeding off of everyone's hatred for you?

Say hello to Sadaam when you see him.



I'm assuming that picture was taken after they had open the Ark of the Covenant, right?



Okay who has the death pool going? And have going away party plans been drawn for when this spawn of Satan goes to join his Dad?



I wouldn't wish a slow, wasting death on anyone, but I'm willing to make an exception in this case.



Wishing for Cheney to die, fantasizing about his death, wishing for him to go to Hell, calling him a Nazi, equating him with Pinochet, oh and Bristol Palin jokes. The classy comments section at lefty blogs.

chiwhisoxx
11-17-2010, 07:17 PM
Love the comments


Wishing for Cheney to die, fantasizing about his death, wishing for him to go to Hell, calling him a Nazi, equating him with Pinochet, oh and Bristol Palin jokes. The classy comments section at lefty blogs.

But leftwingers aren't violent! This is especially great on the heels of BJ whining about the commenters at Hotair for stuff that was exponentially milder.

graz
11-17-2010, 07:22 PM
But leftwingers aren't violent! This is especially great on the heels of BJ whining about the commenters at Hotair for stuff that was exponentially milder.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WrjkqS_HBb8/Scexu8rrpDI/AAAAAAAAAkA/stc9Va7fwt8/s400/Wahmbulance.jpg

bjkeefe
11-17-2010, 07:24 PM
Love the comments

I propose that the next shovel-ready project should be 'digging this guy's grave'

Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny myself.

bjkeefe
11-17-2010, 07:25 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WrjkqS_HBb8/Scexu8rrpDI/AAAAAAAAAkA/stc9Va7fwt8/s400/Wahmbulance.jpg

Ah, don't be that way, graz. If not for typing WHAT ABOUT YOU???1?, what would chiwhi have to say?

operative
11-17-2010, 07:26 PM
Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny myself.


Oooo Dick, what's your weight-loss secret? Twinkie diet? No longer feeding off of everyone's hatred for you?

Say hello to Sadaam when you see him.



I'm assuming that picture was taken after they had open the Ark of the Covenant, right?



Okay who has the death pool going? And have going away party plans been drawn for when this spawn of Satan goes to join his Dad?



I wouldn't wish a slow, wasting death on anyone, but I'm willing to make an exception in this case.



These totally bring the lolz.

I seldom read the comments section at Hot Air or other conservative sites. I'm sure you come across some objectionable stuff-Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the occasional birther, etc.

But I have never seen the same level of bile. Routinely wishing death on Cheney, fantasizing about him burning in hell, etc. this stuff is utterly abominable.

chiwhisoxx
11-17-2010, 07:29 PM
Ah, don't be that way, graz. If not for typing WHAT ABOUT YOU???1?, what would chiwhi have to say?

I dunno! I could run rings around you talking about sports, but that wouldn't be fun for anyone involved.

operative
11-17-2010, 07:30 PM
I dunno! I could run rings around you talking about sports, but that wouldn't be fun for anyone involved.

Well, if it was basketball, I could go along with it. Just not baseball or NASCAR. Culturally I'm more fitting the traditional image of the liberal democrat, I must confess :\

nikkibong
11-17-2010, 07:32 PM
I dunno! I could run rings around you talking about sports, but that wouldn't be fun for anyone involved.

first question:

how does the baseball team that plays on the south side of chicago spell its name?

bjkeefe
11-17-2010, 07:36 PM
first question:

how does the baseball team that plays on the south side of chicago spell its name?

Oh, snap.

graz
11-17-2010, 07:37 PM
first question:

how does the baseball team that plays on the south side of chicago spell its name?

Careful now ... he'll run rings around you!

bjkeefe
11-17-2010, 07:38 PM
These totally bring the lolz.

Indeed. Especially if you understand how four out of five jokes made in the Wonkette comments are re-purposed statements originally made by prominent Republicans and leading members of the conservative media.

(cf. Weigel, "I hope he fails.")

... this stuff is utterly abominable.

Lighten up, Francis.

operative
11-17-2010, 07:40 PM
Indeed. Especially if you understand how pretty much everything written in the Wonkette comments is re-purposed statements made by prominent Republicans and leading members of the conservative media.

Ok, where are the comments by prominent Republicans fantasizing about Obama dying, burning in hell, being a Nazi, etc.

bjkeefe
11-17-2010, 07:41 PM
Careful now ... he'll run rings around you!

Is that like going in circles?

bjkeefe
11-17-2010, 07:47 PM
Ok, where are the comments by prominent Republicans fantasizing about Obama dying, burning in hell, being a Nazi, etc.

L (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+burn+in+hell) M (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+nazi) G (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=death+to+obama) T F Y (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=i+wish+obama+was+dead).

operative
11-17-2010, 07:50 PM
L (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+burn+in+hell) M (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+nazi) G (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=death+to+obama) T F Y (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=i+wish+obama+was+dead).

Can't you just find a 'prominent Republican' saying it? Or, short of that, some posters on Hot Air, NRO, etc. saying it?

bjkeefe
11-17-2010, 07:55 PM
Can't you just find a 'prominent Republican' saying it?

Yes. (http://www.google.com/search?q=gingrich+obama+nazi)

Or, short of that, some posters on Hot Air, NRO, etc. saying it?

Add site:hotair.com to any of the search pages given in my previous response.

And really, more to the point, try to get to Piaget's fourth stage (http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/piaget.htm), will you please? What is it with you wingnuts being unable to argue except via the literalism of a six-year old?

chiwhisoxx
11-17-2010, 07:56 PM
first question:

how does the baseball team that plays on the south side of chicago spell its name?

Umm....Saskatchewan Roughriders, right?

operative
11-17-2010, 07:59 PM
Yes. (http://www.google.com/search?q=gingrich+obama+nazi)

Claiming that Obama's policies threaten us as much as past military enemies does not equate him morally with Hitler. So still waiting. And when did Gingrich fantasize about Obama starving to death and burning in hell?



Add site:hotair.com to any of the search pages given in my previous response.

Tried but it didn't seem to include comments sections.


And really, more to the point, try to get to Piaget's fourth stage (http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/piaget.htm), will you please? What is it with you wingnuts being unable to argue except via the literalism of a six-year old?

So, when conservatives do something, they mean it and it's totally awful. When liberals do something far more egregious, they're just kidding.

I guess if you can actually find some of these elusive comments you think are out there, I can just respond in the same--'they're just keeeeeeeding.'

bjkeefe
11-18-2010, 06:46 AM
So, when conservatives do something, they mean it and it's totally awful. When liberals do something far more egregious, they're just kidding.

This is classic wingnuttery -- flipping out (or indulging in fauxtrage, more likely) over the comments left on a snark blog, about Dick Cheney of all people, and thinking that excuses the torrents of bile coming from your heroes and your leadership, that gets directed at thousands of people, not to mention entire groups of them.

The comments section of Wonkette does not equate to the statements made by Republican officials and conservative media figures, in intent, seriousness, scope, or significance. If you can't accept that, I am not interested in trying to help you further, given what I have perceived of you since you've joined this board, but I do hope someone does at some point. Or that you grow up on your own.

operative
11-18-2010, 10:53 AM
This is classic wingnuttery -- flipping out (or indulging in fauxtrage, more likely) over the comments left on a snark blog, about Dick Cheney of all people, and thinking that excuses the torrents of bile coming from your heroes and your leadership, that gets directed at thousands of people, not to mention entire groups of them.

The comments section of Wonkette does not equate to the statements made by Republican officials and conservative media figures, in intent, seriousness, scope, or significance. If you can't accept that, I am not interested in trying to help you further, given what I have perceived of you since you've joined this board, but I do hope someone does at some point. Or that you grow up on your own.[/QUOTE]

You haven't proven your case and you haven't made a real attempt at proving your case. Your argument style has basically been to say "I'm right, go prove that I'm right."

You have provided no examples of "Republican leaders" making comments on par with the comments made on Wonkette. And give me a break with this "they're just joooooooking" defense. Because if I read the comments section at Daily Kos or any other high profile lefty blog with a big comments section, I'd probably find the exact same bile. I guess they're all joking, too. You can choose to magically provide the intent of the posters, but I'm not ready to accept your soothsaying powers. I take the comments for what they are in their face, not what you interpret them to be.

I find it inappropriate to joke about your political enemies starving to death and burning in hell. Maybe you don't.

bjkeefe
11-18-2010, 03:03 PM
The comments section of Wonkette does not equate to the statements made by Republican officials and conservative media figures, in intent, seriousness, scope, or significance. If you can't accept that, I am not interested in trying to help you further, given what I have perceived of you since you've joined this board, but I do hope someone does at some point. Or that you grow up on your own.

Interesting that this came out appearing to be your own words. Freudian slip?

You haven't proven your case and you haven't made a real attempt at proving your case.

Correct. There are some things that are so obviously true, about which you are so pigheaded, that it's not worth the bother.

operative
11-18-2010, 07:34 PM
Interesting that this came out appearing to be your own words. Freudian slip?


A slip but not a Freudian one.



Correct. There are some things that are so obviously true, about which you are so pigheaded, that it's not worth the bother.

Unfortunately "It's obviously true" doesn't quite cut it.

bjkeefe
11-18-2010, 07:42 PM
Unfortunately "It's obviously true" doesn't quite cut it.

I'm sure it doesn't for you. By the same token, if you were a Flat Earther, you would respond similarly to my dismissal, and I would be just as interested in continuing to try to persuade you otherwise.

bjkeefe
11-18-2010, 07:45 PM
Nailed it (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/npr-derangement-syndrome.html):

It's perfectly defensible to have a principled opposition to federal funding for journalism. But this is absurd (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253479/gop-force-vote-npr-funding-andrew-stiles):

House Republicans announced today that they will force a floor vote to eliminate taxpayer-funded support for NPR in response to the firing of Juan Williams. A proposal to defund NPR was the winner in the GOP’s weekly “YouCut” contest, in which the public votes online for various spending cuts — GOP leaders have pledged to force votes on the winning items (so far nearly every such vote has failed to pass the Democratic-controlled House).

They're making a decision about whether to end federal subsidies to a decades old news organization because of Juan Williams? More to the point, the GOP rank-and-file could force a vote on a federal spending cut, and they picked NPR? I have a sinking feeling that this is what the GOP intends to do for two years: ride populist base fads into trivial nicks in spending, while never facing up to fiscal reality.

It'll be interesting, in the Chinese curse sense, to see how well two years of governing through resentment pans out.

[Added] The absurdity continues (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/a-good-question.html).

operative
11-18-2010, 07:51 PM
I'm sure it doesn't for you. By the same token, if you were a Flat Earther, you would respond similarly to my dismissal, and I would be just as interested in continuing to try to persuade you otherwise.

I'll keep that in mind for if I ever decide to argue that the Earth is flat.

bjkeefe
11-18-2010, 08:13 PM
I'll keep that in mind for if I ever decide to argue that the Earth is flat.

And if you ever get to Piaget's Stage 4.

operative
11-18-2010, 08:24 PM
And if you ever get to Piaget's Stage 4.

I think you mean bjkeefe's Stage 4 (knee-jerk hatred of all things left of Alan Grayson).

bjkeefe
11-18-2010, 08:56 PM
I think you mean bjkeefe's Stage 4 (knee-jerk hatred of all things left of Alan Grayson).

Typing without thinking again, I see.

bjkeefe
11-18-2010, 08:59 PM
Did Something Happen on 11/2/10?

Only 46% of Americans (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1804/political-news-quiz-iq-deficit-defense-spending-tarp-inflation-boehner) know that Republicans won control of the House in this year's elections, so maybe it never happened?

-- Jim Newell (http://gawker.com/5693697/did-something-happen-on-11210)

operative
11-18-2010, 09:25 PM
typing without thinking again, i see.

不。你打字那,我打字这。

bjkeefe
11-19-2010, 11:50 AM
Hey America, want to see what you brought upon yourself by putting the Republicans in charge of the House? Stephen Colbert presents Joe Barton (R-Texas) and John Shimkus (R-Illinois) (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/366030/november-17-2010/chair-apparent), who will be big players in deciding energy and environmental policy for at least the next two years.

Did you know that wind energy would be bad, because turbines slow down the wind that cools the planet? But that we don't have to worry about global warming because God promised Noah "never again?"

(h/t: Ocean)

Ocean
11-19-2010, 05:04 PM
Hey America, want to see what you brought upon yourself by putting the Republicans in charge of the House? Stephen Colbert presents Joe Barton (R-Texas) and John Shimkus (R-Illinois) (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/366030/november-17-2010/chair-apparent), who will be big players in deciding energy and environmental policy for at least the next two years.

Did you know that wind energy would be bad, because turbines slow down the wind that cools the planet? But that we don't have to worry about global warming because God promised Noah "never again?"

(h/t: Ocean)

I am Ocean and I approve this message. ;)

Don Zeko
11-19-2010, 05:35 PM
I am Ocean and I approve this message. ;)

Nor are you the only one that does so. There's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_ocean) ocean, after all, or this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Ocean), or this one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_ocean)

Ocean
11-19-2010, 05:42 PM
Nor are you the only one that does so. There's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_ocean) ocean, after all, or this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Ocean), or this one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_ocean)

LOL!

There are a couple more even. And I can assure you they are all equally interested in getting the story about climate change right. They'd really love to keep some balance in the planet.

bjkeefe
11-20-2010, 12:59 AM
Nailed it (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/npr-derangement-syndrome.html):

It's perfectly defensible to have a principled opposition to federal funding for journalism. But this is absurd (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253479/gop-force-vote-npr-funding-andrew-stiles):

House Republicans announced today that they will force a floor vote to eliminate taxpayer-funded support for NPR in response to the firing of Juan Williams. A proposal to defund NPR was the winner in the GOP’s weekly “YouCut” contest, in which the public votes online for various spending cuts — GOP leaders have pledged to force votes on the winning items (so far nearly every such vote has failed to pass the Democratic-controlled House).

They're making a decision about whether to end federal subsidies to a decades old news organization because of Juan Williams? More to the point, the GOP rank-and-file could force a vote on a federal spending cut, and they picked NPR? I have a sinking feeling that this is what the GOP intends to do for two years: ride populist base fads into trivial nicks in spending, while never facing up to fiscal reality.

It'll be interesting, in the Chinese curse sense, to see how well two years of governing through resentment pans out.

[Added] The absurdity continues (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/a-good-question.html).

So, how'd that all turn out?

As you might have expected: the vote failed, Roger Ailes non-apologized, and Eric "Smartest Guy Except for Paul Ryan" Cantor (R-VA) doubled down on the stupid (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/18/fox_ailes_npr/index.html).

bjkeefe
11-20-2010, 01:56 AM
... I recommend an article by Brian Friel (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14friel.html?pagewanted=all), a staff writer at Congressional Quarterly, appearing in today's NYT. Here's how it starts:

Where Will the G.O.P. Go Digging?

[...]

Looks like they're going "open-ended" on the New Black Panthers (because what more grave threat to America's freedoms is there?). Not to mention already steamrolling over the Democrats they're supposed to be working with on the commission. B'head Adam Serwer reports (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=11&year=2010&base_name=how_the_confrontation_over_the).

And we now set the timer to see how long it takes chiwhi and the operative to start sputtering about things getting "rammed down their throats" during HCR.

(h/t: Pareene (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/11/17/wednesday_link_dump))

chiwhisoxx
11-20-2010, 03:35 AM
Looks like they're going "open-ended" on the New Black Panthers (because what more grave threat to America's freedoms is there?). Not to mention already steamrolling over the Democrats they're supposed to be working with on the commission. B'head Adam Serwer reports (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=11&year=2010&base_name=how_the_confrontation_over_the).

And we now set the timer to see how long it takes chiwhi and the operative to start sputtering about things getting "rammed down their throats" during HCR.

(h/t: Pareene (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/11/17/wednesday_link_dump))

I implore you to find my using that phrase here, ever. Inb4 "I have better things to do with my time!!!!!" despite copious evidence to the contrary.

bjkeefe
11-20-2010, 05:41 AM
... you didn't really think anything was going to happen to John Ensign (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/11/19/i-fought-the-law-and/), did you?

Of course not. Endless investigations are for Republicans to direct at Democrats, not the other way around.

And after all, he's already moved out of C Street (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/05/deconstructing-senators-facade/)! And it's possible there are as many as fourteen other (http://www.lvrj.com/news/Watchdog-group-adds-Ensign-to-list.html) members of Congress as corrupt as he is! LEAVE JOHN ENSIGN ALOOOOOOONE!!!1!

What? You forgot (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/fec_dismisses_complaint_against_ensign_for_parents .php?ref=fpa)?

Ensign, TPM readers will remember, admitted in 2009 to having an affair with Hampton. Hampton's husband, Doug, was also a senior staffer and close friend of Ensign. After the affair, the couple left Ensign's employ and Ensign allegedly helped Doug Hampton get a lobbying job and clients -- a potential violation of the one-year Senate lobbying ban. Ensign's parents also gave a total of $96,000 to the Hampton family.

Find many, many more details of the affair here (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/john_ensign/).

Eh, maybe he'll get primaried by Sharron Angle in 2012. About all we can hope for at this point.

operative
11-20-2010, 09:39 AM
So, how'd that all turn out?

As you might have expected: the vote failed, Roger Ailes non-apologized, and Eric "Smartest Guy Except for Paul Ryan" Cantor (R-VA) doubled down on the stupid (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/18/fox_ailes_npr/index.html).

Well of course you'd think that letting a let-wing ideologically driven media empire support itself is a bad idea. They'll succeed in the next term though. Time to cut NPR loose.

bjkeefe
11-20-2010, 06:04 PM
One of the boys over at the comically-misnamed Reason magazine rolls up his sleeves, dons his victim's cloak, and explains why even though Ayn Rand Paul (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_11_14_archive.html#1532615125753942249) is the Messiah of the Teabaggers, everyone will think he's full of fail.

operative
11-20-2010, 06:41 PM
One of the boys over at the comically-misnamed Reason magazine rolls up his sleeves, dons his victim's cloak, and explains why even though Ayn Rand Paul (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_11_14_archive.html#1532615125753942249) is the Messiah of the Teabaggers, everyone will think he's full of fail.

I've never heard a Tea Partier extol Ayn Rand. I'm sure that many TPers aren't very familiar with objectivism, but if explained to them, they would find it objectionable, probably along the same lines as the National Review condemned it.

bjkeefe
11-22-2010, 03:14 PM
I've never heard a Tea Partier extol Ayn Rand.

I'm not sure whether I find that hard to believe, or in your (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity) case specifically, increasingly easy to believe, but trust me, they're out there in droves. Here is one way (http://www.google.com/search?q=going+galt) to illustrate that.

I'm sure that many TPers aren't very familiar with objectivism, but if explained to them, they would find it objectionable, probably along the same lines as the National Review condemned it.

Eh. Maybe you're right that, as with any glibertarian, they'd be disinclined to embrace all logical consequences of objectivism, much less live up to them, but I'd say that to the extent that TPers, and in particular, teabaggers, claim Ayn Rand's work to be their bible, they're just as inclined to cherry-pick the parts that appeal and ignore the parts that don't as anyone else claiming to base his or her thinking on one book does.

In any case, I was more riffing on the first name of Ron Paul's boy than anything else, not to mention laughing at how he already appears so likely to disappoint his more dogmatic fans that Reason already feels compelled to make excuses for him, so I'm not sure your response has much bearing.

operative
11-22-2010, 04:14 PM
I'm not sure whether I find that hard to believe, or in your (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity) case specifically, increasingly easy to believe, but trust me, they're out there in droves. Here is one way (http://www.google.com/search?q=going+galt) to illustrate that.



Eh. Maybe you're right that, as with any glibertarian, they'd be disinclined to embrace all logical consequences of objectivism, much less live up to them, but I'd say that to the extent that TPers, and in particular, teabaggers, claim Ayn Rand's work to be their bible, they're just as inclined to cherry-pick the parts that appeal and ignore the parts that don't as anyone else claiming to base his or her thinking on one book does.


Well that'd make them like any other devotees of pretty much any other philosopher ;)

bjkeefe
11-23-2010, 03:30 PM
Steve Benen is not known for being hysterical. That makes this even more thought-provoking (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026737.php):*

NONE DARE CALL IT SABOTAGE.... Consider a thought experiment. Imagine you actively disliked the United States, and wanted to deliberately undermine its economy. What kind of positions would you take to do the most damage?

You might start with rejecting the advice of economists and oppose any kind of stimulus investments. You'd also want to cut spending and take money out of the economy, while blocking funds to states and municipalities, forcing them to lay off more workers. You'd no doubt want to cut off stimulative unemployment benefits, and identify the single most effective jobs program of the last two years (the TANF Emergency Fund) so you could kill it.

You might then take steps to stop the Federal Reserve from trying to lower the unemployment rate. You'd also no doubt want to create massive economic uncertainty by vowing to gut the national health care system, promising to re-write the rules overseeing the financial industry, vowing re-write business regulations in general, considering a government shutdown, and even weighing the possibly of sending the United States into default.

You might want to cover your tracks a bit, and say you have an economic plan that would help -- a tax policy that's already been tried -- but you'd do so knowing that such a plan has already proven not to work.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Matt Yglesias had an item the other day (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/planning-for-the-worst/) that went largely unnoticed, but which I found pretty important.

...I know that tangible improvements in the economy are key to Obama's re-election chances. And Douglas Hibbs (http://www.douglas-hibbs.com/) knows that it's key. And senior administration officials know that its key. So is it so unreasonable to think that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner may also know that it's key? That rank and file Republicans know that it's key? McConnell has clarified that his key goal in the Senate is to cause Barack Obama to lose in 2012 (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/25/mcconnell-obama-one-term/) which if McConnell understands the situation correctly means doing everything in his power to reduce economic growth. Boehner has distanced himself (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/boehner-distances-himself-from-mcconnell-on-obama-as-one-term-president.php) from this theory, but many members of his caucus may agree with McConnell.

Which is just to say that specifically the White House needs to be prepared not just for rough political tactics from the opposition (what else is new?) but for a true worst case scenario of deliberate economic sabotage.

Budget expert Stan Collender has predicted (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2041/gop-criticism-federal-reserve-was-both-predictable-and-predicted) that Republicans perceive "economic hardship as the path to election glory." Paul Krugman noted in his column yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/opinion/19krugman.html) that Republicans "want the economy to stay weak as long as there's a Democrat in the White House."

As best as I can tell, none of this analysis -- all from prominent observers -- generated significant pushback. The notion of GOP officials deliberately damaging the economy didn't, for example, spark widespread outrage or calls for apologies from Matt or anyone else.

And that, in and of itself, strikes me as remarkable. We're talking about a major political party, which will control much of Congress next year, possibly undermining the strength of the country -- on purpose, in public, without apology or shame -- for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012.

Maybe now would be a good time to pause and ask a straightforward question: are Americans O.K. with this?

For months in 2009, conservatives debated amongst themselves about whether it's acceptable to actively root against President Obama as he dealt with a variety of pressing emergencies. Led by Rush Limbaugh and others, the right generally seemed to agree that there was nothing wrong with rooting against our leaders' success, even in a time of crisis.

But we're talking about a significantly different dynamic now. This general approach has shifted from hoping conditions don't improve to taking steps to ensure conditions don't improve. We've gone from Republicans rooting for failure to Republicans trying to guarantee failure.

There's more (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026737.php). Hat tip to Kevin Drum (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/liberal-noise-machine) (via Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/430815/republicans-intentionally-sabotaging-econoomy-to-help-them-in-2012)), who observes in part:

Strong statements! But here's what's really remarkable: virtually no one in any position of authority has picked up on this since Collender first suggested it. On the Republican side, practically everyone from the party leaders on down is thoroughly convinced that Barack Obama is one or more of: a socialist, an appeaser, a Chicago thug, a racist, a would-be killer of grandmas, and a president who wants to undermine everything that makes America great because he's ashamed of his country. This is just standard rhetoric from Fox News pundits, radio show hosts, rank-and-file members of Congress, and party poobahs. It's hardly even noteworthy anymore.

But the mirror image of that — Democrats saying that Republicans are deliberately sabotaging economic recovery — is virtually invisible. Krugman finally said it yesterday, but that's it among high-profile liberal leaders. For the most part they're just not willing to go there. This, in a nutshell, is the difference between the conservative noise machine and the liberal noise machine. One is noisy, the other is....restrained. We'll see if that changes now that Krugman has brought his cannons to bear.

* Ed. note: In the blockquote from Benen, I added the links back to the embedded Yglesias blockquote as they appear in Matt's original post.

bjkeefe
11-23-2010, 04:32 PM
Hey America, want to see what you brought upon yourself by putting the Republicans in charge of the House? Stephen Colbert presents Joe Barton (R-Texas) and John Shimkus (R-Illinois) (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/366030/november-17-2010/chair-apparent), who will be big players in deciding energy and environmental policy for at least the next two years.

Did you know that wind energy would be bad, because turbines slow down the wind that cools the planet? But that we don't have to worry about global warming because God promised Noah "never again?"

(h/t: Ocean)

And speaking of Joe Barton (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm):

Mashey's analysis concludes that 35 of the report's 91 pages "are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning."

What report was this? Oh, nothing special. Just the report commissioned ...

... in 2005 by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, then the head of the House energy committee. Barton cited the report in an October letter to The Washington Post when he wrote that Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann's work was "rooted in fundamental errors of methodology that had been cemented in place as 'consensus' by a closed network of friends."

And:

"The report was integral to congressional hearings about climate scientists," says Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. "And it preceded a lot of conspiratorial thinking polluting the public debate today about climate scientists."

Right-wing noise machine? What right-wing noise machine?

(h/t: Pareene (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/22/plagiarized_climate_report_joe_barton/index.html))

[Added] You'll note references to DeepClimate.org (http://deepclimate.org/) if you read the above. Here's the latest post (http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/) from that site on this scandal. It offers detailed analysis and links back to previous coverage, including the first reports made of the plagiarism accusations.

[Added2] You may want to start with this overview (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/11/wegman_plagiarised_but_there_i.php) of the DeepClimate.org analysis, from Stoat (William M. Connolly), over at ScienceBlogs.

[Added3] Kate Sheppard (http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/11/joe-barton-wegman-report) has a good post on a different aspect: "... and it appears that Barton's office may have been feeding Wegman's team the information to include in the report."

operative
11-23-2010, 09:54 PM
Steve Benen is not known for being hysterical. That makes this even more thought-provoking (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026737.php):*



There's more (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026737.php). Hat tip to Kevin Drum (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/liberal-noise-machine) (via Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/430815/republicans-intentionally-sabotaging-econoomy-to-help-them-in-2012)), who observes in part:



* Ed. note: In the blockquote from Benen, I added the links back to the embedded Yglesias blockquote as they appear in Matt's original post.

How dare they dissent!

bjkeefe
11-24-2010, 07:19 PM
Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7308000.html) reports on a GOP hero:

AUSTIN – A Travis County jury today found former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay guilty of political money laundering charges relating to a corporate money swap in the 2002 elections.

The verdict came down five years after DeLay was forced to step down as the second most powerful Republican in the U.S. House. The charges also led DeLay to resign from his Sugar Land congressional seat in 2006.

DeLay was accused of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. On the conspiracy charge, DeLay faces a sentence of two to 20 years in prison and five to 99 years or life in prison on the money laundering count.

In preparation for the 2002 elections, DeLay cloned his Americans for a Republican Majority political committee as Texans for a Republican Majority. TRMPAC was designed to help Republicans win a state House majority in preparation for a mid-decade congressional redistricting in 2003.

That redistricting helped the Republicans take a 17-15 majority from the Democrats and win a 21-11 GOP majority in the 2004 elections.

At the center of the case against DeLay was an exchange of $190,000 in corporate donations to TRMPAC for an equal amount of money donated by individuals to the Republican National Committee. The RNC money was given to seven Texas candidates specified by TRMPAC.

Corporate money cannot be used in candidate campaigns in Texas.

Wonder if that last sentence still holds, in light of Citizens United.

operative
11-24-2010, 07:20 PM
Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7308000.html) reports on a GOP hero:



Wonder if that last sentence still holds, in light of Citizens United.

Yeah, Tom DeLay is totally a GOP hero. About as much as William Jefferson is a Democrat hero.

bjkeefe
11-24-2010, 07:25 PM
Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7308000.html) reports on a GOP hero:

AUSTIN – A Travis County jury today found former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay guilty of political money laundering charges relating to a corporate money swap in the 2002 elections.

The verdict came down five years after DeLay was forced to step down as the second most powerful Republican in the U.S. House. The charges also led DeLay to resign from his Sugar Land congressional seat in 2006.

DeLay was accused of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. On the conspiracy charge, DeLay faces a sentence of two to 20 years in prison and five to 99 years or life in prison on the money laundering count.

[...]

This is the most tragic Tom DeLay story since this (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20421887,00.html).

[Added] Special for the operative: Yes. A Republican hero (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050427/news_1n27delay.html).

operative
11-24-2010, 07:37 PM
This is the most tragic Tom DeLay story since this (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20421887,00.html).

[Added] Special for the operative: Yes. A Republican hero (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050427/news_1n27delay.html).

Wow, Bush praised him. So, I suppose all of the praise heaped on the ridiculously corrupt Jack Murtha makes him a hero to the left. And you know that if I look, I can find people praising Cold Cash Jefferson, maybe even loopy Truthy Cynthia McKinney.

bjkeefe
11-24-2010, 07:57 PM
Wow, Bush praised him. So, I suppose all of the praise heaped on the ridiculously corrupt Jack Murtha makes him a hero to the left. And you know that if I look, I can find people praising Cold Cash Jefferson, maybe even loopy Truthy Cynthia McKinney.

No, I don't know that. I do know you have a history of making empty assertions, though.

I also know that George W. Bush, another of your Republican heroes, was twice President of the United States, and that Tom DeLay was House Majority Leader. I do not know, though, why you think two back-benchers, who so far are connected only* in what we politely call your mind, stand as equivalents to these two heroes of yours.

But then, being a good operative, you'll no doubt deny ever liking Bush, too.

Because NOT A REAL CONSERVATIVE!!!1!, amirite?

==========

* But, hey, look at that: "cold-cash Jefferson, Cynthia McKinney" right next to each other. Are we surprised to learn where you got this talking point (http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/scoreboard/transcript/working-compromise-congress)? No, we are not surprised. That much we have long known about you.

And of course you will deny this, too.

operative
11-24-2010, 08:13 PM
No, I don't know that. I do know you have a history of making empty assertions, though.

I also know that George W. Bush, another of your Republican heroes,
You have a flare for baseless assertions. For the record (which doesn't seem to matter much to you), my opinion about Bush is that he is a tremendously respectable, genuinely decent, person who was faced with an incredibly difficult presidency and lacked the leadership skills to truly rise to the occasion. Sorry that that doesn't fit into your "good/bad" schema.


was twice President of the United States, and that Tom DeLay was House Majority Leader. I do not know, though, why you think two back-benchers, who so far are connected only* in what we politely call your mind, stand as equivalents to these two heroes of yours.

Murtha was Nancy Pelosi's chance to be her number 2 and was possibly the second most powerful Dem in the House in terms of real power waged.



But then, being a good operative, you'll no doubt deny ever liking Bush, too.

Because NOT A REAL CONSERVATIVE!!!1!, amirite?

More baseless assertions.

And considering that I seldom watch Fox News (and haven't watched it today--right now Nightly Business Report is playing on my tv, having followed the News Hour), yes I will deny your silly charge, which seems to be little more than a way to duck out of acknowledging the worst your party has had to offer. Considering the slap on the wrist Chuck Rangel got for income tax evasion etc., you really ought not talk.

bjkeefe
11-25-2010, 04:08 AM
... my opinion about Bush is that he is a tremendously respectable, genuinely decent, person ...

Noted for the record. Maybe you'd like to unhand that shovel, though? Because what you type after that ...

... who was faced with an incredibly difficult presidency and lacked the leadership skills to truly rise to the occasion.

... sounds disturbingly like this (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/05/speaking-of-fat-loads.html):

"a man who has struggled with adversity with an inspiring humility."

But let us move away from your crush on Commander Codpiece. You have more talking points generated by Fox, et al, yes?

Murtha was ...

Ah. Indeed you do.

We will first note, with amusement, your backpedaling away from your (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=189792&highlight=cold+cash+cold-cash+jefferson+cynthia+mckinney#post189792) earlier "Cold Cash Jefferson" and "Cynthia McKinney" talking points. Couldn't respond to my challenge to find any connections there, hmmm? Ah well, GoogleIsLibrullyBiased!!!1!, as your hero Kathryn Jean Lopez (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/10/gap-2.html) will tell you on a regular basis.

As to Murtha, not to mention your later attempt to throw Rangel into the mix now that the names you first babbled out have been shot down: I'll be the last person on this earth to blindly insist that any member of Congress is free from corruption, since I do not suffer from the same mindless tribalistic mentality as you do, but just in case you've yet to learn this, due to Fox and the rest of the right-wing sources you prefer to consume, here's a difference worth keeping in mind, especially in the context of this thread. In bullet points because we believe in placing the fodder where the cattle can reach it:

• Murtha has never been convicted of a crime.

• He has never even been indicted for a crime.

• Neither has Rangel.

• By contrast, your hero Tom DeLay has.

• Tom DeLay has been indicted.

• Tom DeLay has been convicted.

And if there is any justice left in this country, he will be doing long years behind bars.

(Yes. (*sigh*) We know what you're furiously itching to type right now. See note [1].)

And yes, Tom DeLay is your hero. Just admit it. Or else admit you are guilty of mindless tribalism.

I mean, seriously. Your Must.Fire.Rapid.Response. mania concerning this clown, not to mention the likes of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin ... really? You cannot see how vacuous that looks?

Something to think about, assuming that you will at some point turn off your teevee and give that experience a try.

Somewhere later you said this ...

More baseless assertions.

... to which I will say only that I'm glad to see ... a hint! A small hint, yes, but a hint! A small hint that there may be some evidence to be found that you have not yet calcified so much that you've been completely deaf to that criticism that you have earned.

I call that one seed planted, to the good.

Now let's see if you can do anything more with it than to multiply it by -1 and try to hurl it back.

Not betting, mind. But I'm always a little hopeful. Even with people like you.

==========

[1] Doubtless, you're looking to duck everything else said in this post and so the Foxy voices in your head are already howling out loud about the "indictment" of Rangel by the House Ethics Committee. They are saying, "Don't think! Just type!"

Save it. I am talking here about actual crimes as determined by actual courts of law. Which, I sadly feel compelled to add for your edification, was a distinction the operatives of the Party of Law and Order™ used to love to make. But of course, now they're just working for the Party of No.

operative
11-25-2010, 06:24 PM
Noted for the record. Maybe you'd like to unhand that shovel, though? Because what you type after that ...



... sounds disturbingly like this (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/05/speaking-of-fat-loads.html):



But let us move away from your crush on Commander Codpiece. You have more talking points generated by Fox, et al, yes?



Ah. Indeed you do.

We will first note, with amusement, your backpedaling away from your (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=189792&highlight=cold+cash+cold-cash+jefferson+cynthia+mckinney#post189792) earlier "Cold Cash Jefferson" and "Cynthia McKinney" talking points. Couldn't respond to my challenge to find any connections there, hmmm? Ah well, GoogleIsLibrullyBiased!!!1!, as your hero Kathryn Jean Lopez (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/10/gap-2.html) will tell you on a regular basis.

As to Murtha, not to mention your later attempt to throw Rangel into the mix now that the names you first babbled out have been shot down: I'll be the last person on this earth to blindly insist that any member of Congress is free from corruption, since I do not suffer from the same mindless tribalistic mentality as you do, but just in case you've yet to learn this, due to Fox and the rest of the right-wing sources you prefer to consume, here's a difference worth keeping in mind, especially in the context of this thread. In bullet points because we believe in placing the fodder where the cattle can reach it:

• Murtha has never been convicted of a crime.

• He has never even been indicted for a crime.

• Neither has Rangel.

• By contrast, your hero Tom DeLay has.

• Tom DeLay has been indicted.

• Tom DeLay has been convicted.

And if there is any justice left in this country, he will be doing long years behind bars.

(Yes. (*sigh*) We know what you're furiously itching to type right now. See note [1].)

And yes, Tom DeLay is your hero. Just admit it. Or else admit you are guilty of mindless tribalism.

I mean, seriously. Your Must.Fire.Rapid.Response. mania concerning this clown, not to mention the likes of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin ... really? You cannot see how vacuous that looks?

Something to think about, assuming that you will at some point turn off your teevee and give that experience a try.

Somewhere later you said this ...



... to which I will say only that I'm glad to see ... a hint! A small hint, yes, but a hint! A small hint that there may be some evidence to be found that you have not yet calcified so much that you've been completely deaf to that criticism that you have earned.

I call that one seed planted, to the good.

Now let's see if you can do anything more with it than to multiply it by -1 and try to hurl it back.

Not betting, mind. But I'm always a little hopeful. Even with people like you.

==========

[1] Doubtless, you're looking to duck everything else said in this post and so the Foxy voices in your head are already howling out loud about the "indictment" of Rangel by the House Ethics Committee. They are saying, "Don't think! Just type!"

Save it. I am talking here about actual crimes as determined by actual courts of law. Which, I sadly feel compelled to add for your edification, was a distinction the operatives of the Party of Law and Order™ used to love to make. But of course, now they're just working for the Party of No.

If you're not willing to concede that Murtha was corrupt then there is no point in continuing the conversation because you are not acting in good faith.

But I am in a very good mood so I will say Happy Thanksgiving all the same.

bjkeefe
11-29-2010, 07:46 PM
Evidently, David Barton's brainwashing sessions (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187944&highlight=barton#post187944) for incoming Republican members of Congress have not filled his schedule. Looks like he also has time to ally himself with the likes of Bryan Fischer (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=188829&highlight=fischer#post188829), Tony Perkins (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=153511&highlight=perkins#post153511), and a bunch of other fundies to put forth a message of the Biblical (Christian) response to the godless environmentalists!!!1! (http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com/)

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8812/resistingthegreendragon.png


Sound familiar (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=189045&highlight=god+promised+noah#post189045)?

Oh, did I say "message?" Of course I should have said "product." These grifters never miss a chance to repackage the same shit appealing to the same fears and hatreds, do they?

(h/t: Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/431195/scary-environmentalist-dragon-also-trying-to-destroy-christianity))

bjkeefe
12-01-2010, 02:31 AM
In order to get this Great Nation Back On Track, we're gonna need ... Priorities!

Apparently, wanking over earmarks and trying to cut the last eight cents the government gives NPR wasn't picayune enough, so the Number One and Number Two Republicans in the United States House of Representatives are now Very Concerned about?

Works of art that offend no one but wingnuts who spend their every waking hour searching for things to be offended by. Srsly (http://gawker.com/5702703/).

(h/t: Roy Edroso (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_11_28_archive.html#3562101047010131821). And don't miss his previous post (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_11_28_archive.html#6736256942413997780) on the same subject.)

Ocean
12-01-2010, 08:36 AM
The multiple faces of fascism.

operative
12-01-2010, 10:29 AM
In order to get this Great Nation Back On Track, we're gonna need ... Priorities!

Apparently, wanking over earmarks and trying to cut the last eight cents the government gives NPR wasn't picayune enough, so the Number One and Number Two Republicans in the United States House of Representatives are now Very Concerned about?

Works of art that offend no one but wingnuts who spend their every waking hour searching for things to be offended by. Srsly (http://gawker.com/5702703/).

(h/t: Roy Edroso (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_11_28_archive.html#3562101047010131821). And don't miss his previous post (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_11_28_archive.html#6736256942413997780) on the same subject.)

About time NPR stood on its own. It is an intolerant lefty spin machine. So they're free to do so, but they shouldn't be expected to be propped up by taxpayer funds.

TwinSwords
12-01-2010, 01:57 PM
The multiple faces of fascism.

Exactly right.

Republicans hate us for our freedom. (To borrow a phrase.)

operative
12-01-2010, 05:25 PM
Exactly right.

Republicans hate us for our freedom. (To borrow a phrase.)

Separating media and government is actually the exact opposite of fascism. The State-media was a major component of the Nazi regime.

bjkeefe
12-01-2010, 05:45 PM
Separating media and government is actually the exact opposite of fascism. The State-media was a major component of the Nazi regime.

Yes. We (http://www.google.com/search?q=judith+miller+dick+cheney) must (http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/09/michele_bachman_136.php) always (http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Rush_Limbaugh.php) be on (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=007432832765683203066%3Aw5evdpfzlks&ie=UTF-8&q=marc+thiessen&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D0074328 32765683203066%253Aw5evdpfzlks) guard (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer), mustn't (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008160046) we?

operative
12-01-2010, 05:46 PM
Yes. We must (http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/09/michele_bachman_136.php) always (http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Rush_Limbaugh.php) be on guard (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer), mustn't (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008160046) we?

Totally

Ocean
12-01-2010, 06:02 PM
About time NPR stood on its own. It is an intolerant lefty spin machine. So they're free to do so, but they shouldn't be expected to be propped up by taxpayer funds.

The topic of discussion seemed to be about Republican Congressmen making decisions about what kind of art the Smithsonian is supposed to show, and censuring with threats of retaliation by cutting funding. It is that type of fascism that I was referring to.

TwinSwords
12-01-2010, 06:10 PM
The topic of discussion seemed to be about Republican Congressmen making decisions about what kind of art the Smithsonian is supposed to show, and censuring with threats of retaliation by cutting funding. It is that type of fascism that I was referring to.

Yep. That's what I took you to mean.

But I have to admit: The sincere comparison of NPR to state controlled media in Nazi Germany is good for a few laughs.

operative
12-01-2010, 06:13 PM
The topic of discussion seemed to be about Republican Congressmen making decisions about what kind of art the Smithsonian is supposed to show, and censuring with threats of retaliation by cutting funding. It is that type of fascism that I was referring to.

Ah. I think it's a bit of a stretch--let's see how many Dems would be defending funding for some stupid southern museum that would decide to make itself a shrine to the Confederacy.

Ocean
12-01-2010, 06:21 PM
Ah. I think it's a bit of a stretch--let's see how many Dems would be defending funding for some stupid southern museum that would decide to make itself a shrine to the Confederacy.

Considering the obvious connotation about slavery and racism that "a shrine to the Confederacy" would represent, I would hope that both Dems and Republicans would object to such funding. Or do you think that Republicans would support those values?

operative
12-01-2010, 06:31 PM
Considering the obvious connotation about slavery and racism that "a shrine to the Confederacy" would represent, I would hope that both Dems and Republicans would object to such funding. Or do you think that Republicans would support those values?

I donnu, maybe Jeff Sessions would but 90% of the GOP wouldn't.

bjkeefe
12-01-2010, 08:27 PM
I donnu, maybe Jeff Sessions would but 90% of the GOP wouldn't.

Probably you could count on support from Steve King (R-Iowa) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/11/they-just-never-stop-with-dog-whistles.html) as well.

And Joe Wilson (R-SC) (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/14/wilson-confederate-flag/).

And Saxby Chambliss (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_27/-14994-1.html).

And Tom Tancredo (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/09/latest-racist-dogwhistling-from-tom.html).

And I suspect there are a few others, which I'll let you look for (http://www.google.com/search?q=Republican+support+for+confederate+flag).

Also, I'm sure much of the wingnut media, like Breitbart, O'Keefe, Gingrich, and Beck, not to mention the Boss of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, would be in full howling support. (But not because they're racists, oh no. Just to piss off liberals, oh yes.)

operative
12-01-2010, 08:40 PM
Probably you could count on support from Steve King (R-Iowa) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/11/they-just-never-stop-with-dog-whistles.html) as well.

And Joe Wilson (R-SC) (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/14/wilson-confederate-flag/).

And Saxby Chambliss (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_27/-14994-1.html).

And Tom Tancredo (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/09/latest-racist-dogwhistling-from-tom.html).

And I suspect there are a few others, which I'll let you look for (http://www.google.com/search?q=Republican+support+for+confederate+flag).

Also, I'm sure much of the wingnut media, like Breitbart, O'Keefe, Gingrich, and Beck, not to mention the Boss of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, would be in full howling support. (But not because they're racists, oh no. Just to piss off liberals, oh yes.)
Hardly.

bjkeefe
12-02-2010, 11:13 AM
Praise Jesus and ExxonMobil! (http://wonkette.com/431396/house-republicans-end-climate)

House GOP Ends Climate-Change Committee Because It’s Not Real

Because Republicans won a majority in the House in the 2010 elections, climate change no longer exists. Hooray! Jim Sensenbrenner announced that Republicans will be getting rid of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming when they take over ...

TwinSwords
12-02-2010, 12:18 PM
Praise Jesus and ExxonMobil! (http://wonkette.com/431396/house-republicans-end-climate)

I continue to marvel at the fact that anyone would voluntarily associate themselves with the Republican Party.

bjkeefe
12-02-2010, 02:13 PM
The Party of Hell No!!!1! (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/us/politics/02cong.html), same as they ever were:

Senate Republicans Threaten Tax Dispute Blockade

WASHINGTON — Not even 24 hours after President Obama met with senior Republican Congressional leaders and expressed hopes for a “new dialogue,” renewed partisan fury engulfed the Senate on Wednesday, as Republicans threatened to block any legislation until a deal is reached to extend the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, potentially derailing the Democrats’ busy end-of-year agenda.

The blunt threat was made in a letter to the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and signed by all 42 Senate Republicans. [...]

[...]

[Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell’s announcement of an all-out blockade came just a day after he applauded Senator Christopher R. Dodd, the retiring Connecticut Democrat, for a farewell address in which Mr. Dodd called for greater civility and cooperation among lawmakers. His announcement drew howls of anger from Democrats who said it was just the latest evidence of Republican obstructionism.

To emphasize their point, Democrats went to the floor and attempted to bring up numerous bills, including a measure to extend jobless benefits and a measure to promote clean energy. On behalf of his colleagues, Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, repeatedly voiced objections, blocking the bills and prompting a furious speech by Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri.

“If anybody’s been paying attention, they would understand that our friends across the aisle have been blocking everything, including motherhood and apple pie for the last year,” Ms. McCaskill said. She derided Mr. Barrasso for accusing the Democrats of engaging in theater. “Theater is having 42 senators say we will not participate unless you do what we want to do today,” she said. “That’s theater.”

Ms. McCaskill added, “What you are seeing on this side right now is a healthy dose of indignation on behalf of the American people that are hurting.”

Senate Republicans said they would even block a major food safety bill that the Senate adopted just on Tuesday but must be voted on again because of a parliamentary glitch. The food safety measure, which strengthens the Food and Drug Administration in an effort to prevent unsafe foods from reaching grocery stores and restaurant, was approved by a vote of 73 to 25, with 15 Republicans joining Democrats in support.

[...]

If Republicans had any worry about being seen as uncooperative, they did not show it.

Of course not.

bjkeefe
12-02-2010, 03:48 PM
The Party of Hell No!!!1! (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/us/politics/02cong.html), same as they ever were:

Senate Republicans Threaten Tax Dispute Blockade

WASHINGTON — Not even 24 hours after President Obama met with senior Republican Congressional leaders and expressed hopes for a “new dialogue,” renewed partisan fury engulfed the Senate on Wednesday, as Republicans threatened to block any legislation until a deal is reached to extend the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, potentially derailing the Democrats’ busy end-of-year agenda.

The blunt threat was made in a letter to the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and signed by all 42 Senate Republicans. [...]

[...]

[Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell’s announcement of an all-out blockade came just a day after he applauded Senator Christopher R. Dodd, the retiring Connecticut Democrat, for a farewell address in which Mr. Dodd called for greater civility and cooperation among lawmakers. His announcement drew howls of anger from Democrats who said it was just the latest evidence of Republican obstructionism.

To emphasize their point, Democrats went to the floor and attempted to bring up numerous bills, including a measure to extend jobless benefits and a measure to promote clean energy. On behalf of his colleagues, Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, repeatedly voiced objections, blocking the bills and prompting a furious speech by Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri.

“If anybody’s been paying attention, they would understand that our friends across the aisle have been blocking everything, including motherhood and apple pie for the last year,” Ms. McCaskill said. She derided Mr. Barrasso for accusing the Democrats of engaging in theater. “Theater is having 42 senators say we will not participate unless you do what we want to do today,” she said. “That’s theater.”

Ms. McCaskill added, “What you are seeing on this side right now is a healthy dose of indignation on behalf of the American people that are hurting.”

Senate Republicans said they would even block a major food safety bill that the Senate adopted just on Tuesday but must be voted on again because of a parliamentary glitch. The food safety measure, which strengthens the Food and Drug Administration in an effort to prevent unsafe foods from reaching grocery stores and restaurant, was approved by a vote of 73 to 25, with 15 Republicans joining Democrats in support.

[...]

If Republicans had any worry about being seen as uncooperative, they did not show it.

Of course not.

And oh, this? Just a minor side effect:

Merry Xmas, 2 Million Americans Who Just Lost Unemployment Checks! (http://wonkette.com/431356/merry-xmas-2-million-americans-who-just-lost-unemployment-checks)


So: the Republicans now have a two-part solution to our nation's woes: (1) tax cuts for the super-rich + (2) cannibalism!

bjkeefe
12-02-2010, 05:41 PM
Tea Party Caucus Takes $1 Billion In Earmarks

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

"It's disturbing to see the Tea Party Caucus requested that much in earmarks. This is their time to put up or shut up, to be blunt," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. "There's going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks."

In founding the caucus in July, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said she was giving voice to Americans who were sick of government over-spending.

[...]

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), for one, attached his name to 69 earmarks in the last fiscal year, for a total of $78,263,000. The 41 earmarks Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) requested were worth $65,395,000. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) wanted $63,400,000 for 39 special projects, and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) wanted $93,980,000 set aside for 47 projects.

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) takes the prize as the Tea Partier with his name on the most earmarks. Rehberg's office requested funding for 88 projects, either solely or by co-signing earmarks requests with Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Jon Tester (D), at a cost of $100,514,200. On his own, Rehberg requested 20 earmarks valued at more than $9.6 million.

[...]

"It's easy to be a member of the TEA Party Caucus because, like them, I agree that we're Taxed Enough Already and we've got to balance the budget by cutting spending instead of raising taxes. Deficit spending is not new, but the unprecedented rate of spending in Congress is," Rehberg said in a statement emailed by his office. "Montanans have tightened their belts, and it's way past time for Congress to follow their lead. The TEA Party Caucus is about listening to concerned Americans who want to fundamentally change how Congress spends their tax dollars. On that, we're in total agreement."

Bachmann's office did not respond to emails or phone calls seeking comment.

Emph. added.

[National Journal (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/12/tea-party-caucu.php) via Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/431531/tea-party-caucus-has-accumulated-1-billion-in-earmarks-this-congress)]

Ocean
12-02-2010, 06:12 PM
I continue to marvel at the fact that anyone would voluntarily associate themselves with the Republican Party.

It is astonishing.

Ocean
12-02-2010, 06:21 PM
They have no shame.

bjkeefe
12-03-2010, 08:33 AM
From "Today's GOP: Squeal Loudly, and Quail in Fear (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/todays-gop-squeal-loudly-and-quail-in-fear#ixzz173EqVo2e):"

No less a group than Mike Huckabee (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45757.html), Peter King (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45667.html), Bill Kristol (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/whack-wikileaks_520462.html), Jonah Goldberg (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/29/jonah_goldberg_kill_julian_assange), and Newt Gingrich (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/gingrich-julian-assange-is-an-enemy-combatant-video.php) are now on record calling for the death of the wikileaker, or of Wikileaks chief swami Julian Assange, or, barring that, his declaration as an enemy combatant and direct danger to the United States itself.

But who knows. Maybe the GOP plan is to stimulate the economy through enhanced sales of adult diapers.

operative
12-03-2010, 09:59 AM
From "Today's GOP: Squeal Loudly, and Quail in Fear (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/todays-gop-squeal-loudly-and-quail-in-fear#ixzz173EqVo2e):"



But who knows. Maybe the GOP plan is to stimulate the economy through enhanced sales of adult diapers.

bjkeefe: not caring about the lives of Afghan civilians since 2010 (probably much earlier).

graz
12-03-2010, 10:10 AM
... caring about the lives of Afghan civilians since 2010 (probably much earlier).

Operative cares enough to bomb them till there saved. From themselves or us is the question?

bjkeefe
12-03-2010, 01:13 PM
In a memo sent to vendors Tuesday, the Republican National Committee's chief administrative officer acknowledged that the committee is facing a "cashflow challenge" and that many of those who provided political services to it during the 2010 election would not be paid this week as originally planned.

"We will not be able to pay off the vendors this week," wrote RNC Chief Administrative Officer Boyd Rutherford to Derek Flowers, a member of the RNC's political team, in an email obtained by the Fix. "We will be slow in paying as we are having a cashflow challenge. Everyone will be slow paid until after the first of the year."

Flowers, in another email to the RNC's vendors, wrote that while his original intention was to stay on at the committee until all bills were paid, he would in fact be leaving the RNC today.

Well, before jumping ship, just cut taxes. Problem solved, amirite?

(WaPo (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/republican-party/rnc-official-admits-to-a-cashf.html?hpid=topnews) via Jim Newell (http://gawker.com/5703695/the-republican-party-is-broke))

bjkeefe
12-04-2010, 04:16 AM
From "Today's GOP: Squeal Loudly, and Quail in Fear (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/todays-gop-squeal-loudly-and-quail-in-fear#ixzz173EqVo2e):"

No less a group than Mike Huckabee (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45757.html), Peter King (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45667.html), Bill Kristol (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/whack-wikileaks_520462.html), Jonah Goldberg (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/29/jonah_goldberg_kill_julian_assange), and Newt Gingrich (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/gingrich-julian-assange-is-an-enemy-combatant-video.php) are now on record calling for the death of the wikileaker, or of Wikileaks chief swami Julian Assange, or, barring that, his declaration as an enemy combatant and direct danger to the United States itself.

But who knows. Maybe the GOP plan is to stimulate the economy through enhanced sales of adult diapers.

Here's another: John Hawkins, proprietor of Right Wing News and a columnist at Townhall, has a piece up titled "5 Reasons The CIA Should Have Already Killed Julian Assange (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2010/11/conservatives-are-weird.html)."

Yeah, that John Hawkins.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3076/2682500807_fb4fe635c5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/melissaclouthier/2682500807/)
Michael Steele and John Hawkins (http://www.flickr.com/photos/melissaclouthier/2682500807/) by drmelissaclouthier (http://www.flickr.com/people/melissaclouthier/), on Flickr

bjkeefe
12-04-2010, 10:49 PM
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7664/gopblocksmiddleclasstax.jpg

The lede (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/senate-republicans-block-middle-class-tax-cut.php):

Senate Republicans today successfully filibustered two Democratic tax cut bills that would have allowed Bush-era tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest sliver of the country to expire. The party-line votes were intended by Democratic leaders to put Republicans on the record blocking the extension of tax cuts that would have benefited all Americans in order to secure additional tax cuts for the highest-income earners in America.

How much longer will it be before the Palinistas, the teabaggers, the Christianists, and other components of the Republican base wake up and realize the GOP really does not give a shit about them?

operative
12-04-2010, 10:58 PM
...the teabaggers...

Yeah, that whole 'avoid dehumanizing opponents' notion lasted a long time.

bjkeefe
12-04-2010, 11:02 PM
Yeah, that whole 'avoid dehumanizing opponents' notion lasted a long time.

Didn't see you agreeing to any bargain concerning your side's far more grievous violations (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=191254#post191254). In fact, I saw you sputtering that you saw nothing wrong with all of the slurs your allies use. You had your chance to get me to go along with you, and you pissed on it, like a standard Republican.

So save your candy-ass fauxtrage (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=191261#post191261) for someone who was born yesterday.

operative
12-04-2010, 11:22 PM
Didn't see you agreeing to any bargain concerning your side's far more grievous violations (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=191254#post191254).

Not a very convincing argument there. "Your side is the worser" ceases to be a viable argument sometime around 6th grade. If it's wrong, it's wrong no matter which side does it. If you don't like it, don't do it, or stop complaining when the other side does it too.


In fact, I saw you sputtering that you saw nothing wrong with all of the slurs your allies use.

That is an incorrect reading of what I wrote. I noted that people like rcocean don't go around excoriating people like you for using dehumanizing language. In other words, they do the same thing as you (which I object to in both cases), they're just not hypocritical about it. So ur teh worser.




So save your candy-ass fauxtrage (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=191261#post191261) for someone who was born yesterday.

I'll refrain from an obvious joke about your posts and the cognitive development of a one-day old.

bjkeefe
12-04-2010, 11:31 PM
Not a very convincing argument there.

You're a wingnut, a fundamentalist, and a zealot. The concept of "convincing argument" has no meaning to you. Your mind was filled with hate speech and propaganda at an early age, capped with concrete, and that was the end of it.

Except for the addition of a pull-string, to make it easier for you to parrot your lines.

operative
12-04-2010, 11:37 PM
You're a wingnut, a fundamentalist, and a zealot. The concept of "convincing argument" has no meaning to you. Your mind was filled with hate speech and propaganda at an early age, capped with concrete, and that was the end of it.

Except for the addition of a pull-string, to make it easier for you to parrot your lines.

Ah so in utterly failing to dodge the revelation of your abject hypocrisy you have instead chosen to revel in it. Surrender can be much easier, ya know? Are you just trying to throw out every name in your playbook to see if one is that magic line in the sand? Line not crossed.

I am curious about fundamentalist though--I'm not offended by the term, but I think it's one of the least likely of slurs to use against me (though if you're just reaching into the bj-box-of-insults, I guess any random term could do). Is that a religious fundamentalist that you are accusing me of being (since I'm LDS)? A market fundamentalist (this one may begin to be defensible, actually)? Or did it really not even reach any level of cognitive involvement.

bjkeefe
12-04-2010, 11:39 PM
Ah so in utterly failing to dodge the revelation of your abject hypocrisy ...

Sorry, operative, but a term of mockery like teabagger is not anywhere near the hate speech that you condone from your allies. The only hypocrite here is you.

operative
12-04-2010, 11:45 PM
Sorry, operative, but a term of mockery like teabagger is not anywhere near the hate speech that you condone from your allies.

Bj you're going to have to do better than a simple misrepresentation of my points if you hope to make this interesting. Now you're just flailing at the "you are what you accuse me of being" shtick, rather paltry effort I must say. You can't escape your hypocrisy.

bjkeefe
12-04-2010, 11:50 PM
... if you hope to make this interesting.

I have no interest in you whatsoever. All you do is repeat yourself, by accusing others of what you are guilty of. Standard technique for wingnut operatives.

bjkeefe
12-04-2010, 11:56 PM
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7664/gopblocksmiddleclasstax.jpg

The lede (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/senate-republicans-block-middle-class-tax-cut.php):

Senate Republicans today successfully filibustered two Democratic tax cut bills that would have allowed Bush-era tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest sliver of the country to expire. The party-line votes were intended by Democratic leaders to put Republicans on the record blocking the extension of tax cuts that would have benefited all Americans in order to secure additional tax cuts for the highest-income earners in America.

On a related note: hurrah for Senator Bob (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/menendez-on-gop-tax-cut-posture-do-you-negotiate-with-terrorists.php):

Menendez On GOP Tax Cut Posture: 'Do You Negotiate With Terrorists?'

Tell it like it is.

operative
12-04-2010, 11:57 PM
I have no interest in you whatsoever.

Bj that'd hurt if it were actually true. Well actually it wouldn't, but since it's not true, we don't even need to come to that point.


All you do is repeat yourself,

If you don't want me to repeatedly point out how you are hypocritical, stop being hypocritical. Then we can have florid discussions about 1950s Japanese cinema and the greatness of Mandarin Chinese. But until that point, I'm afraid we're stuck at this level.


by accusing others of what you are guilty of.

Tu quoqua.


Standard technique for wingnut operatives.

A standard response line from Bj.

operative
12-04-2010, 11:59 PM
On a related note: hurrah for Senator Bob (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/menendez-on-gop-tax-cut-posture-do-you-negotiate-with-terrorists.php):



Tell it like it is.

Yes, comparing political opponents to terrorists. Eloquent political discourse in the land of Bj. I'm beginning to think that you secretly want to destroy the lefty movement by robbing it of all coherent arguments, manners, and dignity, Mr. Grayson.

bjkeefe
12-05-2010, 12:04 AM
Yes, comparing political opponents to terrorists. Eloquent political discourse in the land of ...

... your heroes Rush, Beck, Palin, and Malkin. Not to mention your entire (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5064) political party.

Sucks getting your own tactics turned back against you for once, doesn't it?

graz
12-05-2010, 12:06 AM
Yes, comparing political opponents to terrorists. Eloquent political discourse ...

But that's exactly what politics entails. Perhaps not in your ivory tower perfesser? You might fancy yourself a gentleman, but your output here has shown you to be nothing more than a partisan operative. With some half-baked allusions to aspirations of a meld of libertarianism and conservatism. Blowhard, just about sums it up.

operative
12-05-2010, 12:10 AM
... your heroes Rush, Beck, Palin, and Malkin.

Ah another stale old Bj technique: the intentionally misplaced imputation of political adoration. Being deceitful on top of hypocritical does little to help you, Mr. Grayson.


Sucks getting your own tactics turned back against you for once, doesn't it?

Does repeating that tired trope actually make it any more truthful inside your head?

operative
12-05-2010, 12:13 AM
But that's exactly what politics entails.

Perhaps in your sphere, but not in mine.


Perhaps not in your ivory tower perfesser? You might fancy yourself a gentleman,

Yes, I'd say I'm a gentle man and a gentleman.


but your output here has shown you to be nothing more than a partisan operative.

Considering that I break with most folks in the GOP on several issues (drug legalization, immigration reform, etc.), I'd say this is rather misplaced. I don't expect you to keep a record of my Weltanschauung, but upon being made aware of it, I do hope that you'll refrain from the BjBox technique of continually making intentionally dishonest arguments.

bjkeefe
12-05-2010, 12:15 AM
... Mr. Grayson.

Does repeating that tired trope actually make it any more truthful inside your head?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

operative
12-05-2010, 12:17 AM
Took the words right out of my mouth.

Well, Mr. Grayson, asking questions instead of answering them may work in your head but it doesn't suit you well on here.

bjkeefe
12-05-2010, 12:18 AM
Well, Mr. Grayson, ...

You were saying?

Does repeating that tired trope actually make it any more truthful inside your head?

operative
12-05-2010, 12:20 AM
You were saying?

No, Mr. Grayson, it was you who was saying.

bjkeefe
12-05-2010, 12:47 AM
No, Mr. Grayson, ...

You were saying?

Does repeating that tired trope actually make it any more truthful inside your head?

operative
12-05-2010, 12:47 AM
You were saying?

The floor is yours, Mr. Grayson.

bjkeefe
12-05-2010, 01:29 AM
... Mr. Grayson.

You were saying?

Does repeating that tired trope actually make it any more truthful inside your head?

bjkeefe
12-05-2010, 01:39 AM
TPM (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/12/junior_member_of_the_team.php?ref=fpblg):

Joe Straus (R) is the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives. But there's a problem. A number of his fellow Republicans say that having elected a House with "Christian, conservative values" they need a "true Christian" running it. And since Straus is a Jew his shot at meeting that standard is not good. Abby Rapoport has the story (http://www.texasobserver.org/hotonthetrail/srec-member-i-got-into-politics-to-put-christian-conservatives-into-office) in the Texas Observer.

Totally has nothing to do with bigotry, though.

bjkeefe
12-05-2010, 02:52 AM
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7664/gopblocksmiddleclasstax.jpg

The lede (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/senate-republicans-block-middle-class-tax-cut.php):

Senate Republicans today successfully filibustered two Democratic tax cut bills that would have allowed Bush-era tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest sliver of the country to expire. The party-line votes were intended by Democratic leaders to put Republicans on the record blocking the extension of tax cuts that would have benefited all Americans in order to secure additional tax cuts for the highest-income earners in America.

How much longer will it be before the Palinistas, the teabaggers, the Christianists, and other components of the Republican base wake up and realize the GOP really does not give a shit about them?

In a related development, news from Sam Stein (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/04/obama-tells-dems-hell-opp_n_792086.html):

Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief

WASHINGTON — At a meeting at the White House with Democratic congressional leadership Saturday afternoon, President Obama said he would oppose any compromise deal on the expiring Bush tax cuts if it lacked help for the unemployed and other provisions designed to aid the middle class.

Speaking with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) shortly after the Senate failed to pass his preferred tax cut package proposal, Obama drew sharp lines in the sand with respect to ongoing negotiations.

"The President told Democratic Congressional leaders today that he was open to compromise, but he would oppose even a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts if it did not include an extension of benefits for the unemployed and extensions of the other tax cuts that benefit middle class families," a White House official told the Huffington Post. "Without them, taxes would still rise for 95 percent of Americans."

A note of hope, further down:

The remarks are, nevertheless, one of the clearest signs that the president is not only done ceding any more policy turf to the GOP with respect to tax cut negotiations but willing to let rates expire if Republican don't temper their demands.

And some interesting speculation:

Said one person with knowledge of what was discussed: "This was the kind of signal that the Hill has been looking for." The question, the person added, is "when is the president going to make this announcement and how is he going to do it."

Putting aside when or how the announcement is made, the quote from the White House official portends a deal along the lines that Hill aides projected last week. In exchange for a temporary extension of Bush tax cuts, Democrats will secure an extension of unemployment benefits, a few more tax cut proposals, and a vote on the START Treaty.

operative
12-05-2010, 09:25 AM
You were saying?

The floor is still yours, Mr. Grayson.

bjkeefe
12-05-2010, 06:24 PM
American Exceptionamalism!!!1!

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5859/thefaceofthegopbase.jpg

Who will be first to waddle in and protest that this is "just one sign," the operative, or his little brother chiwhi?

operative
12-05-2010, 07:55 PM
American Exceptionamalism!!!1!

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5859/thefaceofthegopbase.jpg

Who will be first to waddle in and protest that this is "just one sign," the operative, or his little brother chiwhi?

Actually it's probably an acolyte of that idiot behind the "Crash the Tea Party" movement:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/inside-man-how-a-prankster-plans-to-destroy-the-tea-party-movement.php

bjkeefe
12-05-2010, 08:03 PM
Actually it's probably an acolyte of that idiot behind the "Crash the Tea Party" movement:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/inside-man-how-a-prankster-plans-to-destroy-the-tea-party-movement.php

The only reason anyone would think such a thing would be possible is because the teabaggers are actually so crazy that guys like that will be hard to detect.

I do have my doubts that he'll be able to out-crazy the True Believers, though.

In any case, I do love how wingnuts yell false flag operation!!!1! (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=007432832765683203066%3Azj_ist-lct4&ie=UTF-8&q=false+flag+operation&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D0074328 32765683203066%253Azj_ist-lct4) whenever one of their regulars is caught on camera.

operative
12-05-2010, 08:13 PM
The only reason anyone would think such a thing would be possible is because the teabaggers are actually so crazy that guys like that will be hard to detect.

That's not actually true (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie?sms_ss=twitter http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44), but you'll continue to believe in your fantasy about your political opponents.

As I've stated before, I am not a TPer, but I know people who have gone to TP rallies. They're good, decent people. They do not deserve to be dehumanized because they disagree with you.

bjkeefe
12-06-2010, 01:43 AM
As I've stated before, I am not a TPer, but I know people who have gone to TP rallies. They're good, decent people. They do not deserve to be dehumanized because they disagree with you.

Teabaggers are a bunch of overly entitled slobs (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=191399#post191399) who won't even admit how many of their crowd is driven not only by greed, but by fear and hatred of anyone not like them.

However, your hysterical labeling of a well-earned term of derision as "dehumanizing" continues to be amusing. You're a real Republican operative. You think if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true.

The only question remaining is if you will repeat this one more often than "Grayson."

bjkeefe
12-07-2010, 05:09 AM
Just for the record, when the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences last reviewed the data this spring, it concluded: "A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems." Not only William Hague but such other prominent European conservatives as French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have embraced that widespread scientific conviction and supported vigorous action.

Indeed, it is difficult to identify another major political party in any democracy as thoroughly dismissive of climate science as is the GOP here. Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, says that although other parties may contain pockets of climate skepticism, there is "no party-wide view like this anywhere in the world that I am aware of."

It will be difficult for the world to move meaningfully against climate disruption if the United States does not. And it will be almost impossible for the U.S. to act if one party not only rejects the most common solution proposed for the problem (cap-and-trade) but repudiates even the idea that there is a problem to be solved. The GOP's stiffening rejection of climate science sets the stage for much heated argument but little action as the world inexorably warms -- and the dangers that Hague identified creep closer.

-- Ronald Brownstein (http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/gop-gives-climate-science-a-cold-shoulder-20101009), via Sean Carroll, whose post is also well worth reading (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/12/06/is-al-gore-responsible-for-destroying-the-planet/).

bjkeefe
12-08-2010, 01:41 AM
[...]

-- Ronald Brownstein (http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/gop-gives-climate-science-a-cold-shoulder-20101009), via Sean Carroll, whose post is also well worth reading (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/12/06/is-al-gore-responsible-for-destroying-the-planet/).

On a related note, here's an excerpt from a post put up yesterday by Thomas Levenson (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/12/07/first-they-came-for-the-nsf/), who in addition to running Inverse Square (http://inversesquare.wordpress.com/) is now also a contributor to Balloon Juice.

Leap now from 1922 to 2010: are [Rep. Adrian] Smith (R-Nebraska) and [Rep. Eric] Cantor [R-Virginia] denouncing particular research grants because of the ethnic or religious affiliation of the researchers?

No.

Are they setting up the conditions in which the question of whether or not a given piece of research is “American” enough?

Yes. They are.

Is this dangerous?

Well, duh.

A last note, just to make myself clear: I don’t think that this latest witch hunt is (yet) a direct threat to people interested in inappropriate ideas. It does make us dumber, day by day. Pace every invocation of American exceptionalism, there is no particular reason, as readers of this blog know better than most, that the US of A will remain the undisputed king of all disciplines forever. There is some uncertainty, however, about how fast our competition will arrive, and how likely it will be that we slip beneath the top rank of scientific and technologically innovative national leaders.

And there, the answer is— if Smith and Cantor have their way—sooner and more grievously than we think.

I'd call TL's post an early warning worth paying attention to, and I'd encourage you to read all of "First They Came For The NSF... (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/12/07/first-they-came-for-the-nsf/)"

And I wonder if Chris Mooney (http://www.waronscience.com/home.php) is taking notes for Volume 2.

operative
12-08-2010, 09:54 AM
On a related note, here's an excerpt from a post put up yesterday by Thomas Levenson (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/12/07/first-they-came-for-the-nsf/), who in addition to running Inverse Square (http://inversesquare.wordpress.com/) is now also a contributor to Balloon Juice.



I'd call TL's post an early warning worth paying attention to, and I'd encourage you to read all of "First They Came For The NSF... (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/12/07/first-they-came-for-the-nsf/)"

And I wonder if Chris Mooney (http://www.waronscience.com/home.php) is taking notes for Volume 2.

Ad Hitlerum de jour.

bjkeefe
12-08-2010, 03:51 PM
Ad Hitlerum de jour.

Just as it can be too easy to reach for Hitler as a comparison, it's also too easy to just dismiss. That comparisons to Nazi Germany are too often deployed does not mean the analogy is never appropriate.

In this instance, I think Levenson makes a good case (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/12/07/first-they-came-for-the-nsf/), particularly because he is not saying it is Like That Now, but because he is showing how the precursors match. Recall his lead-in phrase that I quoted: "Leap now from 1922 to 2010 ..." Note that it's not "1932" or "1942."

The Republican Party has for at least the past decade (and at the local level for far longer) tried quite hard in several areas to drive science according to their political ideology, from stem cell research to evolution-vs-creationism to global warming. Whether or not you want to accept TL's analogy is therefore a minor issue; what's important is that the GOP's anti-science attitude is already a problem, and Cantor and Smith are indicating it's going to get worse. And I don't see you responding to any of the substance of the piece, so I think either you didn't read it or you can't dispute the thrust of it.

Thus, even if I ignore your fondness for the GOP's stances in other areas, I must say that if you're not alarmed by the way the Republican Party views science, you're part of the problem.

operative
12-08-2010, 04:28 PM
Just as it can be too easy to reach for Hitler as a comparison, it's also too easy to just dismiss. That comparisons to Nazi Germany are too often deployed does not mean the analogy is never appropriate.

In this instance, I think Levenson makes a good case (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/12/07/first-they-came-for-the-nsf/), particularly because he is not saying it is Like That Now, but because he is showing how the precursors match. Recall his lead-in phrase that I quoted: "Leap now from 1922 to 2010 ..." Note that it's not "1932" or "1942."

The Republican Party has for at least the past decade (and at the local level for far longer) tried quite hard in several areas to drive science according to their political ideology, from stem cell research to evolution-vs-creationism to global warming. Whether or not you want to accept TL's analogy is therefore a minor issue; what's important is that the GOP's anti-science attitude is already a problem, and Cantor and Smith are indicating it's going to get worse. And I don't see you responding to any of the substance of the piece, so I think either you didn't read it or you can't dispute the thrust of it.

Thus, even if I ignore your fondness for the GOP's stances in other areas, I must say that if you're not alarmed by the way the Republican Party views science, you're part of the problem.

What I see is that both parties are quite willing and sometimes anxious to distort science to suit their political agendas. Using that as a means of comparing to Nazi Germany in any era is quite a reach. You can find innumerable regimes in history who forced science to take a back seat to whatever interest group was exerting influence over them, so let's hold back on the one that happened to be far more interested in annihilating the European Jewry.

bjkeefe
12-08-2010, 05:04 PM
What I see is that both parties are quite willing and sometimes anxious to distort science to suit their political agendas.

I don't see it, and I don't see any examples from you regarding the Dems in recent years.

I'll grant they haven't been absolutely blameless in this matter -- there has been plenty of "teach the controversy" nonsense from Dems over the years, not to mention occasional susceptibility to moonbattery (e.g., RFK Jr.'s support for anti-vaxxers), but the two parties do not begin to compare in their attitudes about science overall.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the matter. I already said that if you don't want to accept the analogy to the beginnings of Nazi Germany, fine, but that's a minor point. Trying to move the argument in that direction ignores the main problem -- the GOP's anti-science attitude and their belief that science should be driven by political ideology.

operative
12-08-2010, 05:24 PM
I don't see it, and I don't see any examples from you regarding the Dems in recent years.

I'll grant they haven't been absolutely blameless in this matter -- there has been plenty of "teach the controversy" nonsense from Dems over the years, not to mention occasional susceptibility to moonbattery (e.g., RFK Jr.'s support for anti-vaxxers), but the two parties do not begin to compare in their attitudes about science overall.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the matter. I already said that if you don't want to accept the analogy to the beginnings of Nazi Germany, fine, but that's a minor point. Trying to move the argument in that direction ignores the main problem -- the GOP's anti-science attitude and their belief that science should be driven by political ideology.

The best example of the Obama administration has been the skewering of the drilling report:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44921.html

I haven't heard any real anti-nuclear posturing from Obama, but I think overall Dems have been more willing to get into the anti-nuclear fear mongering than Republicans. In return, Republicans are more likely to completely write off global warming (though Imhoffe is one of the few that is dumb enough to call it all a big hoax).

chiwhisoxx
12-08-2010, 05:38 PM
Just as it can be too easy to reach for Hitler as a comparison, it's also too easy to just dismiss. That comparisons to Nazi Germany are too often deployed does not mean the analogy is never appropriate.

In this instance, I think Levenson makes a good case (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/12/07/first-they-came-for-the-nsf/), particularly because he is not saying it is Like That Now, but because he is showing how the precursors match. Recall his lead-in phrase that I quoted: "Leap now from 1922 to 2010 ..." Note that it's not "1932" or "1942."

The Republican Party has for at least the past decade (and at the local level for far longer) tried quite hard in several areas to drive science according to their political ideology, from stem cell research to evolution-vs-creationism to global warming. Whether or not you want to accept TL's analogy is therefore a minor issue; what's important is that the GOP's anti-science attitude is already a problem, and Cantor and Smith are indicating it's going to get worse. And I don't see you responding to any of the substance of the piece, so I think either you didn't read it or you can't dispute the thrust of it.

Thus, even if I ignore your fondness for the GOP's stances in other areas, I must say that if you're not alarmed by the way the Republican Party views science, you're part of the problem.

I wouldn't call myself alarmed, but because you seem to be asking for someone from the right to say it: The GOP absolutely has a problem with science.

bjkeefe
12-08-2010, 05:43 PM
The best example of the Obama administration has been the skewering of the drilling report: [...]

As I said (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=191868&highlight=blameless#post191868): Dems are not perfect, but the two parties don't begin to compare on attitudes regarding science and science policy. If that's your best example, I think you make my point.

I haven't heard any real anti-nuclear posturing from Obama, but I think overall Dems have been more willing to get into the anti-nuclear fear mongering than Republicans.

Granted, a kneejerk no-nukes position is more prevalent among some on the left, and so I don't doubt you could find a few Dem politicians who have catered to that, but as a general matter of policy, decisions about expanding nuclear energy production are mostly not a matter of science. The issues are more related to questions like how much funding should be given to support building new power plants, how waste disposal should be managed, how much plant security considerations play into matters, and like that. In other words, it is not inherently anti-science to be dubious about the practical considerations of building new nuclear power plants and/or thinking that going gangbusters in this area is an appropriate alternative to supporting other non-fossil-fuel-based initiatives.

In return, Republicans are more likely to completely write off global warming (though Imhoffe is one of the few that is dumb enough to call it all a big hoax).

"More likely" doesn't even come close. As an illustration, here is a comprehensive report on all Republican candidates for Senate (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/gop-senate-deniers/) this past election. The short version: they're all deniers, or at least adopt that position when campaigning.

Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, no one supports climate action, after climate advocate Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) lost his primary to Christine O’Donnell. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now toe the science-doubting party line.

Many of the Senate candidates are signatories of the Koch Industries’ Americans For Prosperity No Climate Tax pledge and the FreedomWorks Contract From America. The second plank of the Contract From America is to “Reject Cap & Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.”

And let's not forget what the new House Republican majority has at the top of its list of actions to be taken first, noted in this thread (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=190708#post190708) just last week.

This is really a bad area for you to be a mindless team cheerleader, op. And it's an easy one where you could improve your cred by admitting your side is not free from flaws.

bjkeefe
12-08-2010, 05:44 PM
I wouldn't call myself alarmed, but because you seem to be asking for someone from the right to say it: The GOP absolutely has a problem with science.

Thanks.

bjkeefe
12-13-2010, 07:23 PM
... supposedly being "far to the left" of where the country as a whole is?

About time someone did a post documenting how the Republican Party represents no one but its most reactionary base (http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/12/10/gop-voters-often-more-reasonable-than-radicals-they-elect/).

Conclusion, after a look at polling data on several hot-button issues:

In other words, it’s not merely that Washington Republicans won’t compromise with Democrats. They won’t compromise even with their own voters. The national party is in the grip of radicals who accept no deviation from the approved party line, and who demonstrate no tolerance for the broader, more reasonable range of opinions that exists within the Republican electorate they claim to represent.

(via (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/10/friday_link_dump), via (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/12/the-institutional-feebleness-of-moderate-republicanism/))

TwinSwords
12-13-2010, 08:24 PM
About time someone did a post documenting how the Republican Party represents no one but its most reactionary base (http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/12/10/gop-voters-often-more-reasonable-than-radicals-they-elect/).

Absolutely. It's a point I have been making (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=1886&highlight=Republican+Party+doesn't+even+represent+ its+own+membership) for a long time:

Apparently, the Republican Party doesn't even represent its own membership on most issues. The national Republican Party's official positions are far to the right of most actual Republicans on these issues.

However true this was when I wrote it, it's much more true, now.

bjkeefe
12-13-2010, 08:27 PM
Absolutely. It's a point I have been making (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=1886&highlight=Republican+Party+doesn't+even+represent+ its+own+membership) for a long time: [...]

Indeed you have. Sorry I didn't acknowledge that.

TwinSwords
12-13-2010, 08:40 PM
Indeed you have. Sorry I didn't acknowledge that.

Oh, well, it was two and a half years ago. It would have been remarkable if you had remembered.

Still, I wish there was more recognition of the point you made here, in this thread, today: that only a tiny minority of Americans are as extreme as the GOP/Teabagger leadership.

But oh well. Americans are too busy doing other stuff to pay attention to the thugocracy that has the country by the throat. I'm convinced that they will be able to drive the country completely off the cliff and people will still have no idea what happened or who did it.

Oh, wait, that happened in 2007-2008 -- you know, two years before voters gave the GOP an overwhelming majority in the House.

bjkeefe
01-06-2011, 12:55 PM
John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/01/06/the-very-weird-concept-of-fiscal-conservatism-under-wingnut-rule/):

The Very Weird Concept of Fiscal Conservatism Under Wingnut Rule

You gotta just love the new (same as the old) Republican majority in the House. The very first thing they do is kinda/sorta introduce new rules (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47124.html#ixzz1AGu2ljbc):

After calling for bills to go through a regular committee process, the bill that would repeal the health care law will not go through a single committee. Despite promising a more open amendment process for bills, amendments for the health care repeal will be all but shut down. After calling for a strict committee attendance list to be posted online, Republicans backpedaled and ditched that from the rules. They promised constitutional citations for every bill but have yet to add that language to early bills.

Some rules are more equal than others, though (http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/01/what_deficit.html):

The new Republican majority in the House is learning already that governing is harder than campaigning.

They vow to repeal President Obama’s health reform. But they say they want to reduce the deficit, too, so one of their rules requires that any new legislation be paid for fully.

Here’s the problem: The health care reform includes new taxes and a tough cut in Medicare spending. It actually reduces the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So if you kill health reform, the rules require that you find offsetting spending cuts or tax increases to plug that gap.

So Republicans have decided to exempt health reform from the rule. That deficit they talked so much about during the campaign? Never mind.

We haven’t seen this kind of hypocrisy in Washington since … a few weeks ago, when Republicans insisted on extending tax cuts to the wealthy and didn’t pay for that either.

The rest (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/01/06/the-very-weird-concept-of-fiscal-conservatism-under-wingnut-rule/).

TwinSwords
01-06-2011, 02:50 PM
So Republicans have decided to exempt health reform from the rule. That deficit they talked so much about during the campaign? Never mind.

We haven’t seen this kind of hypocrisy in Washington since … a few weeks ago, when Republicans insisted on extending tax cuts to the wealthy and didn’t pay for that either.

Just unbelievable.

You would think an advanced civilization would be immune to dominance by charlatans of this kind.

handle
01-06-2011, 06:24 PM
Just unbelievable.

You would think an advanced civilization would be immune to dominance by charlatans of this kind.

Not to mention repeating the same mistake every decade.

Are we going to be paying in advance for the inevitable witch hunt to root out un-american Americans? Or will it be initiated on spec?

FYI, I am pre-preparing a statement exposing up to seven of my friends and coworkers... in order to live up to my American exceptionalism, of course.

bjkeefe
01-06-2011, 11:56 PM
From "a senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2011/1101.bartlett.html)" (via (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2011/01/bruce-bartlett-is-shrill.html)):

One of the biggest problems you have faced over the past two years, Mr. President, has been the extremely poor quality of your opponents in the Republican Party. With precious few exceptions, conservatives have made no effort to engage your administration on an intellectual level. Their criticism has been limited almost entirely to lies, caricatures, and ridiculous charges.

Funny how often life imitates this forum.

handle
01-07-2011, 03:02 PM
Shocking! Who knew?

Among conservative intellectuals, meanwhile, the atmosphere of partisanship has been so all-encompassing that it has stifled open thinking and caused the movement to close ranks. Last year, the American Enterprise Institute, once a bastion of sober mainstream Republicans like Gerald Ford and Herb Stein, fired David Frum simply for suggesting that the health legislation would have been better if Republicans had negotiated with Democrats instead of engaging in mindless opposition. (Frum also noted, correctly, that many of the ideas in your plan had their origin among Republicans such as Mitt Romney. That these Republicans were forced to repudiate their own accomplishments only made them look like fools.) Times like these generate intellectual orphans who might be looking for ways to make their voices heard outside the highly policed party lines.

But I believe the word is "refudiate".

bjkeefe
01-09-2011, 02:29 AM
Tom Scocca (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2011/01/07/even-david-brooks-concedes-that-the-supreme-court-votes-republican.aspx):


In his op-ed column in today's New York Times, David Brooks considers the challenges facing the health-reform law (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/opinion/07brooks.html), beginning with the situation in the courts:

So far, one judge has struck down the individual mandate, the plan’s centerpiece. Future decisions are likely to break down on partisan lines. Given the makeup of the Supreme Court, this should concern the law’s defenders.

And then he moves along, like that, to the next topic. This is how far the Supreme Court's legitimacy has eroded: David Brooks, who believes in the integrity of institutions and the soundness of the status quo, takes it for granted that the federal judiciary plans to vote on party lines. The "constitutionality" of a law passed by a Democratic majority in Congress is defined not by whether the law fits with the existing body of law and precedent, but by whether the Republicans have the votes on the Supreme Court to overturn it.

This is not a particularly novel critique of the right-wing-activist turn of the judiciary, but it's hard to imagine a mainstream conservative columnist accepting it so blithely in the era before Bush v. Gore (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html). Even if certain justices always voted a certain way, the polite thing to do was to attribute it to principle. If they started overturning earlier majorities' precedents, it was because they were trying to affirm some older, deeper principle. Officially, the Court was independent and impartial.

The Roberts Court itself, however, makes very few bones about its role as a Republican-majority superlegislature. Thus we get Chief Justice John Roberts—the Court's Republican majority leader, as it were—welcoming the new House Republican majority (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/46996.html) by presiding over a special swearing-in ceremony for John Boehner's staff. Politico described this as "another statement of the new House Republican majority's commitment to the Constitution." Commitment might not be exactly the right word. It was some kind of statement about the Constitution, at any rate.

bjkeefe
01-13-2011, 06:09 AM
Not possible, you say? No way he could say anything to top that gun thing (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=194387#post194387)? Au contraire! Gomer said something even stupider (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/gohmert-fbi-mum-on-loughners-politics-to-avoid-embarassing-obamas-constituents.php).

Who knew the FBI was liberally biased? Better not tell him about the CIA (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2011/01/cia-is-librully-biased1.html)!

bjkeefe
01-17-2011, 03:41 AM
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), the teabagger who primary-ousted Bob Bennett (see "The Republican Party Is Turning Into A Cult (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=159754#post159754)"), is in favor of repealing child labor laws, maybe?

Not that he's in favor of child labor, he says, but protecting children is not nearly as important to him as worshiping a warped image of the Constitution, apparently.

Scott Lemieux (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/01/gop-senator-lets-reinstate-particularly-discredited-supreme-court-decisions) and Ian Millhiser (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/14/lee-child-labor/) have more.

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7444/senatormikeleeutah.jpg
"What? I LOVE children. For breakfast, lunch, dinner, or just a healthy snack!"

(pic. source (http://www.tfdnews.com/news/2011/01/03/71303-watch-incoming-gop-senator-defends-controversial-lobbyist-hire.htm))

bjkeefe
01-17-2011, 04:35 PM
Pardon me for starting with the conclusion, but it's just so well put.

... the modern G.O.P. has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral, never mind how little it costs.

Given that their minds were made up from the beginning, top Republicans weren’t interested in and didn’t need any real policy analysis — in fact, they’re basically contemptuous of such analysis, something that shines through in their health care report. All they ever needed or wanted were some numbers and charts to wave at the press, fooling some people into believing that we’re having some kind of rational discussion. We aren’t.

The whole thing (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/opinion/17krugman.html).

bjkeefe
01-21-2011, 02:40 AM
... Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virg.) (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/20/eric-cantor/health-care-law-job-killer-evidence-falls-short/).

Honorable mention to Politifact for Freezingly Polite Understatement.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7967/ericcantorlies.jpg

bjkeefe
01-23-2011, 12:06 AM
They're not even keeping up pretenses anymore (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17160444), are they? From the Denver Post, via Crooks and Liars (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/colorados-new-secretary-state-announc), via Balloon Juice (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/01/22/how-could-this-possibly-be-legal/):

Less than two weeks on the job, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler says the $68,500 a year salary doesn't pay enough.

That's why Gessler, a Republican, says he is going to be moonlighting as a lawyer for his old law firm - a firm known for representing clients on elections and campaign law issues, the very areas Gessler is now charged with policing as secretary of state.

Gessler, 45, says he'll be working about 20 hours a month for the firm, now called Hackstaff Law Group and formerly known as Hackstaff Gessler. The news was first reported by The Denver Business Journal on Friday.

The Colorado Independent (http://coloradoindependent.com/72540/secretary-of-state-gesslers-plan-to-moonlight-as-private-attorney-sounds-ethics-alarms) also has coverage, beginning as follows.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler is no stranger to political controversy. He has represented a long line of conservative advocacy and attack groups (http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/992277-republican-gessler-ousts-incumbent-sos) and in that role has become the public face of partisan causes. Indeed, his name and the law firm he founded virtually stand for a branch of Colorado politics that seeks to limit government restrictions on and oversight of campaign financing. He has done battle repeatedly with laws the secretary of state is charged to enforce and now he is secretary of state. His election victory put government watchdog groups on high alert. News coming today, a little more than a week since he was sworn into office, that Gessler plans to keep working part-time as an attorney for his former firm even while serving as secretary of state has set conflict-of-interest alarm bells ringing in watchdog offices.

As far as Gessler's whining about needing the money to Support His Family™ goes, note this:

Gessler’s former law partner Jim Hackstaff bought Gessler out of the firm the day before Gessler became secretary of state.

They don't give a figure, but if there weren't at least six of them, I'd be amazed.

Also ... transparamency!!!1!

Former Secretary of State Bernie Buescher, who has accepted a job as the deputy attorney general responsible for advising the secretary of state, said he couldn’t comment on Gessler’s plan to moonlight because commenting would be “inappropriate.”

Attorney General John Suthers, who is tasked to work with Gessler to help him avoid Hackstaff-related conflicts of interest, said attorney-client privileges prevent him from speaking on the topic.

This legally proscribed silence is a big problem and points to the bigger problem going forward, according to Luis Toro, director of government watchdog group Colorado Ethics Watch (http://www.coloradoforethics.org/) and a man who has argued cases against Gessler in the past (http://coloradoindependent.com/62733/gessler-shocked-by-clear-the-bench-campaign-finance-smackdown). The public is being forced to simply accept that the secretary of state will be acting in good faith without any way to really ask questions or get answers to confirm that’s the case, he said.

“Assuming it’s feasible for [Gessler and Hackstaff] to carve out areas of law for [Gessler] to practice that don’t present a conflict with his responsibilities as secretary of state, how is the public supposed to monitor that? That [challenge] is inconsistent with the idea of public oversight of public officials.”

bjkeefe
01-23-2011, 01:43 AM
[...]

And in other reports from the Midwest: Good news! The Republican Party is still not racist (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2011/01/with-republicans-in-charge-myth-becomes.html)!

bjkeefe
01-24-2011, 07:24 PM
This (http://twitter.com/NancyPelosi/status/29679666184851456) just in:

NancyPelosi (http://twitter.com/NancyPelosi) Right now House is debating a 1pg GOP Budgetless Resolution ignoring job creation with no specifics #WhereAreTheNumbers (http://twitter.com/search?q=%23WhereAreTheNumbers)?

(title: cf. (www.balloon-juice.com/category/nancy-smash/))

bjkeefe
01-25-2011, 04:04 PM
If there was ever something that deserved to be filed under News of the Unsurprising, it's this (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/politics/25ethics.html), but still, it's worth noting for the record.

Bush White House Broke Elections Law, Report Says

WASHINGTON — The Bush White House, particularly before the 2006 midterm elections, routinely violated a federal law that prohibits use of federal tax dollars to pay for political activities by creating a “political boiler room” that coordinated Republican campaign activities nationwide, a report issued Monday by an independent federal agency concludes.

The report (http://www.osc.gov/documents/hatchact/STF%20Report%20Final.pdf) by the Office of Special Counsel finds that the Bush administration’s Office of Political Affairs — overseen by Karl Rove — served almost as an extension of the Republican National Committee, developing a “target list” of Congressional races, organizing dozens of briefings for political appointees to press them to work for party candidates, and sending cabinet officials out to help these campaigns.

The report, based on about 100,000 pages of documents and interviews with 80 Bush administration officials in an investigation of more than three years, documented how these political activities accelerated before the 2006 midterm elections.

This included helping coordinate fund-raising by Republican candidates and pressing Bush administration political appointees to help with Republican voter-turnout pitches, particularly in the 72 hours leading up to the election ...

[...]

The report found that during the Bush administration, senior staff members at the Office of Political Affairs violated the Hatch Act by organizing 75 political briefings from 2001 to 2007 for Republican appointees at top federal agencies in an effort to enlist them to help Republicans get elected to Congress.

[...]

The investigators also found evidence that the Bush White House improperly classified travel by senior officials as official government business, “when it was, in fact, political,” and the costs associated with this travel were never reimbursed.

Another one for the book.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9035/bushaccomplishments.jpg http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/7458/bushgolf2.jpg



(h/t: Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/436011/timely-new-report-bush-white-house-constantly-broke-election-law) | pic. source (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/01/talking-points-presidency-issues-fresh.html) | pic. source (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/06/new-epitome.html))

bjkeefe
01-26-2011, 02:50 AM
Remember when this was a thing (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/nyregion/26snowman.html), a few weeks ago?

The story rocketed around New York City when streets went uncleared after the Dec. 26 blizzard: Sanitation workers, angry about job reductions, had deliberately staged a work slowdown.

It resulted in wisecracks on “Saturday Night Live,” fiery denunciations of unions on cable news and four criminal investigations.

And it occurred because one man, Councilman Daniel J. Halloran, Republican of Queens, said five city workers had come to his office during the storm and told him they had been explicitly ordered to take part in a slowdown to embarrass Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

But the more that investigators look into Mr. Halloran’s story, the more mystifying it becomes.

Mr. Halloran said he had been visited by two supervisors in the Transportation Department and three workers in the Sanitation Department. But the two transportation supervisors did not back up his story in interviews with investigators, according to two people briefed on the inquiries. And Mr. Halloran has steadfastly refused to reveal the names of the sanitation workers.

Mr. Halloran expects to testify this week before a federal grand jury looking into the question of a slowdown, according to a person familiar with his intentions, and it is not clear whether prosecutors will try to compel him, under oath, to divulge the workers’ names.

Meanwhile, investigators had hoped that extensive publicity would bring out others with knowledge of the purported plot. That has not happened, according to the people briefed on the investigations, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigations are continuing. This leaves prosecutors with no proof that anything occurred.

“When you’re talking about establishing a negative, I don’t know how it’s going to get firmer,” one person briefed on the inquiries said.

Mr. Halloran declined to be interviewed for this article.

[...]

(h/t: @edroso (http://twitter.com/edroso/status/30152798721015808))

bjkeefe
01-28-2011, 07:50 PM
Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/text)," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/12/end-abortion-insurance), that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.

There used to be a quasi-truce between the pro- and anti-choice forces on the issue of federal funding for abortion. Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. But since last year, the anti-abortion side has become far more aggressive in challenging this compromise. They have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used. The Smith bill represents a frontal attack on these long-standing exceptions. [...]

(source (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion) | via (http://wonkette.com/436435/house-republicans-rape))

Good to see the new teabagger-dominated Republican Party maintain consistency (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2011/01/so-much-for-that-rebranding-effort.html) in their claim of having moved out of the Dark Ages and being only concerned about fiscal issues.

bjkeefe
02-01-2011, 03:35 AM
To Darrell Issa, for example, who wants to know just who is seeking documents under the Freedom of Information Act, the name of which seems to escape him:

See Brilliant at Breakfast (http://brilliantatbreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/01/perhaps-glenn-beck-ought-to-look.html) for the rest.

bjkeefe
02-02-2011, 07:46 PM
An answer that some of you may be interested in: The Courage Campaign has launched a blog, Issa Exposed (http://issaexposed.couragecampaign.org/).

There is also a Twitter feed: @IssaExposed (http://twitter.com/IssaExposed).

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/80/issawatchblogtitleimage.jpg (http://issaexposed.couragecampaign.org/)

bjkeefe
02-04-2011, 12:23 AM
[...]

Looks like the outcry made them back off (http://wonkette.com/436968/house-republicans-retreat-from-brave-fight-to), for now. The word "forcible" will be removed.

They still want to make pretty much all abortions illegal, of course, and the new version of the bill will continue the stealth assault, by banning federal funding.

bjkeefe
02-04-2011, 04:05 PM
WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020303117.html) via Riley Waggaman (http://wonkette.com/437010/gop-cut-basic-human-services-increase-funding-for-pentagon-death-machines):

Under the GOP plan, agencies related to national security - including the Pentagon and the departments of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs - would get a slight bump in funding, receiving an extra $8 billion compared with current levels.

Domestic agencies, however, would absorb a deep hit, in excess of $40 billion, Ryan said. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), who is in charge of drafting the spending measure, said Thursday that the cuts would fall most heavily on transportation and housing programs; agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration; commerce, justice and science programs; and financial services. Labor, health and education programs would face much smaller reductions, as would state and foreign operations.

Are any tax increases part of Getting Our Fiscal House In Order™?

You have to ask?

In other news of Eddie "Paul" Munster, aka (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=196036#post196036) His Royal Cuteness:

New rules adopted by the House last month give Ryan unilateral authority to set spending limits in that bill.

bjkeefe
02-08-2011, 10:19 PM
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/us/politics/08muslim.html) (via (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/34565.html)):

“I’m not going to dilute the hearings by including other extremists.”

Good thing he hasn't prejudged the Muslins!

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/02/08/us/MUSLIMS-1/MUSLIMS-1-popup.jpg

bjkeefe
02-12-2011, 05:06 PM
Charles M. Blow's column (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/opinion/12blow.html) presents a good summary of what we've seen from your new Republican majority thus far, especially at the less well illuminated lower levels of power. Here's how it starts:

Republican state lawmakers, emboldened by their swollen ranks, have a message for minorities, women, immigrants and the poor: It’s on!

In the first month of the new legislative season, they have introduced a dizzying number of measures on hot-button issues in statehouses around the country as part of what amounts to a full-throttle mission to repeal, restrict and repress.

It wasn’t supposed to happen like this.

As Reuters pointed out this week, in the midterms, “Republicans gained nearly 700 state legislative seats and now have their largest numbers since the Great Depression, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.”

Judging by the lead-up to those elections, one could have easily concluded that the first order of business on Republicans’ agendas would be a laserlike focus on job creation and deficit reductions to the exclusion of all else. Not the case.

The rest (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/opinion/12blow.html).

bjkeefe
02-18-2011, 05:07 AM
A few days ago, South Dakota Republicans tried to sneak this through (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2011/02/social-and-con.html). Then they got busted, much sputtering and backpedaling (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers) ensued about what the language in the bill REALLY meant, and finally, showing how much they believed their own cover story, they tabled (http://www.fox4kc.com/news/nationworld/sns-rt-usreport-us-southdaktre71h0g9-20110218,0,7411263.story) the bill yesterday.

Got to watch these Only Concerned With Fiscal Issues!!!1! types like a hawk.

bjkeefe
02-18-2011, 07:42 PM
And it's not even Paul Ryan!

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8503/republicanplantoreduced.jpg

(source (http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/02/15/republican-proposes-cut-funding-obama-s-teleprompter) | via (http://wonkette.com/438466/hilarious-congressman-trying-to-take-away-obama-teleprompter-funding))

bjkeefe
02-19-2011, 11:10 PM
Oh, wait (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/02/anti-choice-anti-contraception) ...

The House vote to end Planned Parenthood funding (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/18/946760/-House-votes-to-defund-Planned-Parenthood,-Title-X) would make very little sense — in some alternate universe where people who want to criminalize abortion were primarily concerned about protecting fetal life rather than regulating female sexuality. In our actually existing political universe, it makes perfect sense.

Back to the 19th century, with today's Republican Party! Do you not love your American Taliban and their own brand of sharia law?

If you're interested, Planned Parenthood (https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=pp_ppol_ws_I_Stand_with_PP) has an open letter to Congress and a petition for you to sign.

Ocean
02-19-2011, 11:20 PM
Oh, wait (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/02/anti-choice-anti-contraception) ...



Back to the 19th century, with today's Republican Party! Do you not love your American Taliban and their own brand of sharia law?

If you're interested, Planned Parenthood (https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=pp_ppol_ws_I_Stand_with_PP) has an open letter to Congress and a petition for you to sign.

Signed.

bjkeefe
02-20-2011, 02:09 PM
Not (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021804612.html?hpid=politics) from The Onion:

A Montana legislator is proposing the state embrace global warming as good for the economy.

Republican Rep. Joe Read of Ronan aims to pass a law that says global warming is a natural occurrence that "is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana."


(h/t: Matt Yglesias (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/montana-considers-bill-to-repeal-science/) | title: cf. (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/08/angle-lemonade/))

[Added] Wonk Room scored an interview (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/17/montana-climate-zombie/) with this clown. Among other revelations:

... the 55-year-old first-time legislator graciously explained why he filed this bill to outlaw science, which even he admitted was a “radical” act. Unlike the man who tried to get the Indiana legislature to redefine pi for a crank mathematical “proof” in 1897, Read’s motivation is primarily ideological. Read did not consult any climate scientists in the drafting of this bill, he said, relying instead on his own experience and understanding of the issues at play:

Read also explained why he chose to write a set of scientific conclusions into law that go against the last 150 years of climate research (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/04/warming-wally-world/) and the political consensus of every government in the world:

Sometimes you have to do fairly radical things to address a federal government.

Spoken like a real Commensense Conservative™.

bjkeefe
02-22-2011, 03:26 PM
Two reports (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/02/04/rape-victims-arent-victims-according-georgia) from Georgia (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/02/georgia-wingnut-gop-rep-wants-police-to.html).

In summary: (1) women who report being raped or assaulted are not to be trusted, and (2) women who have miscarriages are to be presumed guilty of self-induced abortions until proven innocent.

Sure, Bobby Franklin is an extreme case. But is he unique to the point where the mainstream GOP will scorn him, or does he serve their interests by pushing the Overton Window that much farther to the right?

(h/t: Scott Lemiuex (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/02/nutty-yet-principled))

[Added] (title: cf. (http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2011/02/22/this_modern_world))

bjkeefe
02-24-2011, 05:01 PM
[...]

(source (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion) | via (http://wonkette.com/436435/house-republicans-rape))

Good to see the new teabagger-dominated Republican Party maintain consistency (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2011/01/so-much-for-that-rebranding-effort.html) in their claim of having moved out of the Dark Ages and being only concerned about fiscal issues.

More on the fantasy (http://www.salon.com/news/tea_parties/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/24/tea_party_overreach) that the "Tea Party movement" is anything but the same old fundie-dominated Republican Party base:

Will the Tea Parties rise up against gay rights?

[...]

I never tire of debunking the argument that the Tea Parties are a libertarian (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/21/tea_parties_hate_liberty/index.html) or even "independent" phenomenon, and the forthcoming response to the president's move toward acknowledging the civil rights of LGBT citizens ought to supply me with plenty of material.

Tea Partyers, according to yet another recent poll, are conservative Republicans (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/84061/what-the-tea-party). They are social conservatives and whatever the other kind of conservative is, too. (Upward redistributionist conservatives, I think.) Conservative Republicans are a demographically shrinking minority, so they needed to rebrand themselves as independents, which they more or less succeeded at. And once they get into power, as they have shown in the last month, they attempt to smash unions, ban abortion, redefine rape in order to make it more difficult to safely get an abortion, take a hatchet to women's reproductive health access in general, pass increasingly onerous and insane laws punishing undocumented migrants and those suspected of being undocumented migrants, propose unconstitutional legislation designed to combat birthright citizenship ...

From the second quoted link:

Pew has another survey of Tea Party sympathizers (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx), and it's clear once again that the movement is nothing more or less than conservative Republicans:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1710/teabaggersocialattitude.jpg

The Tea Party is essentially a re-branding campaign for the GOP base. It's a successful effort, and one that springs largely though not entirely from the grassroots itself. Conservatives like to imagine that the Tea Party is some incarnation of the popular will, asleep for many years and finally awakened under Obama, and bristle at any analysis that diminishes the world-historical import of the phenomenon. So let me be clear. The Tea Party represents a significant minority of Americans. It's influential. (It allowed conservatives to disown the failures of the Bush administration and to lend them a populist imprimatur.) But it's not anything more than an organizing rubric for the GOP base.

Also from Pew:

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1710/teabaggersocialattitude.jpg

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/1710/teabaggersocialattitude.jpg

bjkeefe
02-26-2011, 09:48 PM
A few days ago, South Dakota Republicans tried to sneak this through (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2011/02/social-and-con.html). Then they got busted, much sputtering and backpedaling (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers) ensued about what the language in the bill REALLY meant, and finally, showing how much they believed their own cover story, they tabled (http://www.fox4kc.com/news/nationworld/sns-rt-usreport-us-southdaktre71h0g9-20110218,0,7411263.story) the bill yesterday.

Got to watch these Only Concerned With Fiscal Issues!!!1! types like a hawk.

The Republicans in Nebraska and Iowa are pushing similar legislation (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/02/legislative-cover-for-anti-abortion-terrorism).

bjkeefe
02-28-2011, 09:41 PM
Texas state representative Leo Berman (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27ttberman.html):

“I’m just a person who wants to see fact,” he said.

Though the Obama campaign produced a certificate of live birth from Hawaii, Mr. Berman was not swayed. “The latest rumor I hear, and I don’t know if this is true or not,” he said, “is that he’s used about 25 different Social Security numbers.”

Mr. Berman said he got his information from e-mail and online video clips. “YouTubes are infallible,” he said.

(h/t: Tim Murphy (http://motherjones.com/mixed-media/2011/02/americas-worst-state-legislator-leo-berman))

On an even more disturbing note:

Last session, his bills — like the one restricting illegal immigrants to certain geographical regions, or another denying them access to higher education — failed to gain traction in the nearly evenly divided House. But with this session’s Republican supermajority, it could very well be the session of Leo.

“I feel a lot better than I have in the past,” Mr. Berman said of his bills’ chances.

bjkeefe
03-01-2011, 03:16 PM
Taking a break (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/28/house-republican-leaders-vow-to-defend-defense-of-marriage-act/) from their non-stop demonization of Planned Parenthood, I guess (via (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2011/03/our-priorities-will-be-peoples.html)):

House Republican Leaders Vow to Defend Defense of Marriage Act

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/02/28/t1larg.boehner.cantor.gi.jpg

bjkeefe
03-02-2011, 09:17 PM
This is totally not racist!!!1! (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/81-of-republicans-in-georgia-house.html)

81% of Republicans in Georgia House Support Birther Bill

bjkeefe
03-04-2011, 10:25 AM
Or not:

Indiana Secretary Of State Indicted On Voter Fraud Charges

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2011/03/CharlieWhite-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

Secretary of State Charlie White, the top election official in Indianapolis, is facing seven felony counts, including voter fraud, perjury and theft, all connected to what a prosecutor said was an attempt to hold on to his seat on the town council even though he was living outside of his designated district.

White was indicted by a grand jury in Hamilton County on three counts of voter fraud for allegedly lying about his address when he voted in last year's Republican primary, the Courier-Journal reports (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110303/NEWS02/303030057/0/FEATURES08/Indiana-secretary-state-indicted-accused-voter-fraud?odyssey=nav|head). In addition he's facing charges of perjury, fraud on a financial institution (for lying about his address) and theft for keeping the salary he received as a member of his town council after he moved out of his designated district. [...]

[TPM (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/indiana_secretary_of_state_indicted_on_voter_fraud .php) via @EricBoehlert (http://twitter.com/EricBoehlert/status/43673330666061824)]

bjkeefe
03-04-2011, 01:26 PM
Arizona Daily Star (http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_25375b64-12a1-5105-a6d8-ff4e37317fe9.html) (via (http://wonkette.com/439808/arizona-tea-party-politicians-want-tea-party-license-plates-to-benefit-tea-party)) reports on the latest doings "in the Arizona Senate, where Republicans have a 20-9 edge."

AZ Senate favors Wis. gov, tea party license plates

PHOENIX - The budget is not balanced. The governor wants to eliminate health care for 250,000 people. Nearly one out of 10 Arizonans who want jobs can't find one. And there are plans to slash funding for higher education.

But that didn't keep the state Senate from taking the time Thursday to debate and approve a resolution supporting the Republican governor of Wisconsin in his fight with labor unions.

Senators also voted to create yet another special license plate. But unlike some others aimed at raising money for causes like spaying pets, service to veterans and organ donation, the proceeds from this license plate would benefit tea party groups around the state.

And lawmakers gave preliminary approval to declaring the Colt single-action Army revolver the official state firearm.

[...]

And the GOP-controlled Senate even refused a suggestion by Minority Leader David Schapira, D-Tempe, saying the resolution should be amended to say only the Republican lawmakers in Arizona support Walker.

The new license plate provoked a different discussion. SB 1402 would create a special plate, designed with a picture of the "Don't Tread on Me" flag showing a coiled rattlesnake on a background of yellow.

But the debate had nothing to do with the design.

"We have never had a license plate that promotes a political agenda," said Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix.

What's behind the plates is money: Of every $25 additional annual fee paid to the state, $17 goes to the benefiting organization for its own programs. In this case, a committee of five people, all of whom would have links to tea parties, would divide up the proceeds.

But Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, denied anything about it is political.

Emph. added.

But wait, there's more (http://wonkette.com/439790/az-senate-wants-more-slaughter-approves-guns-for-all-everywhere)!

And now the same group of hate-filled dingbats has passed a bill legalizing loaded guns at all public events.

bjkeefe
03-05-2011, 12:12 AM
Never mind the fiscal "responsibility" comedy. It is now fair to say that the Republican Party wants your children to die of poisoning (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/03/ongoing-reports-on-the-republican-massacre-of-parody-and-common-decency).

This is one giant death panel, making the decision to condemn millions in one fell swoop.

bjkeefe
03-06-2011, 01:04 AM
Or not:

Indiana Secretary Of State Indicted On Voter Fraud Charges

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2011/03/CharlieWhite-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

Secretary of State Charlie White, the top election official in Indianapolis, is facing seven felony counts, including voter fraud, perjury and theft, all connected to what a prosecutor said was an attempt to hold on to his seat on the town council even though he was living outside of his designated district.

White was indicted by a grand jury in Hamilton County on three counts of voter fraud for allegedly lying about his address when he voted in last year's Republican primary, the Courier-Journal reports (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110303/NEWS02/303030057/0/FEATURES08/Indiana-secretary-state-indicted-accused-voter-fraud?odyssey=nav|head). In addition he's facing charges of perjury, fraud on a financial institution (for lying about his address) and theft for keeping the salary he received as a member of his town council after he moved out of his designated district. [...]

[TPM (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/indiana_secretary_of_state_indicted_on_voter_fraud .php) via @EricBoehlert (http://twitter.com/EricBoehlert/status/43673330666061824)]

Our man in Indianapolis (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2011/03/down-republican-glory-hole.html) has the inside skinny.

chiwhisoxx
03-06-2011, 01:39 AM
Never mind the fiscal "responsibility" comedy. It is now fair to say that the Republican Party wants your children to die of poisoning (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/03/ongoing-reports-on-the-republican-massacre-of-parody-and-common-decency).

This is one giant death panel, making the decision to condemn millions in one fell swoop.

Glad to see where your sense of fairness comes from. It explains a lot. I assume you're partially joking here, so maybe it tempers this a bit. But it's hard to take you seriously when you complain about the overuse of "liberals" broadly speaking when you make statements like that with even a hint of seriousness.

bjkeefe
03-06-2011, 07:44 PM
From Donna Cooper at the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/tax_breaks_infographic.html), via Angry Black Lady (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/03/06/its-all-about-the-benjamins-what/):

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/5683/taxesvsbudgetcutsfinal.jpg

bjkeefe
03-07-2011, 04:56 PM
It could happen (http://wonkette.com/439996/senator-of-sex-john-ensign-not-running-for-re-election)!

[Added] Moar (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/what-will-sharron-angle-do.html), from a Serious Person.

bjkeefe
03-08-2011, 03:53 PM
As in, take away their votes (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/nh-gop-seeks-to-disenfranchise-students-who-just-vote-their-feelings-video.php). Because, Republican House Speaker Bill O'Brien says, "the kids [are] coming out of the schools and basically doing what I did when I was a kid, which is [vote liberal]."

As Brian Beutler notes:

The push is a part of a trend in states, particularly where Republicans made major gains in the 2010 election. Many of those states are advancing voter ID laws, nominally meant to crack down on the unsubstantial problem of voter fraud, but which in practice are meant to disenfranchise young and poor liberal voters.

Even Wisconsin, under intense national scrutiny as protesters march to protect collective bargaining rights for public sector workers, the legislature passed a Voter ID bill "requiring certain identification in order to vote at a polling place or obtain an absentee ballot."

Some of these bills as written are of questionable constitutionality. But that's beside the point when the point is to sow confusion and uncertainty on election day.

Another one for the collection (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/search/label/the%20myth%20of%20%22voter%20fraud%22%20and%20the% 20reality%20of%20voter%20suppression).

(h/t: @EricKleefeld (http://twitter.com/EricKleefeld), via RT)

bjkeefe
03-09-2011, 03:13 PM
Hurrah! Our democracy republic is saved (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51390319-76/bill-compound-constitutional-curriculum.html.csp)!

Legislature passes bill to teach U.S. is republic

A bill that would ensure Utah students learn the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic — not a democracy — has passed both Houses of the Legislature and is now headed to the governor for his signature.

HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism. The Senate passed the bill with no dissenting votes Monday.

And on Tuesday, the House agreed to wording changes made in the Senate.

The bill passed after weeks of debate over the differences between democracies and republics and whether socialism is a form of government or a philosophy.

Opponents of the bill argued that the concepts within it are already being taught and that the Legislature shouldn’t get involved in curriculum matters.

But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.

“This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said.

(h/t: Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/440173/utah-to-pass-basil-marceauxs-law))

bjkeefe
03-11-2011, 03:50 PM
Nothing like having well-informed legislators (http://wonkette.com/440479/tn-state-senator-writes-long-form-birth-certificate-bill-has-no-idea-what-long-form-birth-certificate-is) writing legislation!

Item: Tennessee state senator Mae Beavers (R-Obvs.) writes “a bill that would require presidential candidates to present a long-form birth certificate in order to qualify for the ballot.” What do you suppose she has to say (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/birther-bill-author-not-sure-what-bill-does) when asked what a long form birth certificate is?

Sen. Mae Beavers: Now, you’re asking me to get into a lot of things that I haven’t really looked into yet.

Item: Alabama state Sen. Gerald Allen (R-Obvs.) "has introduced a bill against 'Sharia'." He apparently "wrote" the law by copying and pasting from Wikipedia (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/whoops-alabama-anti-sharia-bill-lifted-wikipedia). And ...

... when asked by a reporter what Sharia actually is, said, “I don’t have my file in front of me.”

Therefore, anyone who says the Republican Party is filled with idiotic xenophobes should be fired. His boss, too! Even if (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=200626#post200626) that person is relating what people in the Republican Party have been telling him.

handle
03-11-2011, 03:53 PM
Nothing like having well-informed legislators (http://wonkette.com/440479/tn-state-senator-writes-long-form-birth-certificate-bill-has-no-idea-what-long-form-birth-certificate-is) writing legislation!

Item: Tennessee state senator Mae Beavers (R-Obvs.) writes “a bill that would require presidential candidates to present a long-form birth certificate in order to qualify for the ballot.” What do you suppose she has to say (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/birther-bill-author-not-sure-what-bill-does) when asked what a long form birth certificate is?



Item: Alabama state Sen. Gerald Allen (R-Obvs.) "has introduced a bill against 'Sharia'." He apparently "wrote" the law by copying and pasting from Wikipedia (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/whoops-alabama-anti-sharia-bill-lifted-wikipedia). And ...



Therefore, anyone who says the Republican Party is filled with idiotic xenophobes should be fired. His boss, too! Even if (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=200626#post200626) that person is relating what people in the Republican Party have been telling him.

Nice to know they are focusing on jobs above all else.

bjkeefe
03-13-2011, 10:47 PM
Lauri Lebo, Religion Dispatches (http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/4364/record_number_of_stealth_creationism_bills_introdu ced_in_2011/) (via (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38227_The_GOP_War_on_Science-_Record_Number_of_Creationism_Bills_Introduced_in_ 2011)):

Record Number of Stealth Creationism Bills Introduced in 2011

The National Center for Science Education has tracked a record-setting number of nine anti-evolution bills introduced in state legislatures since Jan. 1.

The latest is Texas’ HB 2454, which would prohibit an institution of higher learning from "discrimination related to research related into intelligent design."

[...]

As always, since intelligent design was ruled unconstitutional in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the introduced bills rely on such creationist code words as "teaching the controversy," "academic freedom," or "critical analysis." [...]

bjkeefe
03-16-2011, 09:13 PM
It could happen (http://wonkette.com/439996/senator-of-sex-john-ensign-not-running-for-re-election)!

[Added] Moar (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/what-will-sharron-angle-do.html), from a Serious Person.

Welp, not the Senate, as it turns out. Instead, Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/440819/beloved-nevada-dingbat-sharron-angle-running-for-congress) informs us, the House!

http://a.imageshack.us/img526/6375/sharronangle.jpg
(Above: what she looked like when she ran for Senate)

From her site (http://sharronangle.com/sharron.html), the PDF (http://sharronangle.com/Sharron-Angle-Announcement.pdf):

Angle Announces Run for Congress
March 16th, 2011

Four-term Assemblywoman Sharron Angle (R-NV) today announced her intention to run for the seat in the House of Representatives being vacated by Dean Heller (R-NV) ...

The rest is the standard yelling about Obama, the Constitution, and taxes.

But!

She has made an exciting announcement video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWIXR00SaDo), too! And here is a fine measure of how much faith she has the American people:

• "This video is unlisted. Only those with the link can see it."
• "Adding comments has been disabled for this video."

bjkeefe
03-17-2011, 05:17 AM
Jon Chait (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/85278/are-republicans-blowing-their-midwest-chance) (via (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/the-indecisive-midwest/)):

[...]

So it's pretty interesting that Republican governor John Kasich is already incredibly unpopular in Ohio (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_OH_0315513.pdf), running 15 percentage points behind Ted Strickland, who he narrowly beat last November. Meanwhile, several Wisconsin state Senators look to be getting pulled down (http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03/14/new-polling-democrats-lead-in-three-recall-elections-in-wisconsin/) in the Scott Walker undertow.

The big picture is that the Republican Party was deeply discredited by the end of the Bush administration. Then you had Democrats running the government everywhere at the moment of the worst economic crisis in 70 years, so they managed to win power in a bunch of states. But this fact seems only to be reminding people why they hated Republicans in the first place.

And so the question of what Obama has to do to rebuild his standing in the Midwest -- other than have the economy recover and be popular generally -- is to let GOP governors re-trash the party brand in the meantime. In other words, Obama may not need a Midwest strategy at all. The Republicans are carrying out his Midwest strategy for him.

And see also this, from a day later: "The GOP Midwest Implosion Accelerates (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/85338/the-gop-midwest-implosion-accelerates)."

bjkeefe
03-22-2011, 05:07 PM
The pincer movement on women's rights closes a little more tightly (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/03/south-dakota-passes-draconian-waiting-period-regulation).

(No report on how many new jobs this will create. Maybe a few, for harassment specialists (http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/SD-governor-signs-3-day-wait-for-abortion-into-law-1254200.php) at "pregnancy help centers.")

bjkeefe
03-28-2011, 06:45 PM
Full report is now available (PDF) (http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/VR%202010%20FINAL(1).pdf). Introductory post here (http://www.adaction.org/pages/posts/just-released-2010-ada-congressional-voting-record589.php).

From the introductory post:

In compiling the rankings for each chamber, ADA scored 20 votes from the second session of the 111th Congress on issues including health care reform, repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, unemployment compensation, and ratification of the New START nuclear weapons treaty. Since their first issuance in 1947, ADA scores have been relied upon by scholars, journalists, and the general public as the standard indicator of American political ideology.

Excerpt from the report:

ADA’s Congressional scorecard shows that the 111th Congress took a sharp rightward swing in the second year of the Obama Administration. In 2009, only one Senator (Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky) earned an ADA “zero” by opposing the ADA position on every key vote. Last year, the number of Senate zeroes ballooned to 19 – nearly half of the Republican caucus. Conversely, 16 Senators in 2009 boasted a perfect ADA score of 100; in 2010, there were only five such Senate “heroes.” While not quite as dramatic, the shift in the House was also pronounced: in 2009, 75 zeroes and 98 heroes; in 2010, 90 zeroes and 48 heroes.

The ultra-conservatism of the House Republican caucus is striking. Of the roughly 178 Republican members (the number varied slightly through the year as vacancies occurred), only three voted as much as a third of the time with ADA. Only nine voted the ADA position over a fourth of the time, and only 13 House Republicans voted ADA’s way on as many as one-fifth of the tracked votes. Overall, the House Republicans scored 5%, while their Democratic colleagues received an 84%. The Senate party averages were 7% for Republicans and 88% for Democrats.

In conclusion: Damn that Obama for being unwilling to Reach Across The Aisle™.

bjkeefe
04-08-2011, 08:00 AM
If the federal government shuts down at midnight on Friday — which seems likely unless negotiations take a sudden turn toward rationality — it will not be because of disagreements over spending. It will be because Republicans are refusing to budge on these ideological demands:

• No federal financing for Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions. Instead, state administration of federal family planning funds, which means that Republican governors and legislatures will not spend them.

• No local financing for abortion services in the District of Columbia.

• No foreign aid to countries that might use the money for abortion or family planning. And no aid to the United Nations Population Fund, which supports family-planning services.

• No regulation of greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency.

• No funds for health care reform or the new consumer protection bureau established in the wake of the financial collapse.

Abortion. Environmental protection. Health care. Nothing to do with jobs or the economy; instead, all the hoary greatest hits of the Republican Party, only this time it has the power to wreak national havoc: furloughing 800,000 federal workers, suspending paychecks for soldiers and punishing millions of Americans who will have to wait for tax refunds, Social Security applications, small-business loans, and even most city services in Washington. The damage to a brittle economy will be substantial.

Democrats have already gone much too far in giving in to the House demands for spending cuts. The $33 billion that they have agreed to cut will pull an enormous amount of money from the economy at exactly the wrong time, and will damage dozens of vital programs.

But it turns out that all those excessive cuts they volunteered were worth far less to the Republicans than the policy riders that are the real holdup to a deal. After President Obama appeared on television late Wednesday night to urge the two sides to keep talking, negotiators say, the issue of the spending cuts barely even came up. All the talk was about the abortion demands and the other issues.

The rest (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08fri1.html).

[Added] More here (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/us/politics/08congress.html).

Ocean
04-08-2011, 08:55 AM
It is one of those rare times when we should all sing at once: "Let the government shut down! No to the regressive GOP demands!"

Come on Dems, have some balls!

bjkeefe
04-22-2011, 01:06 PM
... you didn't really think anything was going to happen to John Ensign (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/11/19/i-fought-the-law-and/), did you?

Of course not. Endless investigations are for Republicans to direct at Democrats, not the other way around.

And after all, he's already moved out of C Street (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/05/deconstructing-senators-facade/)! And it's possible there are as many as fourteen other (http://www.lvrj.com/news/Watchdog-group-adds-Ensign-to-list.html) members of Congress as corrupt as he is! LEAVE JOHN ENSIGN ALOOOOOOONE!!!1!

What? You forgot (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/fec_dismisses_complaint_against_ensign_for_parents .php?ref=fpa)?

Ensign, TPM readers will remember, admitted in 2009 to having an affair with Hampton. Hampton's husband, Doug, was also a senior staffer and close friend of Ensign. After the affair, the couple left Ensign's employ and Ensign allegedly helped Doug Hampton get a lobbying job and clients -- a potential violation of the one-year Senate lobbying ban. Ensign's parents also gave a total of $96,000 to the Hampton family.

Find many, many more details of the affair here (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/john_ensign/).

Eh, maybe he'll get primaried by Sharron Angle in 2012. About all we can hope for at this point.

But wait! New developments! (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/senator-ensign-to-resign-amid-inquiry/)

Senator Ensign to Resign Amid Inquiry

Senator John Ensign of Nevada, who had already announced that he would not run for re-election in 2012, is planning to resign, he said in a statement issued Thursday afternoon. Mr. Ensign, a Republican, had been caught up in a sex scandal and an ethics inquiry stemming from his admission in 2009 that he had had an affair with the wife of a top aide (see a timeline of the scandal (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/09/30/us/politics/20091001-NEVADA.html)).

Hmmmm! Given the old boys' club nature of the Senate, which made me think that an "ethics inquiry" would be dropped upon hearing (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2011/03/sharron-angle-refuses-to-let-joe-miller.html) that the person involved would not run for reelection, I can only think that must have been some other shoe that was getting ready to drop.

What else?

Republican Party operatives said Mr. Ensign’s decision, effective May 3, would open the door for Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada to appoint a Republican to fill out the remainder of Mr. Ensign’s term, thereby increasing the chances that the party could hold onto what may be a hotly contested seat next year. One likely candidate is Representative Dean Heller, a Republican House member already running for the job, giving Mr. Heller a possible leg up for a full term.

While party insiders said there was no guarantee that Mr. Heller would get the appointment, if he did get it he would be in position to essentially run as an incumbent in 2012 and while skirting some of the politically charged votes likely to occur in the Republican-controlled House over the coming months.

So, Family Values™ and Political Courage®, all in one Tale of Your New Republican Majority!

(Here is another version of the story (http://wonkette.com/443796/sexy-john-ensign-resigns), if you don't like to wrestle with the NYT's paywall. However, don't miss the timeline linked from within the blockquote if you're able to get to it. It's mighty sordid! (Though not all that sexy.))

UPDATE: Looks like there's a chance this might not be the last (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/ensign-resigns-but-details-of-ethics-probe-may-yet-emerge/) we hear about this:

Ensign Resigns, But Details of Ethics Probe May Yet Emerge

[...]

The Senate Ethics Committee will now have to decide if it wants to make public any of the evidence it turned up in a year and a half spent investigating the aftermath of an affair Mr. Ensign had with the wife of a former top aide, Douglas Hampton.

[...]

The committee chairwoman, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, and its ranking Republican, Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, issued a statement late Thursday indicating that their work in fact is not yet finished. That suggests that the public might again hear from the panel.

“The Senate Ethics Committee has worked diligently for 22 months on this matter and will complete its work in a timely fashion,” the statement said. “Senator Ensign has made the appropriate decision.”

Mr. Ensign himself, in his resignation statement, made clear that he knew some kind of action was about to take place by the Senate Ethics Committee that would only open him up to more scrutiny. That could have included specific charges and possibly a public trial on those charges.

[...]

operative
04-22-2011, 01:23 PM
Full report is now available (PDF) (http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/VR%202010%20FINAL(1).pdf). Introductory post here (http://www.adaction.org/pages/posts/just-released-2010-ada-congressional-voting-record589.php).

From the introductory post:



Excerpt from the report:



In conclusion: Damn that Obama for being unwilling to Reach Across The Aisle™.



Shorter:

Whiny leftists criticize conservatives for being conservative, praise Obama.


If you want to understand voting trends, partisanship and polarization, go to voteview. If you want whiny partisan crap, go to adaction.

bjkeefe
04-22-2011, 01:40 PM
Shorter:


If you want to understand voting trends, partisanship and polarization, go to voteview. If you want whiny partisan crap, go to adaction.

And if you need a substance-free, kneejerk rebuttal from someone who is so insanely driven to promote Koch-style "conservatism," and so deathly afraid to let anyone know the truth about their wholly-owned political party, that he no longer even pretends to think before typing, go to the operative.

You were pretty desperate to bump my post about John Ensign (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=205262#post205262) off the top, weren't you, oppie?

bjkeefe
05-04-2011, 04:21 PM
Any comment would be superfluous.

The headline (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/blackwaters-new-ethics-chief-john-ashcroft/):

Blackwater’s New Ethics Chief: John Ashcroft

(h/t: Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/445145/beloved-patriot-john-ashcroft-works-for-blackwater-now))

handle
05-04-2011, 04:25 PM
Any comment would be superfluous.

The headline (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/blackwaters-new-ethics-chief-john-ashcroft/):



(h/t: Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/445145/beloved-patriot-john-ashcroft-works-for-blackwater-now))

What could possibly go wrong?

bjkeefe
05-06-2011, 11:23 AM
McClatchy is reporting (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/06/113788/welfare-drug-test-bill-heads-to.html) that the Republican-controlled Florida legislature has passed a bill that will require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing. The bill "is headed to Gov. Rick Scott, who called it one of his legislative priorities."

Insert joke about nanny state here.

Penalties:

Recipients who test positive for drugs would lose their benefits for a year. If they fail a second time, they lose the benefits for three years. Parents who test positive must designate another adult to receive benefits on behalf of their children.

Just to make this bill completely teabaggerrific: the welfare recipients will be required to pay for their own tests.

And of course: "The measure provides no money for substance abuse treatment."

(h/t: Riley Waggaman (http://wonkette.com/445423/predictable-florida-governor-will-drug-test-poor-people))

bjkeefe
05-06-2011, 03:48 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UXTYEUoqWnQ/SaHNp1_NfsI/AAAAAAAABtE/-0Imkk1PvgI/s200/Richard_Shelby_5.jpg

Oh, you guessed it. Why not both?

Forty-four of your Republican Senators, led by Richard Shelby of Alabama (pictured above), have (http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/newsreleases?ContentRecord_id=893bc8b0-2e73-4555-8441-d51e0ccd1d17) "sent a letter to President Obama" calling for "common sense reforms" to his proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Here is the best:

• Establish a safety-and-soundness check for the prudential financial regulators, who oversee the safety and soundness of financial institutions. This would help ensure that excessive regulations do not needlessly cause bank failures.

Emph. added.

Thers (http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2011/05/cease-this-detestable-boo-hooing.html) and DDay (http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/05/06/richard-shelby-gives-boost-to-elizabeth-warrens-nomination-for-cfpb/) have more detailed analysis of this latest hamstringing attempt by the GOP.

(pic. source (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/wingnuts-in-high-places.html))

bjkeefe
05-12-2011, 07:53 PM
But wait! New developments! (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/senator-ensign-to-resign-amid-inquiry/)

Senator Ensign to Resign Amid Inquiry

[...]

[...]

UPDATE: Looks like there's a chance this might not be the last (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/ensign-resigns-but-details-of-ethics-probe-may-yet-emerge/) we hear about this:

Ensign Resigns, But Details of Ethics Probe May Yet Emerge

[...]

And emerge they have. Says Justin Elliot (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/john_ensign/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/12/ensign_ethics_report):

A devastating report on the Ensign affair

If you read just one report from the Senate Ethics Committee this year … make it the 75-pager just released on John Ensign, his affair with a campaign staffer married to another Ensign aide, and the subsequent botched coverup.

Ensign resigned from the Senate last month. But the ethics committee is referring its findings to the Justice Department, alleging that Ensign may have committed crimes including obstruction of justice and violation of federal election law.

Elliot continues on in his post to hit some of the other high points of the report (don't miss the juicy C Street parts!) and has a Scribd version of it embedded in the post. You can also download a copy from here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/55296521/Public-Report-Preliminary-Inquiry-Into-the-Matter-of-Sen-Ensign) or direct from the Senate's website (PDF (http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/Public%20Report_Preliminary%20Inquiry%20into%20the %20matter%20of%20Sen%20Ensign.pdf)).

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/3463/johnensign.png
(Picture taken by someone kneeling in front of John Ensign?)

Other quick bits from other bloggers/reporters, if (like me) the phrase "If you read just one report from the Senate Ethics Committee this year" made you snicker:

• "Tom Coburn Helped Cover Up John Ensign Affair: Senate Ethics Report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/tom-coburn-john-ensign_n_861287.html)"

• "Rick Santorum tipped off John Ensign, report says (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54874.html)"

• "'Credible evidence' against John Ensign in sex and lobbying scandal, Senate panel says (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-john-ensign-20110513,0,7091722.story)" -- includes some statements from Ensign's attorney.

• "'Put Your Pants On And Go Home' (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/05/12/put-your-pants-on-and-go-home.aspx)" - gotta have a Weigel post, so chiwhi will know what to respond to!

(pic. source (http://www.laprogressive.com/rankism/gay-rights-rankism/defense-marriage/))

stephanie
05-14-2011, 11:34 AM
I don't think we've talked about Rand Paul's bizarre "right to health care equals enslaving doctors" argument here yet.

Quote taken from Steven Benen at the Political Animal (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_05/rand_paul_fears_being_enslaved029526.php):

[Y]ou have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.

Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery.

I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be.

First, given that people in the US do have a right to counsel, I guess I'm already a slave, then. Stop whining and get in line, Rand.

Second, I like the reductio ad absurdum for the right to health care. Oh, yeah, if you believe in that, what other crazy things might you believe in, that humans have a right to food and water? Enslaver! Statist! Socialist!

operative
05-14-2011, 12:12 PM
I don't think we've talked about Rand Paul's bizarre "right to health care equals enslaving doctors" argument here yet.

Quote taken from Steven Benen at the Political Animal (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_05/rand_paul_fears_being_enslaved029526.php):



First, given that people in the US do have a right to counsel, I guess I'm already a slave, then. Stop whining and get in line, Rand.

Second, I like the reductio ad absurdum for the right to health care. Oh, yeah, if you believe in that, what other crazy things might you believe in, that humans have a right to food and water? Enslaver! Statist! Socialist!

The flaw with comparing law to medicine is that a nation with socialized medicine owns all doctors. While there is a right to council, this is provided by a market mechanism in which some (and, I'd say, generally poorer) attorneys choose to work for the state providing council, while others opt to go into private industry. Your analogy would only work if the state absorbed the entire field and forced all lawyers to be paid servants of the state. Then you would be a slave, because you would not be able to market your service.

stephanie
05-14-2011, 12:27 PM
The flaw with comparing law to medicine is that a nation with socialized medicine owns all doctors. While there is a right to council, this is provided by a market mechanism in which some (and, I'd say, generally poorer) attorneys choose to work for the state providing council, while others opt to go into private industry. Your analogy would only work if the state absorbed the entire field and forced all lawyers to be paid servants of the state. Then you would be a slave, because you would not be able to market your service.

That assumes that everyone who says "we have a right to health care" (or water or food) is suggesting that we are demanding that we socialize an entire field and make all who work in that field become "paid servants of the state," which is of course untrue. (Also, being a government employee does not make you a slave. Way to minimize slavery.)

Also, it assumes that what Paul is railing against bears any relationship to the above, which is also, of course, untrue.

So either Paul is lying or he doesn't mean to limit his comments in the way you have tried to defend and justify them and thus he considers me a slave (oh no!).

operative
05-14-2011, 12:30 PM
That assumes that everyone who says "we have a right to health care" (or water or food) is suggesting that we are demanding that we socialize an entire field and make all who work in that field become "paid servants of the state," which is of course untrue.

Also, it assumes that what Paul is railing against bears any relationship to the above, which is also, of course, untrue.

So either Paul is lying or he doesn't mean to limit his comments in the way you have tried to defend and justify them and thus he considers me a slave (oh no!).

One can have a right to council in a market system due to the nature of the service: it is not immediately necessary, and the trial process can take quite a while. I don't see where that can be applied to the medical field, which is why establishing a 'right' will likely always lead to socialized medicine.

stephanie
05-14-2011, 12:57 PM
One can have a right to council in a market system due to the nature of the service: it is not immediately necessary, and the trial process can take quite a while. I don't see where that can be applied to the medical field, which is why establishing a 'right' will likely always lead to socialized medicine.

This is such nonsense that I can't believe you don't realize it.

First of all, when we talk about a right to health care (or food, water, and shelter), we are generally talking about what we think a state has an obligation to provide or protect. Basically, about human rights. To try and twist that into "I will be forced to provide care to everyone personally, with no right to determine when I work, etc." is simply nutty. We do recognize that people have a right to food and water, yet that does not mean that we have enslaved our farmers or grocery store clerks or waiters. It's, frankly, ridiculous, and your need to defend it discredits your position, I think.

Second, we do (and did, prior to the current reform) recognize a right to health care. That's why we don't let emergency rooms turn away patients, why we have Medicaid and SCHIP and Medicare, to make sure that those unable to purchase health care without help will have the help they need. The point of the recent reform was in large part to address the gaps in the plans we had in place, not a huge change with regard to how we think of the issue. (Ed. The most extreme common position in the US right now -- which I share -- is that we'd be better off with the government paying for (in essence, covering, as an insurer) some base level of services for everyone, funded by taxes, and then people paying for private insurance for whatever else they wanted (or just paying out of pocket). This might increase the burden of slavery on all us tax payers, of course -- I know how the libertarian sorts think of taxes -- but I don't see how this makes doctors more "enslaved" than they are now, simply because they might be compensated by the government rather than BCBS or Aetna or whoever.)

Third, given the complete carelessness with how "socialized medicine" is used its hard to tell, but presumably Paul (and you) are claiming that doctors in all countries with some kind of universal care are slaves. Well, okay, if you think that argument is reasonable, bully for you, I guess. I think it's insulting to what slavery was, as I said.

Fourth, if the idea is that if we have some kind of state-provided health care (emergency rooms can't turn you away, Medicare!) or state-provided food (food stamps, federal funding for food kitchens, etc.) or the like that will turn all in those fields into slaves some day, because of the slippery slope or something, that again seems kind of crazy and clearly unsupported by the actual facts. I also don't see how that differs from by "right to counsel" argument (especially since the "right to counsel" is not just something we've enacted into law or a belief in a human right, but something we claim is in the Constitution).

For the record, unlike the effect of the health care reform (or Medicare, etc.) on doctors, the "right to counsel" as applied does mean that I could get appointed to represent someone by the state bar (and have been). Therefore, if Rand Paul is a slave, I'm way more of a slave. Where's my 40 acres and my mule?

Edit: ooh, but he's now a government employee. Hmm, that might change things.

bjkeefe
05-14-2011, 01:00 PM
This is such nonsense that I can't believe you don't realize it.

First of all, when we talk about a right to health care (or food, water, and shelter), we are generally talking about what we think a state has an obligation to provide or protect. Basically, about human rights. To try and twist that into "I will be forced to provide care to everyone personally, with no right to determine when I work, etc." is simply nutty. We do recognize that people have a right to food and water, yet that does not mean that we have enslaved our farmers or grocery store clerks or waiters. It's, frankly, ridiculous, and your need to defend it discredits your position, I think.

Second, we do (and did, prior to the current reform) recognize a right to health care. That's why we don't let emergency rooms turn away patients, why we have Medicaid and SCHIP and Medicare, to make sure that those unable to purchase health care without help will have the help they need. The point of the recent reform was in large part to address the gaps in the plans we had in place, not a huge change with regard to how we think of the issue.

Third, given the complete carelessness with how "socialized medicine" is used its hard to tell, but presumably Paul (and you) are claiming that doctors in all countries with some kind of universal care are slaves. Well, okay, if you think that argument is reasonable, bully for you, I guess. I think its insulting to what slavery was, as I said.

Fourth, if the idea is that if we have some kind of state-provided health care (emergency rooms can't turn you away, Medicare!) or state-provided food (food stamps, federal funding for food kitchens, etc.) or the like that will turn all in those fields into slaves some day, because of the slippery slope or something, that again seems kind of crazy and clearly unsupported by the actual facts. I also don't see how that differs from by "right to counsel" argument (especially since the "right to counsel" is not just something we've enacted into law or a belief in a human right, but something we claim is in the Constitution).

For the record, unlike the effect of the health care reform (or Medicare, etc.) on doctors, the "right to counsel" as applied does mean that I could get appointed to represent someone by the state bar (and have been). Therefore, if Rand Paul is a slave, I'm way more of a slave. Where's my 40 acres and my mule?

Great answer.

One additional point you might have made, given that you were addressing a Free Market fundamentalist: there is no compulsion that anyone become a doctor; since all doctors are perfectly free to take up other jobs at anytime they like, they are not slaves. This would be true even if we had some totalitarian single payer health care system, which of course we don't, and won't, for the foreseeable future, Dumbass (and Not Even A Real Doctor) Rand Paul's imagination notwithstanding.

operative
05-14-2011, 01:13 PM
This is such nonsense that I can't believe you don't realize it.

First of all, when we talk about a right to health care (or food, water, and shelter), we are generally talking about what we think a state has an obligation to provide or protect. Basically, about human rights. To try and twist that into "I will be forced to provide care to everyone personally, with no right to determine when I work, etc." is simply nutty. We do recognize that people have a right to food and water, yet that does not mean that we have enslaved our farmers or grocery store clerks or waiters. It's, frankly, ridiculous, and your need to defend it discredits your position, I think.


You say 'we' but I don't recognize a 'right' to food or water. My view of rights begins and ends with that which a person can do on their own. A person can speak, write, or vote as he or she wishes. A person is supposed to have the right of private property, but we've been getting away from that. The nation has the obligation to maintain a system that allows the individual to freely practice these rights. That's all.



Second, we do (and did, prior to the current reform) recognize a right to health care. That's why we don't let emergency rooms turn away patients,

I view that as only a recognition that it is entirely impossible to check if a person is able to pay for service where minutes and even seconds can decide whether they will live and die.


why we have Medicaid and SCHIP and Medicare,

Both of which should be privatized.


to make sure that those unable to purchase health care without help will have the help they need.

This again is flawed. The government assists students in going to college. This does not mean that there is a "right" to attend college. The government subsidizes housing. This does not mean that owning a home is a "right." The notion that government assistance entails a fundamental right just isn't sound.



The point of the recent reform was in large part to address the gaps in the plans we had in place, not a huge change with regard to how we think of the issue.

It is true that our system is not truly coherent. We have aspects that reach in the direction of socialized medicine but we also have market influences. But that doesn't mean that we are and should be moving down the road to socialized medicine. We can easily fix the inefficiencies with more of a free market approach. (Note that I do support government subsidies in truly extreme circumstances in which the price system will be functional).

Assisting people in extreme circumstances with having the ability to purchase health insurance is different than establishing it as a universal 'right'.



Third, given the complete carelessness with how "socialized medicine" is used its hard to tell, but presumably Paul (and you) are claiming that doctors in all countries with some kind of universal care are slaves. Well, okay, if you think that argument is reasonable, bully for you, I guess. I think its insulting to what slavery was, as I said.

I can understand where people would take offense to the use of the term. I wouldn't equate doctors in socialized medicine countries to slaves from the American past. The point is that if one is not free to market one's goods and services, then one is not truly free. I do not see how this is disputable--you can object to the specific rhetoric, but I would say that the general point stands.



Fourth, if the idea is that if we have some kind of state-provided health care (emergency rooms can't turn you away, Medicare!) or state-provided food (food stamps, federal funding for food kitchens, etc.) or the like that will turn all in those fields into slaves some day, because of the slippery slope or something, that again seems kind of crazy and clearly unsupported by the actual facts. I also don't see how that differs from by "right to counsel" argument (especially since the "right to counsel" is not just something we've enacted into law or a belief in a human right, but something we claim is in the Constitution).

For the record, unlike the effect of the health care reform (or Medicare, etc.) on doctors, the "right to counsel" as applied does mean that I could get appointed to represent someone by the state bar (and have been). Therefore, if Rand Paul is a slave, I'm way more of a slave. Where's my 40 acres and my mule?

Edit: ooh, but he's now a government employee. Hmm, that might change things.

I admit that I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of the legal system. I presume that you're not by trade a public attorney, but the state can still compel you to give your services to an individual? I'd certainly call that a lack of freedom.

Note that one other way that the legal system functions differently than the medical field is that in the criminal justice system, the State brings a charge against an individual who is presumed innocent. In other words, the state initiates action against someone and as a result of initiating action against them, extends an additional right--it is essentially a right to protection from the state.

Ocean
05-14-2011, 02:26 PM
This is such nonsense that I can't believe you don't realize it.

First of all, when we talk about a right to health care (or food, water, and shelter), we are generally talking about what we think a state has an obligation to provide or protect. Basically, about human rights. To try and twist that into "I will be forced to provide care to everyone personally, with no right to determine when I work, etc." is simply nutty. We do recognize that people have a right to food and water, yet that does not mean that we have enslaved our farmers or grocery store clerks or waiters. It's, frankly, ridiculous, and your need to defend it discredits your position, I think.

Second, we do (and did, prior to the current reform) recognize a right to health care. That's why we don't let emergency rooms turn away patients, why we have Medicaid and SCHIP and Medicare, to make sure that those unable to purchase health care without help will have the help they need. The point of the recent reform was in large part to address the gaps in the plans we had in place, not a huge change with regard to how we think of the issue. (Ed. The most extreme common position in the US right now -- which I share -- is that we'd be better off with the government paying for (in essence, covering, as an insurer) some base level of services for everyone, funded by taxes, and then people paying for private insurance for whatever else they wanted (or just paying out of pocket). This might increase the burden of slavery on all us tax payers, of course -- I know how the libertarian sorts think of taxes -- but I don't see how this makes doctors more "enslaved" than they are now, simply because they might be compensated by the government rather than BCBS or Aetna or whoever.)

Third, given the complete carelessness with how "socialized medicine" is used its hard to tell, but presumably Paul (and you) are claiming that doctors in all countries with some kind of universal care are slaves. Well, okay, if you think that argument is reasonable, bully for you, I guess. I think it's insulting to what slavery was, as I said.

Fourth, if the idea is that if we have some kind of state-provided health care (emergency rooms can't turn you away, Medicare!) or state-provided food (food stamps, federal funding for food kitchens, etc.) or the like that will turn all in those fields into slaves some day, because of the slippery slope or something, that again seems kind of crazy and clearly unsupported by the actual facts. I also don't see how that differs from by "right to counsel" argument (especially since the "right to counsel" is not just something we've enacted into law or a belief in a human right, but something we claim is in the Constitution).

For the record, unlike the effect of the health care reform (or Medicare, etc.) on doctors, the "right to counsel" as applied does mean that I could get appointed to represent someone by the state bar (and have been). Therefore, if Rand Paul is a slave, I'm way more of a slave. Where's my 40 acres and my mule?

Edit: ooh, but he's now a government employee. Hmm, that might change things.

I agree with your argument, Stephanie.

I would say it's rather obvious that even socialized health care would not amount to enslaving physicians or anything remotely similar to that. It's such a stupid idea that it makes me wonder how this Ron Paul made it through medical school, or whether he's plainly being dishonest and misrepresenting. The latter wouldn't surprise me considering his tricks about being "board" certified.

Good point about Paul being a government employee. Politicians are then by definition slaves. No competition or free market. No wonder these libertarians want to eliminate government. They've been thinking they're antislavery all this time. Perhaps they need to learn about economic slavery.

operative
05-14-2011, 02:46 PM
I agree with your argument, Stephanie.

I would say it's rather obvious that even socialized health care would not amount to enslaving physicians or anything remotely similar to that. It's such a stupid idea that it makes me wonder how this Ron Paul made it through medical school, or whether he's plainly being dishonest and misrepresenting. The latter wouldn't surprise me considering his tricks about being "board" certified.

Good point about Paul being a government employee. Politicians are then by definition slaves. No competition or free market. No wonder these libertarians want to eliminate government. They've been thinking they're antislavery all this time. Perhaps they need to learn about economic slavery.

*Rand, not Ron

And if there is any relationship between intelligence and political ideology (not sure that there is), level of statism would be inverse to IQ. People with lower IQs tend not to measure short term vs. long term rewards and as a result engage in activities that do not advance their standing (such as wasting money on cigarettes and the lottery). They then expect the state to make up for their lack of advancement by funneling more successful peoples' resources to them. I'd wager (having seen no scholarly investigation into the matter) that libertarians are on average the smartest and the highest educated of all political groups in America.

bjkeefe
05-17-2011, 09:42 AM
Because this revelation (http://abcnews.go.com/US/arnold-schwarzenegger-fathered-child-household-staffer-report/story?id=13618503) would be a good thing to have handy every time someone mentioned the Clenis.

popcorn_karate
05-19-2011, 07:15 PM
I'd wager (having seen no scholarly investigation into the matter) that libertarians are on average the smartest and the highest educated of all political groups in America.

i don't know about that, but i would wager that most libertarians have rich daddies.

Ocean
05-20-2011, 02:30 AM
i don't know about that, but i would wager that most libertarians have rich daddies.

I tend to agree with that. It's even sadder to think of those who don't have rich daddies, but are hoping to become rich by virtue of the free fantasy market. Considering the inconsistencies that are articulated by many of the so called libertarians, I highly question the intellectual capital contained in that ideology. It seems to be a disguise for plain old conservatives who want to self define with a trendier label. Especially those who are libertarians only for the purpose of free markets/the rule of capitalism/ small government, but everything social is mostly conservative.

operative
05-20-2011, 10:33 AM
I tend to agree with that. It's even sadder to think of those who don't have rich daddies, but are hoping to become rich by virtue of the free fantasy market. Considering the inconsistencies that are articulated by many of the so called libertarians, I highly question the intellectual capital contained in that ideology. It seems to be a disguise for plain old conservatives who want to self define with a trendier label. Especially those who are libertarians only for the purpose of free markets/the rule of capitalism/ small government, but everything social is mostly conservative.

I neither have a rich daddy nor an aspiration to become rich on the free market. I simply want freedom: the ability to keep most of what I earn and spend it as I see fit, to make decisions for myself, and to see business and innovation work as best they can. And there are many more like me. The notion that libertarianism is in the interests of the wealthy is utterly mistaken. Corporatism is in the interests of those with established wealth, and corporatism is utterly opposite of libertarianism. High taxes discourage new corporations starting and challenging old ones, as do special tax breaks and subsidies, all supported by the Democrats. The Democrats do far more to benefit the already-wealthy than libertarians would ever do.

Libertarianism requires the ability and willingness to think beyond short term payoffs to long term consequences, and to really examine the underpinnings of statist beliefs. It naturally follows that this is done moreso by people with more of an education.

bjkeefe
05-20-2011, 01:32 PM
I tend to agree with that. It's even sadder to think of those who don't have rich daddies, but are hoping to become rich by virtue of the free fantasy market. Considering the inconsistencies that are articulated by many of the so called libertarians, I highly question the intellectual capital contained in that ideology. It seems to be a disguise for plain old conservatives who want to self define with a trendier label. Especially those who are libertarians only for the purpose of free markets/the rule of capitalism/ small government, but everything social is mostly conservative.

Agreed. While there are many libertarian lines of thought I can more or less get on board with, the libertarians who are always going on and on about Libertarian Philosophy and how self-reliant and educated they are and how Teh Free Market will solve all of humankind's woes -- i.e., the glibertarians -- are basically just selfish snots who don't have the stones to be honest about their selfishness, but who need some sort of pseudo-intellectual patter to disguise the flavor, even in their own mouths.

handle
05-20-2011, 02:34 PM
Agreed. While there are many libertarian lines of thought I can more or less get on board with, the libertarians who are always going on and on about Libertarian Philosophy and how self-reliant and educated they are and how Teh Free Market will solve all of humankind's woes -- i.e., the glibertarians -- are basically just selfish snots who don't have the stones to be honest about their selfishness, but who need some sort of pseudo-intellectual patter to disguise the flavor, even in their own mouths.

Yeah, well if you are not on board with extreme free market ideology, then you are statist, Marxist, and Keynesian! We must implement Rand Paul's ideals now or become badhat's foodstamp country. Those are the only options! They know what side you commies are on already.

OP's love of Hayek reminds me of Lennin's love of Marx. I hope we never get the opportunity to learn the hard way that these opposite paths eventually arrive at the same destination.

This country was formed with the intent of balancing power, and ideological approaches IMHO, but why not throw that out the window? What could go wrong? OP will be in Singapore or somewhere, enjoying the fruits of a global plutocracy by then anyway.

handle
05-20-2011, 03:07 PM
I neither have a rich daddy nor an aspiration to become rich on the free market. I simply want freedom: the ability to keep most of what I earn and spend it as I see fit, to make decisions for myself, and to see business and innovation work as best they can. And there are many more like me. The notion that libertarianism is in the interests of the wealthy is utterly mistaken. Corporatism is in the interests of those with established wealth, and corporatism is utterly opposite of libertarianism. High taxes discourage new corporations starting and challenging old ones, as do special tax breaks and subsidies, all supported by the Democrats. The Democrats do far more to benefit the already-wealthy than libertarians would ever do.

Libertarianism requires the ability and willingness to think beyond short term payoffs to long term consequences, and to really examine the underpinnings of statist beliefs. It naturally follows that this is done moreso by people with more of an education.

Notice how they leave out the cornerstone unspoken (unconscious?) underpinning of the sunny ideal, summed up by the phrase:
"and fuck everyone else"*.



*Unless of course you are willing to accept Utah Jesus into your heart, then you qualify for rapture stamps, redeemable at Walmarts everywhere.

TwinSwords
05-20-2011, 03:22 PM
Yeah, well if you are not on board with extreme free market ideology, then you are statist, Marxist, and Keynesian! We must implement Rand Paul's ideals now or become badhats foodstamp country. Those are the only options! They know what side you commies are on already.

OP's love of Hayek reminds me of Lennin's love of Marx. I hope we never get the opportunity to learn the hard way that these opposite paths eventually arrive at the same destination.

This country was formed with the intent of balancing power, and ideological approaches IMHO, but why not throw that out the window? What could go wrong? OP will be in Singapore or somewhere, enjoying the fruits of a global plutocracy by then anyway.

I'm not sure op has any skills that will be of use to the plutocrats, so I can't see how he'd market himself in Singapore. I suspect in real life he's something like a homeschooling consultant, with no skills marketable outside of Utah, the Deep South, or the fundamentalist communities sprinkled throughout the rest of rural America. Learning to recite wingnut platitudes isn't exactly a marketable skill anywhere else. And while the plutocrats will always have need for people to provide an intellectual justification for their plundering, op's not one of the ones they would choose to do their bidding, simply because he can't conceal his total depravity, which keeps surfacing in post after post. Depravity appeals enormously to the GOP base; probably not so much to people in Singapore.

handle
05-20-2011, 03:31 PM
I'm not sure op has any skills that will be of use to the plutocrats, so I can't see how he'd market himself in Singapore. I suspect in real life he's something like a homeschooling consultant, with no skills marketable outside of Utah, the Deep South, or the fundamentalist communities sprinkled throughout the rest of rural America. Learning to recite wingnut platitudes isn't exactly a marketable skill anywhere else. And while the plutocrats will always have need for people to provide an intellectual justification for their plundering, op's not one of the ones they would choose to do their bidding, simply because he can't conceal his total depravity, which keeps surfacing in post after post. Depravity appeals enormously to the GOP base; probably not so much to people in Singapore.

True, but he's learning Chinese, and wants to relo to Hong Kong or something, He will teach them Hayek free market English speak, or at least that's what I have gleaned he thinks might happen.
How do you say unicorn in Chinese?

Seems like the real plutocrats have unleashed this think-tank astroturf movement, and it's blowing up in their faces, kind of a hoot to watch.

bjkeefe
05-27-2011, 04:33 PM
Or maybe Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/republicans-climate-solution-clearcut-the-rain-forest/) is just taking one for the team -- dumbing things down even further to smooth the way for Sarah Palin's threatened entrance into the presidential race. In any case, he …

... needs to hit the science books, forestry experts suggest.

They reached that conclusion after hearing Mr. Rohrabacher declare during a Congressional hearing on Wednesday that clear-cutting the world’s rain forests might eliminate the production of greenhouse gases responsible for climate change.

(h/t: Wonkette Jr. (http://wonkette.com/446553/to-stop-climate-change-gop-suggests-clearing-worlds-rainforests))

handle
05-27-2011, 04:47 PM
Or maybe Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/republicans-climate-solution-clearcut-the-rain-forest/) is just taking one for the team -- dumbing things down even further to smooth the way for Sarah Palin's threatened entrance into the presidential race. In any case, he …



(h/t: Wonkette Jr. (http://wonkette.com/446553/to-stop-climate-change-gop-suggests-clearing-worlds-rainforests))



I can help rite the speach:
Nature is not the solution to our problems. Nature is the problem!

Ocean
05-27-2011, 05:20 PM
Or maybe Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/republicans-climate-solution-clearcut-the-rain-forest/) is just taking one for the team -- dumbing things down even further to smooth the way for Sarah Palin's threatened entrance into the presidential race. In any case, he …



(h/t: Wonkette Jr. (http://wonkette.com/446553/to-stop-climate-change-gop-suggests-clearing-worlds-rainforests))

He may have scrambled the words and he really meant that greenhouse gases by creating climate change, are going to make the whole world a rain forest. And that's clear cut science. Sort of. ;)

bjkeefe
05-27-2011, 07:20 PM
He may have scrambled the words and he really meant that greenhouse gases by creating climate change, are going to make the whole world a rain forest. And that's clear cut science. Sort of. ;)

:)

I think you are capable of considerably more subtle thinking than the gentleman from California.

Also, new information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Rohrabacher#Tenure_at_the_Reagan_White_House) to me:

Rohrabacher served as assistant press secretary to the 1976 and 1980 presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan.[1] From 1981 to 1988, he was one of President Reagan's senior speech writers. During his tenure at the White House, Rohrabacher played a leading role in the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine. He also helped formulate President Reagan's Economic Bill of Rights ...

Plenty of time to talk about the terrorist trees.

thouartgob
06-01-2011, 10:42 PM
:)

I think you are capable of considerably more subtle thinking than the gentleman from California.

Also, new information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Rohrabacher#Tenure_at_the_Reagan_White_House) to me:



Plenty of time to talk about the terrorist trees.

Ah What's Old is New again (http://www.allhatnocattle.net/reagan%20quotes.htm)

The Genius of Ronald Reagan: Direct Quotes from the Gipper Himself

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

"A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?" -- Ronald Reagan, 1966, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park as governor of California


"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born. "

"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." -- Ronald Reagan, 1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)

"Facts are stupid things." -- Ronald Reagan, 1988, a misquote of John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things."

"We think there is a parallel between federal involvement in education and the decline in profit over recent years." -- Ronald Reagan, 1983. (It's always good to run the Department of Education to make money.)

"Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal." Ronald Reagan, 1976, on his failed campaign for the Republican nomination. (Moron.)

"The best minds are not in government." -- Ronald Reagan. (Not in his government anyway.)

"You can't help those who simply will not be helped. One problem that we've had, even in the best of times, is people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless who are homeless, you might say, by choice." -- President Reagan, 1/31/84, on Good Morning America, defending his administration against charges of callousness.

On 8/24/85 President Reagan tells an interviewer that the "reformist administration" of South African president P.W. Botha has made significant progress on the racial front. "They have eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country," says the President, "the type of thing where hotels and restaurants and places of entertainment and so forth were segregated - that has all been eliminated." (In response to questions a few days later as to whether President Reagan actually thought racial segregation has been eliminated in South Africa, Larry Speakes said "Not totally, no.")

"The American Petroleum Institute filed suit against the EPA [and] charged that the agency was suppressing a scientific study for fear it might be misinterpreted... The suppressed study reveals that 80 percent of air pollution comes not from chimneys and auto exhaust pipes, but from plants and trees." Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, in 1979. (There is no scientific data to support this assertion.)

"You know, if I listened to him long enough, I would be convinced that we're in an economic downturn, and that people are homeless, and people are going without food and medical attention, and that we've got to do something about the unemployed." -- President Reagan, 6/8/88, accusing Michael Dukakis of misleading campaign rhetoric.

Lest we forget that the Contras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras#Human_rights_violations) were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers