Saturday, July 23, 2011

Tweet of the Day

Must Reads

Joy Reid: JFK’s Liberal Heresies: Would Today’s Progressives Oppose Him?

Sarah Jones: Eric Cantor Runs from The American People with Real Time Facebook Censorship and Obama Throws His Campaign’s Weight Behind the Wisconsin Recalls

John Thorpe: Forget Anonymous: Evidence Suggests GOP Hacked, Stole 2004 Election

Jonathan Capehart: Debt-Ceiling Drama: Rep. Joe Walsh (Tea Party-Obstinate)

Paul Krugman: Profiles in Un-courage

Matthew Yglesias: If Only Milton Were Around…

National Center for Science Education: Victory for Evolution in Texas

Ali Gharib and Travis Waldron: Right-Wing Pundits Jumped To Blame Muslims And ‘Jihadists’ For Norway Attacks

Zandar, at ABLC: Teleporting To Conclusions On The Norway Attacks

The Rude Pundit: Nearing the Ends of DOMA and DADT

President Obama's Press Conference - July 22, 2011

If You Want to be a Leader, Then You Got to Lead

Amy Winehouse Dies at 27

Daily Mail: Amy Winehouse has been found dead at her home in London, it has been reported.
The Back To Black singer was apparently found at 4pm and her death is believed to be unexplained.

President Obama's Weekly Address - July 23, 2011

A Bipartisan Approach to Strengthening the Economy

Friday, July 22, 2011

Quote of the Day

You need to pass a test to become a citizen. You need to pass a test to drive a fucking car or to benefit from higher education. But any slawjawed shit-kicker with a pulse and questionably intact gray matter can become a member of Congress.

~Bob Cesca

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Will Everyone Please Calm Down?

I was out of earshot of the televisions and the cable "news" outlets today (thankfully) and therefore out of earshot when the hair on fire freakout happened with a story based on those famous "anonymous sources" leaked that President Obama was ready to sign off on a $3 Trillion debt reduction deal with no increases in revenue. IEEEEE!!! Run into the streets with torches and pitchforks! Obama is selling out the poor! We knew it! He's not going to raise taxes! IEEEE!...

I found out when one of my faithful readers sent me an email with a link taking me to the Washington Post article and it's ridiculous first paragraph (emphasis mine):
President Obama and top House Republicans are deep in negotiations over a far-reaching plan to save $3 trillion over the next decade through sharp cuts in agency spending and politically painful changes to popular health and retirement programs, but without any immediate increase in taxes, Democratic congressional leaders reported Thursday.
Step away from the keyboard and take a breath. And think logically.

Why on earth would President Obama, while in a position of negotiating power as can be proven by poll after poll, just decide to give up on tax revenue increases when he and the administration have stated unequivocally that any part of a "grand bargain" would have to include tax revenues?

After reading the article, it sounds like a fake story designed to sabotage talks and put President Obama on the defensive since he's been getting favorable poll numbers on this issue. No one is being quoted, no one is taking ownership of these rumors, yet everyone is asking about it. Funny that.

According to my reader, he heard Oregon Congressman Pete DeFazio on the Thom Hartmann Show today tell Hartmann that Jared Bernstein had said the White House is catering to the independent voters who are worried mostly about the deficit, so there will be some cuts to "The Big Three," namely Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security "because Obama doesn't care where the money comes from." Of course, DeFazio wasn't at that meeting, and frankly, though I like DeFazio, that story sounds like a bowl full of shit to me.

News to DeFazio and anyone else not paying attention: the White House already has the independent vote. Independents don't trust the GOP led House in Congress.

Since the beginning of these talks, there has never been a time when the President or any of the White House spokesmen have ever denied that a grand bargain would include looking at restructuring Medicare and Social Security to strengthen them for future generations without making cuts to benefits. How this is interpreted at cuts is beyond me. Does cutting money to Medicare (like the ACA did by $500 billion in terms of fraud and abuse) equal automatic cuts in benefits?

From teabaggers to firebaggers, how does anyone know that this is the super secret "Obama wants to be Reagan" position without details? And how do you assume that position when everything you've heard from the White House is contrary to that line of thinking? When the fact that anything that would resemble trying to pass $3 Trillion in cuts with no revenue increases would never, ever pass in Congress?

But hey, this story did the job that it was supposed to. It filled another news cycle on a stalled story and caused the collective freakout of the MSM, the professional left, the Democratic politicians in Congress and the Twitterverse. It took the beltway insiders by storm. It caused President Obama to call a meeting of Democratic leaders of Congress - all based on a rumor.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Who's Attacking Bachmann?!

Hey, Republicans. Hey, Conservatives. Hey, Teabaggers. Before accusing liberals of being scared soooo of Michele Bachmann that they feel the need to attack her in the press with this migraine story, maybe you should look at who broke the story.

The Daily Caller is a news website based in Washington, D.C., United States with a focus on politics, original reporting, breaking news, and YouTube videos, founded by journalist and political pundit Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010.
So as usual, please get your facts straight before assuming your loopy Queen was attacked by the left. In other words, shut the fuck up.

Mitt Romney Doesn't Know How Video Works...

...or else he'd probably try not contradicting himself at such a dramatic rate.

Mitt Romney, June 3rd, 2011: "I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course," Romney said. "But I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that … so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing."
And there's video to verify his quote.
Mitt Romney, July 18th, 2001, just 6½ weeks later: "...I support reasonable standards. … Do I support the EPA? In much of its mission yes, but in some of its mission no. The EPA getting into carbon footprints, and… [APPLAUSE] I think we may have made a mistake, we have made a mistake is what I believe, in saying that the EPA should regulate carbon emissions. I don’t think that was the intent of the original legislation, and I don’t think carbon is a pollutant in the sense of harming our bodies."
And there's video to verify his quote.

What happened between June 3rd and July 18th that made Mitt Romney hedge his original statement?
Rush Limbaugh took Mitt Romney to task today for saying he believes in man-made global warming. After playing the clip of Romney’s comments, Rush said, “Bye, bye nomination. Another one down.”
Now, technically, are Romney's two statements different? Yes. But are they significantly linked? Of course.

If you believe greenhouse gases are in fact causing the earth to warm, causing oceans to rise, causing weather patterns to become more and more severe, causing natural disasters like tornadoes and hurricanes to become fiercer and more frequent as a result, then the "harm to our bodies" may come in the form of houses crashing down on us or hurricanes flooding out towns and causing mass drowning, and not a conflation between "pollutants and greenhouse gases."

Romney knows this and is trying to make it all nuance-y to walk back his statement (his correct statement) that man contributes to climate change, but hey, Mitt's gotta keep his GOP masters happy, right?

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Herman Cain? Seriously?

Is this what passes for a serious politician in the eyes of the Tea Party, or whoever is actually donating money to Herman Cain?

At the beginning, he seemed like just another in a long line of wannabe candidates committing silly gaffes like confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution while touting Constitutional tenets. But here we are, further on down the line from his initial foray into the world of American politics for his humble pizza mogul beginnings, and it would seem the more we know about Herman Cain's positions, the more we can categorize them, and him, as troubling to say the least.

White-knuckling the Constitution while agreeing with religious discrimination is disturbing.

Presidential hopeful Herman Cain on Sunday sided with communities that want to ban mosques, saying Americans have a right to oppose the construction of places of Islamic worship.
..."Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state," Cain said Sunday. "They're objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws," Cain said of the opponents.
When asked if his beliefs constitute discrimination, Cain disagreed, saying: "I am willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists. That's what I'm saying."
Well, the Constitution doesn't literally guarantee separation, but as we can obviously tell, Cain is by far not a Constitutional scholar. And sure, he's just looking out for terrorists because you know, they're all Muslim. (Please omit Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, Ted Kaczynski, Britian's Robert Cottage and David Jackson, need I go on?)

Still, separation of church and state hasn't been what Cain's advocated in the past.
Repeatedly over the last several years, Cain has spoken out in support of letting local, state and federal government be used to promote Christianity. At a recent Tea Party rally, Cain angrily declared, “It was during the Fifties that the United States Congress voted to add ‘one nation under God’ with liberty and justice for all, because we are a God-fearing Christian nation!
Well, what is it? Are we a Christian nation or do we believe in religious separation when it comes to politics? And this is after Cain has stated he wouldn't appoint Muslims to his Cabinet posts or federal judgeships should he become President. I suppose he'll need to reread his precious Constitution to refresh his memory on the No Religious Test clause.

Oh, and should we mention Cain thinks it's a good idea to have a Great Wall of Chine type of fence, complete with an alligator-filled moat as a deterrent to border immigration? Or that President Obama isn't a real black man? The more Harman Cain opens his mouth, the more he amazing us with jaw-dropping quips. And the more he reveals himself to be an unserious candidate despite Tea Party support.