The Commentariat -- April 10, 2015
Internal links removed.
Afternoon News:
Josh Lederman of the AP: "The presidents of the United States and Cuba have spoken by phone for only the second time in more than 50 years, setting the stage for a historic encounter between the two leaders at a regional summit starting Friday in Panama. The call between President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro came on Wednesday, shortly before Obama departed Washington on his trip to Latin America and the Caribbean, the White House said."
*****
Karen DeYoung & Nick Miroff of the Washington Post: "President Obama indicated Thursday that he is preparing to announce Cuba's removal from the U.S. State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, a move that should quickly lead to a full restoration of diplomatic ties and the opening of embassies in Havana and Washington. Speaking at a gathering of Caribbean leaders here, Obama said the State Department had finished a review of the issue. There is little doubt that it recommends he drop Cuba from the list, and the only real question is when the announcement will be made." ...
... Laurent Thomet & Andrew Beatty of AFP: "US President Barack Obama and Cuba's Raul Castro will put aside decades of Cold War-era tensions Friday, sitting at the same table with other regional leaders for a landmark summit. Obama and Castro will join some 30 other presidents at the two-day Summit of the Americas in Panama City, breaking bread at a seaside dinner in a complex of ruins from the era of the Spanish conquistadores." ...
... AP: "The U.S. State Department says Secretary of State Kerry and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez met on Thursday evening in Panama City, where the Summit of the Americas kicks off on Friday. Officials described the meeting as lengthy. They say that Kerry and Rodriguez agreed that they had made progress and would keep working to address ongoing issues." ...
... Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post: "The State Department has finished its review of Cuba's presence on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism and forwarded its recommendation to the White House, President Obama said Thursday. Obama said he is waiting for his top aides to review the document and place it before him for a final decision." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
Jennifer Steinhauer of the New York Times: Chuck Schumer "set off a tempest this week when he issued a statement strongly supporting a bill that could disrupt a nuclear deal with Iran. With that bill, Congress is trying to ensure it has a say in the final agreement, and the strong stand by Mr. Schumer, the Senate's No. 3 Democrat, suggested that he could oppose an accord President Obama sees as a potentially legacy-defining achievement. Mr. Schumer has since largely declined to elaborate and has said only that he will wait for a classified briefing before making further comment. His position -- annoying to the White House, at odds with the majority of Senate Democrats and expressed during a congressional recess -- reflects the vigorous crosscurrents Mr. Schumer faces in his first real test since Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, announced that he would retire, placing Mr. Schumer as heir apparent."
Alexander Burns of the New York Times: Sen. Robert "Menendez [D-N.J.] has enjoyed broad support from Democratic officials in New Jersey during his moment of crisis. But few, if any, have defended him as energetically as [Sen. Cory] Booker [D-N.J.], a junior lawmaker who has leaned on Mr. Menendez for guidance since joining the Senate in 2013. If Mr. Booker relied on Mr. Menendez to help ease his arrival in Washington, Democrats say the relationship has been almost reversed: Now, it is Mr. Menendez depending on Mr. Booker to stand by him as he fights to keep his job."
David Scharfenberg of the Boston Globe: "... Senator Elizabeth Warren said Thursday she opposes the death penalty for convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev." Scharfenberg reports on the views of other Massachusetts politicians.
Paul Krugman explains to dummies the reasons the government is better than the private sector at providing retirement income. CW: It's pretty sad that Krugman has to write a column like this, but Republicans & Villagers aren't too bright.
Jim Tankersley of the New York Times Washington Post (Oops!), who appears to know nothing about economics, writes a positive piece on fantasy economist Arthur Laffer, advisor to ignorant GOP presidential candidates, the guiding force behind Sam Brownback's destruction of Kansas's economy, & the world's number-one, ever-wrong supply-sider. (See also Glenn Kessler on Rand Paul, linked below.) For "balance," Tankersley does cite Krugman:
Laffer’s theories are so far detached from mainstream economics that 'there is no point of contact,' said Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and a liberal columnist for the New York Times. 'This is not a wing of professional economic thought, for what that's worth. This is not at all the same kind of enterprise as what even conservative economics professors do.' Republicans love Laffer, Krugman said, not because his message is simple but because it conforms perfectly to a preexisting limit-the-government worldview: 'The point is, he's telling them what they want to hear.'
... Russell Berman of the Atlantic has a scathing piece on the worsening budget crisis in Kansas. Not to worry. As Tankersley reported, Arthur Laffer says "Kansas is doing fine."
Arlette Saenz of ABC News reports on President Obama's activities in Jamaica. ...
... Jim Kuhnhenn of the AP: Jamaicans show their love for Obama.
Thomas Erdbrink of the New York Times: "Iran's supreme leader challenged on Thursday two of the United States' bedrock principles in the nuclear negotiations, declaring that all economic sanctions would have to be lifted on the day any agreement is signed and that military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors.The assertions by the leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could be tactical...." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Peter Beinart of the Atlantic: "... although the legislative branch's constitutional prerogatives don’t depend on whether Congress reflects public opinion, it's worth noting on that on Iran, it most certainly does not. Since last Thursday's framework agreement, polls from both The Washington Post/ABC News and Reuters/Ipsos have shown that a small plurality of Republican voters actually support the Iran deal. Yet it's likely that every single Republican senator will oppose it. Democrats, the polls show, back the agreement by margins of three or five to one. Yet key Senate Democrats are skeptical of the deal, and few have endorsed it enthusiastically."
Annals of "Journalism," Ctd. Digby explains the Daily Caller & editor Tucker Carlson: "Carlson's brother wrote a bogus story for Carlson's magazine and the magazine refused to correct it. Carlson's brother called the person who was asking for the retraction names in an email and sent it to her. When it was publicly revealed, Carlson defended him with a puerile wisecrack thus proving that this magazine not only hires puerile idiots it is being run by an overgrown 12 year old boy who has serious issues with women. (This is not surprising to anyone who has followed Carlson's career over the years.)" ...
... Erik Wemple of the Washington Post has more. I like the part where Friar Tucker portrays his brother as the victim. (Then -- apparently falsely -- claims his brother apologized to the actual victim.) ...
... CW: Seems kinda unfair of Digby & Wemple to imply the Daily Caller is a joke when their reportorial skills are so excellent: Matt Wilstein of Mediaite: "Daily Caller Didn't Realize Politico Writer Was Being Sarcastic About Hillary. The Daily Caller learned the danger of basing an entire story on one tweet today when media reporter Alex Griswold posted a piece with the headline, 'Liberal Politico Reporter: Clinton Campaign "Collapsing Completely"' that focused on a tweet from Glenn Thrush that most would read as sarcasm." A Twitter flurry ensued. Thrush's last tweet: "It's funny how an organization with name 'caller' never does, at least before they press 'send'"
Presidential Race
Lauren Gambino of the Guardian: "Hillary Clinton is planning to officially launch her US presidential campaign on Sunday while en route to Iowa, a source familiar with the campaign has confirmed to the Guardian. The former secretary of state is scheduled to declare her second run for president on Twitter at noon eastern time on Sunday, the source told the Guardian, followed by a video and email announcement, then a series of conference calls mapping out a blitzkrieg tour beginning in Iowa and looking ahead to more early primary states." ...
... Ken Vogel of Politico: "During a private Clinton Foundation fundraiser last week in Austin, Texas, [Bill] Clinton rejected the premise of a March 29 New York Times story that described him as looking 'older than his 68 years' and detailed efforts by Hillary Clinton advisers 'to harness both the rare gifts and rash impulses' of the former president.'" ...
... Ben Kamisar of the Hill: "The Clinton Foundation reportedly accepted millions of dollars from a Colombian oil company head before then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to support a trade deal with Colombia despite worries of human rights violations." Here's the original report in International Business Times. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... The End of the Inevitable. Again. Sabrina Saddiqui of the Guardian: "The Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is leading Hillary Clinton in a pair of key swing states, according to a poll released on Thursday. The survey, conducted by Quinnipiac University, finds Paul ahead of Clinton by three percentage points in Colorado, at 44% to 41%, and by one point in Iowa, at 43% to 42%. Several recent surveys have shown that Clinton's advantage is waning in a number of such battleground states."
Scott MacKay of Rhode Island Public Radio: "Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee has announced that he is considering a campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president. Chafee said the launch of his exploratory committee will be made via videos posted on his website, Chafee2016.com .... Chafee said he plans to spend the next few months in Iowa, the first caucus state, New Hampshire, which holds the kickoff presidential primary and 'other key battleground states.'" ...
... Joan McCarter of Daily Kos: "He says, 'I'm not naïve about the task ahead of me.' That task apparently includes letting people know he actually still exists." ...
... Annie Laurie of Balloon Juice also is less than impressed. ...
... Erik Loomis of LG&M: "I haven't felt this excited since Joe Lieberman finished in a 3-way tie for 3rd place (which was actually a pretty decisive 5th) in the 2004 New Hampshire primaries."
Michael Gerson, former and evidently current Bush flak, of the Washington Post: "In case after case, [Rand] Paul is attempting to cloak libertarian positions in Republican rhetoric. And sometimes he goes much too far. The emotional center of Paul's presidential announcement speech was the story of conducting a cataract operation on a man in Guatemala, who was then able to see his wife for the first time in years.... But Paul, of course, would eventually cut off funding for the USAID Child Blindness Program. And for vaccinations, and AIDS drugs and malaria treatments. Freeing nations from foreign aid, after all, is one reason he became a politician.... Paul is deceptive, because he can't talk frankly about his breathtakingly ambitious ideology, which is fundamentally unsuited to the strategic and moral challenges of our time." ...
The last president we had was Ronald Reagan that said we're going to dramatically cut tax rates. And guess what? More revenue came in, but tens of millions of jobs were created. -- -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, April 7
Paul falls into the trap of suggesting the Reagan tax cuts paid for themselves == and then some.... The Treasury Department in 2006 confirmed that tax cuts reduced revenue. Moreover, Reagan repeatedly boosted taxes during his term as president, in part to make up for lost revenue from his original tax cut. ... The tax cut itself was a money-loser -- and it was not the sole reason for 'tens of millions' of jobs. We cannot quite say Paul committed a Four-Pinocchio violation, but it's close. -- Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post
Rand Paul is an alarmingly ignorant -- and dangerous -- ideologue who has zero understanding of macroeconomics & no connection with facts. -- Constant Weader
... Katie Zezima of the Washington Post: "Sen. Rand Paul's presidential campaign has sent a cease-and-desist letter to television stations, demanding that they stop airing an ad that attacks Paul's position on Iran. The ad was created by the Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America. It ties Paul to President Obama's Iran policy.... It labels the Kentucky senator as 'wrong and dangerous.' Politifact has rated the ad 'mostly false.'" ...
Dave Weigel of Bloomberg: "As Olivia Nuzzi reported in the Daily Beast, [Rand] Paul joined New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in the elite, unhappy club of Republicans snubbed by the NRA this year.... 'The interesting thing is that there's probably no greater advocate for the Second Amendment in Congress than myself,' Paul said today [in a successful effort to prove he is unfamiliar with the proper employment of reflexive pronouns]. 'To not be invited, probably, will serve more to cast aspersions on their group than it would on me. Because my record's pretty clear. It probably looks a little bit petty for them not to invite a major candidate because I raised money for other Second Amendment groups.'"
... Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times: "Presidential fund-raising, never known for its transparency, may have just become even more secretive. In announcing his candidacy for president this week, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky waded into new waters when he said he would accept campaign contributions in Bitcoins, a largely untraceable virtual currency, in amounts up to $100.... In a ruling last year, the Federal Election Commission agreed to allow a political action committee to accept Bitcoins with a voluntary limit of $100, but the commissioners split over how the online currency -- which can fluctuate widely in value -- should be treated on a broader scale or whether it should be capped." CW: But can I use Bitcoins to buy me a nice pair a'them Rand Paul Flip-Flops?
Tina Nguyen of Mediaite: "In an interview with CNBC, GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz expressed anger towards the 'left-wing editorial writers' who liked to call him out for making 'non-factual statements.' Cruz, speaking to John Harwood during a ten-question interview, dismissed the tendency of people to do things like fact-check his claims supporting his argument that the IRS should be abolished." Nguyen fact-checks Ted's complaint.
... Why shouldn't somebody listen to you and say, 'The guy'll just say anything -- doesn't have to be true'? -- John Harwood
There is a game that is played by left-wing editorial writers. It's this new species of yellow journalism called PolitiFact. -- Ted Cruz
Ironically, even as Cruz pans PolitiFact, some of their investigations debunk not Cruz's assertions but untrue things that have been said about him. However, it is true that his Politifact "Report Card" (undated, but apparently issued in late March) gives him what looks like a solid D-minus grade. -- Constant Weader
... Danny Vinik of the New Republic: "'The simple reality is millions of Americans are hurting right now under the Obama economy,' [Ted] Cruz [told John Harwood]. 'Yes, some jobs are being created, but not nearly as many have been destroyed. The rich, the top 1 percent, today earn a higher share of our income than any year since 1928.'... Cruz's reply becomes even more amazing when you consider Harwood was asking, in part, why anyone should take Cruz's claims seriously.... Cruz tried to prove Harwood wrong. Instead, he proved him correct." ...
... Jonathan Chait: "Cruz's interview seems dedicated to the proposition that attempting to shove him in just one of the categories of stupid, evil, or crazy is a false choice. You can be all of those things! There's also a fourth category: evasive. Cruz displays this quality in droves." ...
... Here's the full text of Harwood's interview of Cruz.
Beyond the Beltway
Matt Hamilton & Richard Winton of the Los Angeles Times: "A group of San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies are seen in a video shot Thursday repeatedly kicking and punching a suspect at the end of a bizarre horseback pursuit in a scene the county's sheriff described as 'disturbing.' A KNBC Channel 4 helicopter captured the chase, which appears to show the deputies striking the man, identified as 30-year-old Francis Pusok, even after he was on the ground with his hands held behind his back."
Jon Swaine of the Guardian: Dashcam "video footage showing Walter Scott fleeing a traffic stop minutes before he was shot dead by police officer Michael Slager has been released by authorities in South Carolina." Includes video. ...
... Jon Swaine: "Walter Scott and police officer Michael Slager were struggling on the ground in the seconds before Slager shot Scott dead, [Feidin Santana,] the man who recorded video footage of the killing in South Carolina, said on Wednesday evening.... Santana said that as his video indicated, Scott was trying to escape a stun gun that Slager had fired into him when the North Charleston patrolman shot him repeatedly in the back." ... Video of the interview is here. ...
... AP: "The white South Carolina police officer charged with murder for shooting an unarmed black man in the back was allowed to stay on the force despite a 2013 complaint that he used excessive force against another unarmed black man." ...
... Evan McMurry of Mediaite: "The Morning Joe roundtable wondered Thursday morning whether there would be more charges leveled in the shooting death of Walter Scott, especially against the second police officer, who appeared on video to have witnessed Officer Michael Slager plant evidence by the victim’s body."
News Ledes
AFP: "The US Justice Department said Friday it arrested an Islamic State sympathizer who was plotting to carry out a suicide bomb attack on a US military base in Kansas. John T. Booker Jr, 20, is charged with 'attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction... attempting to damage property by means of an explosive and one count of attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,' the Justice Department said."
New York Times: "Islamic State fighters launched a heavy attack on government-held territory in Anbar Province late on Thursday and on Friday, killing 25 Iraqi police officers and soldiers, and then executing 15 family members of local police officers, according to Iraqi officials."
Washington Post: "A security guard was killed in a shooting at the Census Bureau's headquarters in Suitland[, Maryland,] on Thursday evening in an incident that authorities said began with an abduction in the District and ended with the suspect shot on H Street NE after a dramatic chase and shootout." ...
... UPDATE: "The man who authorities say fatally shot a security guard at the Census Bureau and was later wounded during a gun battle with D.C. police officers on Thursday has been identified as a 48-year-old from Southeast Washington. The suspect, Ronald Anderson, had been scheduled to appear in court in Prince George's County on Friday for a preliminary hearing on an assault charge."
Share Article
Reader Comments (17)
Washington Post headline Wednesday:
"On first official day on the trail, Rand Paul turns in a prickly performance"
PRICK-LY ???
Not too subtle, WaPo. Must have had a good chuckle in the press room over that one.
@D.C. A prickly pair of headlines indicate Paul's prickly performance during his munching a prickly pear that he said gives him the energy he needs to persevere, prick wise. Press room chuckles heard loud and clear –––there might even have been dancing.
Apropos of PD's and D.C.'s observations, it seems really telling that right out of the starting gate both Sens. Paul and Cruz are going large on the meme that the liberal press is out to get them.
Which is of course true. If by "out to get me" you mean "check my words."
I find it hard to believe that the press (liberal or otherwise) is going to turn in a better performance than it did in the 2012 and 14 elections ("both sider-ism," and ignoring or down-shifting the fundamental meretriciousness and/or crazy of certain candidates) -- but maybe in these early days, with few declared targets, they can show the hollowness and rote bullshit of some of these flimflammers.
The more Paul and Cruz talk, the more I am amazed that anyone considers them potential holders of the nuc codes.
One more thing about R.P. (rest in peace) and then I, too, am through. Yesterday when he was giving that prickly speech in South Carolina he never once mentioned the shooting of Walter Scott. I find this strange but perhaps indicative of Paul's tenancy to be off somewhere in his own world. Here you have an incident that is all over the news and you are in the state where it took place and you never say a peep about it? And he wants to be a man of the people? Ach du Himmell!!!
Jim Tankersley appears to with The Washington Post (not NYT). But regardless who employs him, he seems easily impressed.
PD,
Absolutely right.
The evolution of Little Randy Paul:
Less than a year ago, in an op-ed piece published in the WaPo, here is what he said, laudably, in fact, about the hard truths given center stage in the wake of the Ferguson murder:
"Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them….Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention."
And here is what he said during his campaign stop in Mount Pleasant, SC, less than 10 miles, as the crow flies, from where Walter Scott was murdered last weekend:
................................
Nothing.
For all of his previously brave proclamations about the Pentagon needing its budget cut, about racial disparities, and about foreign aid and military adventurism, he has since shown himself to be a rank coward. A moral midget. Here he is mere miles away from the scene of an indisputable (oh...but not by all...more on that shortly) example of the way African Americans are treated by law enforcement--about as pure an example of what his earlier op-ed pronouncement pointed out as one could possibly hope to find, and without any of the wiggle room of the Ferguson murder--and he says nothing.
Why not?
One can only assume that he has chosen not to piss off the Confederates on their home turf. So a black man was killed? So what? Happens all the time round these parts. Move on now, nothing more to see.
Moral.Midget.
So here's how it goes. If you don't have the courage of your own convictions, convictions stated publicly many times, one of two conclusions obtains. First, you didn't believe that shit in the first place, that you were just saying it to make a name for yourself, and I wouldn't have thought that was the case before, but now that he's shown his positions to be about as watertight as cheesecloth, maybe he really was lying. The second possibility is that he did believe those things at one point, but has no problem throwing them off in order to curry favor with haters and other moral midgets.
Combine that spine of jello with, as Marie correctly puts it, his alarming ignorance on topics vital to the future of this country, and you truly do have a dangerous candidate. One who holds no real beliefs other than what's good for him at that moment, and one who never feels the need to make sure his positions on things like economics have any real basis in fact.
He truly is little.
Patience is a virtue, in'it?
I've seen a few wingnut comments about the Scott murder to the extent that "wait til all the evidence is in..." etc., but I hadn't heard any of the usual suspects come right out and declare this a tragedy for poor Officer Slager. Until yesterday.
And guess where it came from?
Thaaaaaaat's right.
Last night on Fox and Friends, Geraldo Rivera, who has been wrong about almost everything his entire career (remember Al Capone's safe? And leave us not forget how he blamed Trayvon Martin for his own death because hoodie), has devised a get out of the murder charge plan for Officer Slager, the killer of of an unarmed man who had his back turned. According to Rivera and others on this stupid, stupid show, the dashboard camera video proves that Scott was acting "hinky" which provides a "context" (excuse?) for the shooting.
Rivera concludes that it wasn't murder after all. He refers to a "reliable eyewitness" (you mean someone more reliable than the video that shows Slager, in no danger at all, calmly aiming and firing into Scott's back???) who states there was a physical altercation during which Scott "dared" (Rivera's word) to put his hands on Slager.
All of which reasonably led to the shooting.
Fox Friend Steve Douchey added, helpfully, trying to dismiss any racial angle, that more white people are shot by cops than black people.
I don't have the statistics in front of me, but this is another case of stupid stat tricks. Let's say we have a pool of 1,000 white people and 100 black people (about the national ratio), and 50 white people are shot compared to 20 black people. Yes, numerically 50 is a greater number, but we're also talking about 5% of the white group versus 20% of the black group.
These people must think their audience is made up of drooling dullards.
Oh....wait.
Anyway, I'm sure Officer Slager is happy to have Friends at Fox. Where the fuck else? Can this operation ever, ever, ever come down on the side of what's right?
Don't know if it was linked in RC when I was out of town and touch, but on the (growing?) gulf between public opinion and the Senate's actions, Jill Lepore had some trenchant thoughts in a March New Yorker. (Yes, I'm still digging through the stacks of accumulated mail.)
Her article is about income and wealth inequality but the last few paragraphs refer equally to the many other issues on which our "democratic" Senate doesn't exactly revere democracy. The proposed Iran deal is only another case in point.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/16/richer-and-poorer
Ted Cruz blames the media for distorting his image?
Isn't that a bit like Dorian Gray complaining that his portrait doesn't reflect who he really is?
I read through that Harwood interview with the Tailgunner. Just sad.
He's better at dodge and deflect than the Little One, I'll give him that.
When asked whether he supports the attempts of "his hero" Ronald Reagan to dismantle Medicare, a program begun by another Texan, LBJ, the gunner tucks tail and runs: "I don't know. I wasn't alive then." So you can't have an opinion? I have opinions about the fucking Peloponnesian War and I'm pretty sure I wasn't alive when that happened. Several other issues are dismissed as either lies or "silly stories". So, no response on those either.
Harwood asks him whether he agrees with the expansion by Bush I of Medicare coverage to prescription drugs. Cruz sidesteps this question by saying that he wasn't involved in those decisions, but then answers a question that wasn't even asked, stating that Bush II expanded the national debt and that was just wrong, wrong, wrong, and BAD....Okay, you know what? I wasn't involved in the decisions concerning the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, but I have a pretty good opinion about it. Fail again.
When asked about his greatest achievement in the Senate (there are none), he is forced to admit that his goal of killing the ACA has failed, but...."wars are not won in a single skirmish", no, but there have been at least 589 attempts so far to repeal the ACA. I guess that counts as a bit more than a single skirmish. So, fail on that one too.
Then he's asked about his plan of sending all 125,000 IRS agents to the border to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. When told that there are only 25,000 agents, Cruz tries to say that he meant all employees of the IRS (there aren't even 100,000) but then shifts gears and says that it was all just a big joke. Ha-ha. Get it? Another fail.
Out of the ten questions, the only one Cruz really answers is why he doesn't like avocados. (Answer: he thinks he may be allergic to them.)
Boys and girls, this is so depressing. I'm glad it's Friday.
So far, the only two people we have running for president are a spineless moral midget and a delusional dancing master who refuses to answer any questions besides the reason for his avocado aversion.
Christ. Is Bob Dole still alive? Roll his ass out in a wheelchair. At least he's a fucking adult who lives in the same universe as the rest of us.
Arthur Laffer (is that the best name for a fraud, or what?) declares all is well in Kansas as Brownback's ass is permanently dyed red from the rising ink.
Isn't this the same Laffer who was standing on the Maginot Line in June of 1940 telling the French "Tout va bien?"
@Akhilleus, re: Laffer: I think you have him confused with the Arthur Laffer who advised President Hoover on October 30, 1929, that the stock market would bounce right back. In his immortal words, "Mr. Hoover, the stock market is doing fine."
Laffer's maternal grandfather was Richard B. Cheney, who advised General Custer that the Lakota would greet his troops as liberators. The Lakota word for "idiot" is "chay-nee."
Marie
Whoopsie!
Widdow Wandy doesn't wike being qwestioned. Again.
Another interview fail.
The Little One, earlier today, just walked away in the middle of being asked for specifics about one of his bullshit anodyne answers that don't really say anything. Not five days into his campaign and the guy is in already in meltdown mode. Can he really sustain two years of this? Running away every time he's asked to explain responses that clearly don't make sense?
But don't worry Stand with Randers, don't trade in those flip-flops yet. As always, Bad Toupée's got plenty of excuses. This time he's recycling the same excuse he used when he ran like hell last summer from a possible question from a DREAMer in Iowa (because it worked so well then): he had some other interview to do with someone, somewhere about something, a very important interview which, um, never showed up anywhere. Funnily enough, he didn't bother to say that to the Guardian reporter. He just gave him a dirty look and walked away. And had his guys switch off the TV lights.
I'm a Complete Douchebag. Vote for me.
Marie,
Yeah...I think I recall a statue to that Cheney made out of bison dung, they did a really nice job with the Cheney Scowl. Shit was the perfect medium to capture that evil glare.
Naturally, after sending Custer and his men to the Little Big Horn, he declined to tag along. He had......"other priorities".
@Akhilleus: Looked up your stats for you. ProPublica analyzed federal data from 2010 to 2012 on police killings of males aged from 15 to 19. the rates were : black victims 31.7/million
white victims 1.47/million
the feds have such crappy statistics (under-reporting of killings) that they no longer collect numbers on police killings but still, a ratio of 20:1 says something terribly wrong is going on.
Well, another day monopolizing the forum (don't call me Cato yet).
I am an opinionated bastard spurred on by the plethora of bigoted, illiberal quotidian offenses against an ethical, rational, moral, and educated existence perpetrated by the right against the advances of civilized humanist behavior.
That being said (my excuse for prolific and prolix commentaries out here), my final reverie of the week arises from the gleeful expectation of the number of Confederate crania I expect to explode on Saturday when the President of the United States shakes hands with Raoul Castro.
Can't you just hear the screams from the Confederate nursery? Wahhhhh!!
Ahhhh...joie de vivre.
Cato would smile.
Cowichan,
Three words:
Thanks.
And Christ almighty!