The Commentariat -- Jan. 28, 2015
Internal links, defunct video removed.
Carl Hulse & Matt Apuzzo of the New York Times: "Loretta E. Lynch on Wednesday will cast herself as an apolitical career prosecutor who is a departure from Eric H. Holder Jr. when she faces a new Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee that includes some of the administration's fiercest critics in Congress." ...
... New Lede: "Loretta E. Lynch, the nominee to become attorney general, on Wednesday defended the legality of President Obama's immigration policy at the start of a confirmation hearing in which the new Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee promised tough questions."
Field Guide to Outsmarting the Secret Service. Step 1. Borrow a toy drone. Step 2. Get drunk. ...
... Michael Schmidt & Michael Shear of the New York Times: "In the process of what officials describe as nothing more than a drunken misadventure with a drone, [an off-duty government intelligence agency] employee managed to highlight another vulnerability in the protective shield that the Secret Service erects around the White House complex. The drone, which measures about two feet by two feet, evaded White House radar that is calibrated to warn of much bigger threats, like an airplane or a missile. It was the latest in a string of incidents that have raised questions about how secure President Obama and his family are." ...
... Jeremy Diamond of CNN: "One day after a drone crashed at the White House, President Barack Obama reiterated the need to regulate the industry as the recreational and commercial use of drones expands. 'The drone that landed in the White House you buy in Radio Shack,' Obama said Tuesday in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria in India":
Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times: "President Obama, facing angry reprisals from parents and from lawmakers of both parties, will drop his proposal to effectively end the popular college savings accounts known as 529s, but will keep an expanded tuition tax credit at the center of his college access plan, White House officials said Tuesday."
Deb Reichmann of the AP: "Senate Democrats on Tuesday put the brakes on new Iran sanctions legislation, ending for now a looming showdown between Congress and President Barack Obama over negotiations to prevent Tehran from having the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., a leading proponent of the legislation, says he remains skeptical a deal will materialize, but says he and nine other Democrats now won't push the bill at least until the end of March. Menendez' concession to the White House is good news for Obama, who has threatened to veto any new sanctions legislation." CW: But it's bad news for House Speaker Bibi Netanyahu.
Alexander Bolton of the Hill: "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to bring to the Senate floor next week a House-passed bill reversing President Obama's executive actions shielding millions of illegal immigrants from deportation." ...
... BUT. Seung Min Kim of Politico: "In a letter to be released later Tuesday, the Senate Democratic Caucus will press Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to put up a funding bill for DHS free of provisions rolling back President Barack Obama's executive actions on immigration or other controversial riders. The fact that all members of the Senate Democratic Caucus are endorsing a clean funding bill is critical, since McConnell will need the aid of at least half a dozen Democrats to advance any legislation. In the letter, Senate Democrats also ruled out other potential Plan B's for the DHS bill, such as passing a series of short-term funding measures -- also highly opposed by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson." ...
... Francis Wilkinson of Bloomberg View: "The Republican House majority, which recently passed a series of bills to strip undocumented immigrants of protections, is building a fortress on shifting sand.... The paradox of this nation of immigrants is that it is often bitterly anti-immigrant.... Yet immigration was a tide not easily turned back even in eras when the public stood resolutely opposed to it.... Anti-immigrant rhetoric is growing more acceptable among Republican politicians. Its main effect is to polarize a previously bipartisan issue ... and to mobilize competing constituencies. However, it's unlikely to reverse the trend toward greater acceptance of immigrants."
Daniel Newhauser of the National Journal: "Speaker John Boehner is finalizing a plan to sue President Obama again, this time over the administration's decision to grant work visas to millions of undocumented immigrants. Boehner told his conference at a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning that he has a team exploring the best options to challenge last year's executive action, under which the Homeland Security Department will begin granting legal working status to millions of immigrants, according to sources in the room." Thanks to safari for the link. ...
... Russell Berman of the Atlantic: "For a party with a history of railing against activist judges and frivolous lawsuits, Republicans sure do like to litigate.... What this is really about is Republicans looking to the courts to do what they have not been able to do legislatively.... The Republican maneuvering over Obamacare followed a similar pattern, only over a longer period of time.... Just a day before Boehner informed his members of the lawsuit, Republican leaders scrapped plans to vote on legislation bolstering border security.... The reality is that both Obama and Boehner have run out of patience with the legislative process. The president has chosen to do what he could himself, while the speaker, again, is turning to the courts."
Emily Bazelon in the New York Times Magazine analyzes Chief Justice John Roberts' modus operandi to make something of a prediction: gay marriage wins, ObamaCare loses. CW: I don't doubt her theory, but I'll make a different -- & optimistic -- guess on how the rulings come down: (1) Kennedy joins the four centrist justices to rule for national gay marriage, with all four of the confederates (see today's comments) dissenting; (2) Roberts (& maybe even Scalia) rule for the government in King v. Burwell. Nonetheless, the sheer cruelty of Roberts' apparent methodology is stunning: as Bazelon lays it out, it's okay if people get sick & die as long as the Supreme Court does well in public opinion polls.
Benghaaazi! New Clinton Edition. Martin Matishak of the Hill: "Hillary Clinton is willing to testify before the House Select Committee that is investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, according to the panel's top Democrat. Rep. Elijah Cummings(D-Md.) on Tuesday said he has spoken to Clinton about the possibility of testifying at the request of Rep. Trey Gowdy (S.C.), the panel's Republican chairman, and she 'did not hesitate for one second. She said ... I'll do it, period,' Cummings said after the committee's third hearing."
"The Netanyahu Disaster." Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, a sometime-Bibi fan: "Faced with this conundrum -- an American president who he believes is willing to strike a flawed deal with Iran '' Netanyahu has made the second-worst choice he could make. He has not attacked Iran, which is good — an Israeli attack holds the promise of disaster -- but he has decided to ruin his relations with Obama.... A sitting [U.S.] president cannot be written off by a small, dependent ally, without terrible consequences.... [Netanyahu's] His recent actions suggest that he doesn't quite know what he's doing." ...
... Jeremy Ben-Ami, president and founder of J Street, at CNN International: "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and House Speaker John Boehner's latest gambit -- arranging an address to a joint session of Congress by the Prime Minister just two weeks before the Israeli election -- is severely taxing our special relationship.... Although the Republican Party is clearly hoping to hobble the current president's agenda, the real impact of the speaker's political stunt is likely to be a further erosion of the bipartisan nature of support for Israel, at a time when Israel increasingly needs America's backing as a bulwark against its growing international isolation." ...
... A Brief Note of Sanity. Jim Fallows: Neither a U.S. nor an Israeli war against Iran is feasible. "It can be shrewd to keep an opponent guessing about what you might do if provoked. This negotiating stance could be useful, as long as it doesn't spill over from fooling the Iranians to fooling ourselves. (A la, 'we'll be greeted as liberators!') Letting Iran's leaders think the U.S. is contemplating a strike might pay off. Actually contemplating it could be disastrous."
FreakOutNation: "First lady Michelle Obama did not cover her hair with a veil during a brief visit in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday with the President.... Saudi Twitter users took to their Twitter accounts in disbelief, because veils. A Liberal Saudi Blogger is to receive 1,000 lashes for insulting Islam and they're concerned about a veil." Politico reported that Laura Bush did not wear a veil when meeting with King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia in 2006. "It will be interesting to see how Republicans spin this. They can't say that Obama bows down to Islam, while saying his wife isn't respecting their culture."
Your Louie Gohmert Weekly Reader
"Our Republican Female Members." David Edwards of the Raw Story: "Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Tuesday accused GOP congresswomen -- who he called 'Republican females' -- of sending 'entirely the wrong message' when they derailed a 20-week abortion ban because it did not have an acceptable exception for rape.... '... There was an exception put on there that unless there was a case of reported rape -- reported to authorities,' Gohmert continued. 'Well, that became the dividing factor among some of our female members of the House, Republican female members. But some were adamant they didn't want any exceptions, some were saying, no, we [should] not require it be reported to authorities.'" ...
... CW Note: Please, my friends, do not amuse us with any of the obvious howlers about "Republican female members." I'm already chuckling.
"Louis Gohmert, the Bibi Whisperer." Dave Weigel: "Before it was an international incident, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming speech to Congress was just a twinkle in Louie Gohmert's eye. The conservative east Texas congressman has been sending letters to colleagues, asking for Netanyahu to be invited to address the people's House, for five years.... Whatever Boehner says about Netanyahu, he cannot match the ardor of Gohmert. He's described the prime minister as a new King David, a figure of historical and religious import."
Scott Keyes of Think Progress: "Mike Huckabee channeled his internal Ned Flanders last week, lamenting the fact that he doesn't just hear cuss words in the office these days, but he even hears them coming from women.... 'In Iowa, you would not have people who would just throw the f-bomb and use gratuitous profanity in a professional setting,' Huckabee said. 'In New York, not only do the men do it, but the women do it! ... This would be considered totally inappropriate to say these things in front of a woman.' But 'for a woman to say them in a professional setting,' Huckabee went on, 'that's just trashy!'"
Nullification, Alabama-Style. Mike Cason of Alabama Online: "Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore has released a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley saying that he intends to continue to recognize the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and urging the governor to do so. Moore's office released the three-page letter that was delivered to the governor this morning in response to a federal judge's ruling Friday striking down the ban. Bentley issued a statement today after Moore's letter was released. '... "The people of Alabama voted in a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between man and woman. As governor, I must uphold the Constitution. I am disappointed in Friday's ruling, and I will continue to oppose this ruling. The Federal government must not infringe on the rights of states.'... David Kennedy, an attorney for Cari Searcy and Kim McKeand, the couple who successfully challenged the same-sex ban, ... mentioned the fact that in 2003, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary removed Moore from the state Supreme Court after he refused to obey a federal judge's order to remove a Ten Commandments monument that he had placed in the state judicial building." CW: Thou shalt not covet another man's husband. BTW, legal scholar Ned Flanders' alter-ego there would say Moore's move was totally Constitutional. ...
... Brian Tashman of Right Wing Watch: "It comes as no surprise that Moore, who founded a Religious Right group called the Foundation for Moral Law, has taken such a dogmatic stance on gay rights. Moore has gone so far as to claim that marriage equality is a Satanic plot to destroy America and likened homosexuality to bestiality. Moore previously admonished 'oppressive' judges who rule in favor of marriage equality for 'warping the law,' arguing that a constitutional convention may be necessary to add an amendment banning same-sex marriage to the U.S. Constitution. He also said that marriage equality is literally the work of the Devil, alleging that it is leading to divine wrath in the form of economic and societal suffering."
Shari Rudavsky & Maureen Groppe of the Indianapolis Star: "After months of wrangling between Gov. Mike Pence and the Obama administration, Indiana won approval to expand its own brand of Medicaid that injects personal responsibility into the healthcare program for the poor. About 350,000 low-income Hoosiers who lack insurance could benefit from the program, whose approved expansion was announced Tuesday, the day enrollment began. Coverage could start as early as Feb. 1. Pence said the Healthy Indiana Plan 2.0, a revamped version of a program started by then-Gov. Mitch Daniels, goes beyond standard Medicaid expansion by requiring that participants contribute to the cost of their care." ...
... CW: I'm looking forward to reading all about it in the taxpayer-funded "Mike Pence News."
Rick Rojas & Motoko Rich of the New York Times: "This month, Arizona became the first state to pass a law requiring its high school students to pass the [standard] citizenship exam [given to immigrants], stipulating that they must answer at least 60 of 100 questions correctly to receive a diploma. (Immigrants are given 10 of the 100 questions and must correctly answer six to pass.) Other states may follow suit: North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a comparable bill, and its Senate approved it Tuesday; legislators in Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and seven other states have recently introduced similar initiatives."
Jesse McKinley, et al., of the New York Times: "Sheldon Silver, who faces federal corruption charges, is being replaced as speaker of the New York State Assembly next week, Democratic lawmakers said on Tuesday, paving the way for them to choose a new leader in an election to be held Feb. 10. A Rochester-area assemblyman, Joseph D. Morelle, who is the majority leader and a top contender to succeed Mr. Silver, will become interim speaker on Monday, officials said.... [The change] came after he mounted a last-ditch effort to keep the leadership position he had held since 1994, a tenure spanning five governors."
Presidential Race
Dan Balz of the Washington Post: "Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, whose speech to activists in Iowa last weekend drew strong reviews, has taken the first formal step toward a presidential candidacy in 2016, establishing a committee that will help spread his message and underwrite his activities as he seeks to build his political and fundraising networks in the months ahead.... The steps come after a busy weekend of pre-presidential events that included his address at the Iowa Freedom Summit, a later appearance at a gathering in California hosted by the billionaire Koch brothers and a stopover in Denver for additional fundraising." ...
... CW: Excuse me, Dan. Wasn't kissing up to the Koch brothers the "first formal step"?
Since 2000 there have been 6 million net new jobs created in America.... How many of those net new jobs are held by people who were not born in this country? All of them. -- Rick Santorum, Iowa Freedom Summit
Actually, no. -- Michelle Lee of the Washington Post
Fact-checking just this one Iowa Freedom Summit speeches could become a full-time, life-long career. -- Constant Weader
RE: a discussion in the comments section yesterday & today:
News Ledes
U.S. Air Force: "Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James, in coordination with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall, has determined the Boeing 747-8 will serve as the next presidential aircraft, commonly known as Air Force One."
AP: "A disgruntled, former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist promised to build 40 nuclear weapons for Venezuela and design a bomb targeted for New York City in exchange for 'money and power,' according to secret FBI recordings released Wednesday.... The recordings were played Wednesday in US District Court in Albuquerque before a federal judge sentenced [Pedro Leonardo] Mascheroni, 79, to five years in prison followed by three years of supervised release as part of a plea agreement." CW: Um, isn't this guy just a crazy old coot? He hasn't worked at Los Alamos since 1988.
Jacksonville, Florida, Channel 4: "Marissa Alexander, a woman whose case helped bring national attention to Florida's stand your ground and minimum sentencing laws, was allowed to leave jail late Tuesday afternoon to spend the rest of her sentence on house arrest." Thanks to Jeanne B. for the lead.
Washington Post: "On Tuesday, two years after the attack, a jury in Nashville convicted two former Vanderbilt University football players of aggravated rape and related charges. They were among four players who allegedly participated in the assault. Two others, who have pleaded not guilty, will be tried later. Brandon Vandenburg and Cory Batey, both 21, now face 15 to 80 years in prison. They were convicted after a 12-day trial and about three hours of jury deliberation." The Tennessean story is here.
Weather Channel: "Winter Storm Juno pounded locations from Long Island to New England with heavy snow, high winds and coastal flooding late Monday into Tuesday. The storm is now winding down. The National Weather Service has dropped all winter storm and blizzard warnings for Juno.... In Massachusetts, up to 36 inches of snow has been measured in Lunenburg, while Boston has seen 24.4 inches. Juno was a record snowstorm for Worcester, Massachusetts (34.5 inches). Incredibly, 31.9 inches fell in Worcester on Jan. 27, alone!... Juno's most severe coastal flooding occurred in eastern Massachusetts, in areas most exposed to north to northeast winds gusting from 50-80 mph, at times."
Share Article
Reader Comments (22)
@Akhilleus, @Marie:
Still searching for a "family-friendly" term for people whose aim is to tear down our institutions rather than improve them?
Confederates.
In the Weekly Sift, Doug Muder makes a persuasive case for Confederates as the true ancestors of today's right-wing extremists.
http://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party
The case in brief: The Confederacy is a worldview, strongest in the South, but found all over the country. It is based on the conviction that the social order is divinely ordained and cannot legitimately be changed. Threatened by the democratic process, a shrinking Confederate minority views all forms of resistance as justified, legal or not. Thus the need for guns and the need to keep the wrong people from voting in their full numbers.
Muder concludes: "It’s not a Tea Party. It’s a Confederate Party."
@Monoloco: Thanks you. An excellent suggestion. I'm seriously contemplating taking up "confederates" as a more appropriate handle for most who call themselves "conservatives." Muder's argument is indeed compelling. Although I'm familiar with all (or most) of the elements of his thesis, I've never heard it put together quite that way.
Marie
@Monoloco, looks like Alabama is a perfect fit. Apparently their constitution overrides the US one.
"Fox News pundit Erick Erickson seems to have been an outlier when he tweeted a defense: 'The outrage from the press over Mike Pence’s new plans makes me think he has it right. Obama propagandists most outraged.' "
Of course, that's it - Pravda on the Prairie is Obama's fault.
The second paragraph of your Commentariat might need some attention.
@Thanks. My edit function just does that sometimes. Most of the time I catch it, but this time I couldn't find the flying text.
Marie
The argument in Alabama about their constitutional rights regarding gay marriage and nullification may be the result of their biggest problem - their constitution.
According to Wiki, "At 340,136 words, the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 40 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, and is the longest still-operative constitution anywhere in the world..."
"About 90 percent of the document's length, as of 2012, comes from its 856 amendments. About 75 percent of the amendments cover only a single county or city, and some deal with salaries of specific officials..."
"The length and chaos of the current constitution is both the product and the result of heavy centralization of power in the state government, leaving very little authority to local units. Only seven counties...have any form of home rule. The other counties must lobby the state legislature...to pass even the simplest local laws."
"The constitution addresses many issues that are dealt with by statute in most other states, most notably taxation. A large portion of Alabama's tax code is written into the constitution, necessitating its amendment over minor tax issues. This prohibits most local governments from passing any ordinances on taxation. Although the home rule counties can ordinance on tax issues, even that authority is limited. For instance, Jefferson County can't pass ordinances related to property taxes. Adding to the problem is the requirement that any constitutional amendment must be submitted for a statewide vote if it is not unanimously approved by the legislature. This has resulted in amendments relating to local counties and municipalities being overwhelmingly approved in the affected areas, but rejected statewide."
The longest constitution anywhere (roughly half the size of the KJV bible) with over 800 amendments that centralizes state power and takes an act of god to make changes at the local level.
And the have the right to bitch about the federal supremacy clause? Hypocrites.
From yesterday: Achilleus gave us a link to a decades old case in CT. where a man sued the police department for what he claimed was discrimination––he scored too high on an intelligence test. The judge ruled in favor of the department citing that the hiring criteria was based on studies that showed those people that scored too high or too low on these particular tests did not stay in their position as police for very long (we can probably ascertain why) and because of that the department loses a lot of money so they purchased a state wide test that pin pointed favorable potential applicants AND before anyone took the test they signed an agreement to that effect. Therefore there was no discrimination per se. The judge in this case was Peter Dorsey who, along with his wife, happened to be friends of ours back then so I was interested in learning more about this case. I went on line to check other state's applications for police and it seems that the few states I checked had similar criteria but don't actually specify the high or low stimulation. I conclude that the department is looking for certain characteristics that have proven positive in police work and given what we have seen this past year I think they might want to reevaluate.
I recall during the Vietnam War a guy I knew who when called up pretended he was homosexual (gays were not welcome in the Army of MEN)––it worked––he had to do some public service thing instead. There are so many in the military that do not fit well in the military and come back shattered and broken. There doesn't seem to be the right kind of tests to test for that kind of thing are there? Men like our American Sniper, however, are perfect for that performance.
Where on earth did you find that video, Marie? I'm still laughing! Thanks a bunch.
PD,
I'm guessing your friend who escaped the draft was a fan of this song.
Then again, now that I think of it, The Decider probably was too, especially the line that begins "...if they ever have war without blood and gore, I'll be the first to go."
But now that I think about it, he'd probably run from that too.
A few thoughts on the utility of killing the poor, as suggested by conservative AEI "scholar" Michael Strain, his article discussed on various links on yesterday's RC.
There's a lot to unpack in arguments that attempt to support the denial of healthcare to millions based on carefully selected bits and pieces of philosophical claims. I won't attempt to deconstruct his position as thoroughly as it deserves, but it strikes me that Strain's demand that we kill people in order to maintain some fantasy economic freedom is not simply shockingly amoral, it's a terrible argument. And in some cases, that's worse. After all, if you're gonna kill people so that others can make more money, you better have an unassailable position.
He doesn't. You'd think an AEI "scholar" would at least give it the old college try; he barely gives it the old middle school try.
What he does have is the sort of argument that wingers routinely scream about when they decry liberal or progressive policies as insupportable: moral relativism.
What he's talking about is a version of the old Trolley Problem that we've looked at before. It does matter if you're being asked to do nothing and allow someone to die so that others won't have their day ruined (a matter of omission) or asked to pull a lever so that some poor schmuck gets it in the neck so that others don't (a matter of commission).
We're deep into the realm of a warped form of Utilitarianism here. What he's arguing is we have to provide the best utility for the some (not most) people--his kind of people, of course. The standard argument on the right is that the ACA impinges on their beloved "Freedom". But what no one ever mentions, is that "freedom" does not mean exactly that. I would suggest that what most people mean is more like what Kant talks about when he discusses morality, whether or not people are allowed to be autonomous, to make important decisions about their own lives.
But both autonomy and "freedom" have limits. We can't drive on the wrong side of the road. We can't hold up a liquor store if we're broke. Laws and societal customs circumscribe much or our "freedom" and autonomy. I think the best we can do is to make sure that everyone is given a chance to be largely autonomous about important things, to make choices about the big issues in life. And no one can argue rationally that healthcare has no role to play there or has no impact on the quality of life. The ACA offers the best chance we currently have of ensuring a large amount of autonomy (you can't make good life choices if you're dead or deathly ill) and utility for the largest number (actual Utilitarianism). Trying to combine Bentham and Kant in one sentence is tough, but it can be done.
The difference between the ACA situation and the Trolley Problem is that it's not a zero sum game. Just because someone gets healthcare, a poor person, let's say, does not mean that someone else, a rich person, let's say, will croak. But this is exactly what wingers, absurdly, are arguing. Gregory Mankiw, in a Times op-ed piece not long ago, made the ludicrous argument that a doctor treating four dying patients, would be forced, under the ACA, to let them die so that she could examine a reasonably healthy new ACA patient. It's a dead giveaway that to support their case for killing the ACA, wingers resort to the most preposterous scenarios. "If I were on Mars, and a Martian sand storm came along and blinded me, and the only doctor was 3 parsecs away, treating a poor person on Alpha Centauri..."
At worst, what is being asked is for certain sectors of the population to pay a little more so the overall utility can be dramatically improved. And studies have already shown that overall health costs are dropping and a healthier population means far less money lost by caring for sick and dying patients and productivity lost through workers being sicker for longer periods of time, a benefit for everyone, especially, one would surmise, rich investors, Strains' primary target group.
In short, Strain is demanding that we take healthcare away from those who already have it so that he and his friends can feel better about themselves and the chances for further economic improvement. If this isn't moral relativism, I don't know what is.
Yes, as a society, we make choices all the time about the relative value of life, but comparing people driving 65 mph in a Ford Tercel to millions living in fear of getting sick and dying is below puerile and is not the sort of argument worthy of someone I would call a scholar, ergo the quotes above.
Kant would call this a deontological issue, one of moral duty. And while I've always had a bit of a problem with the harder edges of Kantian moral theory, I don't think one's autonomy, one's freedom, or even one's "freedom" are necessarily curtailed by ensuring that other humans have an opportunity to live a life dramatically improved by access to healthcare. The only persons that could die are the people Strain and his ilk condemn due to a warped and unachievable goal of ultimate personal freedom.
For them, but no one else. After all, is depriving someone of the right to life more acceptable than a small impact on someone's supposed freedom to make more money?
To Republicans it obviously is.
Grade: F
Monoloco,
Thanks for the link. Interesting stuff. There's a lot to recommend your suggestion of supplanting "conservatives" with "confederates".
I've been dismayed for a long time that these people are still called conservatives, as if they have anything to do with Teddy Roosevelt or Edmund Burke. If he were around today, Limbaugh would be demanding that he be deported back to England.
So what do we have today out there in the Right Wing Wilderness of the Whacky?
If we don't let King Bibi visit so that congress can bow to him, God will be pissed and start hurting people. (That doesn't happen anyway?)
Killing the poor makes good economic sense. What's next? Eating their children? I can see it now, on the menu at The Palm, "Roast Poor Children in fennel sauce. Fattened up only at the end to save money." Mo Dowd will write a snarky column about it, but only after she tries the new dish. "A little gamey for my tastes" she says, picking her teeth.
New York women are trashy for talking like men. How dare they. Don't they know this is 1914? Fucking sluts.
God is pissed at gays marrying! Stop all that this instant! And no more wedding cakes. We've had just about enough of that.
Wingnuts in Indiana will now have a state run news organization, run, of course, by wingnuts.Their own opinions, their own facts. All the "news" that prints. Pulitzer prize, here we come.
Speaker of the House getting ready to sue the president. Again.
Immigrants demonized. Again.
Koch brothers buy 12 more congressmen. Again.
Wingnuts dramatically reduce national IQ level. Again.
It all sounds like something out of a comedy sketch until you realize that this shit goes on day in, day out in Right Wing World.
Oops. Forgot something.
I see that (where the fk else, as Charlie Pierce is fond of saying) Arizona, is demanding that high school students pass a citizenship test before being allowed to graduate.
A great idea.
First, though, how about asking the wingnuts who support this measure to pass the test?
The article mentions that "...more than a third of respondents could not name a single branch of the United States government, while fewer than a quarter knew that a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate is required to override a presidential veto", according to an Annenberg study.
Really. Well, I will bet my house that a huuuuuge number of teabaggers don't know those things either. Did you check those teabagger signs I linked the other day? Those people are lucky they can spell "constitution", never mind tell you what, besides the second amendment, is in it.
I'm not suggesting that it's not important for kids to know these things, just that it's another example of Republicans' love for rote tests as opposed to actually learning things, 'cause they don't cotton to that there book larnin'.
Smart people don't vote Republican.
This is just another way to try to stick it to immigrant kids sneakin' in to steal our freedoms.
Re: High school students in AZ having to pass the citizenship test, that would mean that high schools will have to teach a substantial civics course again, doesn't it? On the surface, this sounds to me as if this could even backfire on the wingnuts.
Hoo-boy.
Loretta Lynch is toast. Supporting Obama on immigration?
You could hear the heads of Ted Cruz, David Vitter, Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions, Chuck Grassley, and probably Lindsay Graham, exploding from miles away.
She's done. But I applaud her guts and honesty. Too bad they'll never confirm her. A black woman who is smart, tough, honest, and has the temerity not to know that her place is to knuckle under to the white wingnut anti-Obama (read:black) brigade?
Done.
I have a solution to all our problems. Make every citizen pass the immigration test before they can vote. I mean it seems to me that if that is the requirement for citizenship we should all have to prove our status.
Marvin, Marvin, Marvin,
My man, you cannot believe that the GOP would allow their core voters to face such a catastrophic test. Queen of the Yellow Snow herself, one of the Confederate superstars, couldn't pass that test. She believes the VP runs the Senate, that the founding fathers said the Pledge of Allegiance, and that the White House has a Department of Law. And she's a freakin' rocket scientist (if they believed in science, that is) compared to hordes of the little monsters.
It's a worthy idea, but the GOP is all about illegally disqualifying Democratic voters, not fairly disqualifying their own.
Christ, hundreds of thousands of them couldn't pass an 8th grade spelling test, never mind a citizenship test.
Good idea though
Question: Are pretend frugal rats more believable than run of the mill richer than Croesus rats?
It appears that, in order to seem like an everyday, ordinary Joe, who "gets" what poor people (to Romney, poor=less than $250K a year) have to put up with, Mittens, Lady Ann and Tagg the Merciless are having to make do with only four homes over 10,000 sq. ft.
OM Fucking G!!
Poor Mitt! How he suffers. A sacrifice worse than the most abused Christian martyr, those who were flayed alive, had their fingers gnawed off, were crucified upside down, or were shot through with arrows. None of them had it rougher than the Mormon Romney-bots, by jing!
According to an article in the Boston Globe, Mittens might be selling the famous 11,000 sq. ft. La Jolla mansion on the beach (by all accounts triple the size of all other houses on the strip--Mittens told his neighbors to fuck off with their complaints) with its elevatored gah-rage to hold the Rat's Ferraris and Dusenbergs. SOOO inconvenient to have to park your multi-million dollar rides in the out of doors. So plebeian. And we can't have the Rat Patrol put up with that, now can we? So sad, because his plans included a "...first floor that includes a library, and a large combined living room and dining room. The basement includes an exercise room, recreation room, and a room to hold the beach gear" and a special barber shop room for beating up and shearing uncooperative gay boys. So much fun to be missed!
Oh.....unless Mittens wants to look like your average hot-dog eating Joe sitting in the Cask and Flagon next to Fenway Park who can't afford the $75/per ticket prices. He's such a reg-U-lar guy, that Mittens! Chows down on roast beef sandwiches at Kelly's on Revere Beach and pines for days at Paragon Park where he went with inner city kids back in the 60's.
But he also spent like a drunken (extremely wealthy) sailor, after American voters told him and his made-of-money brood to stick their superior bullshit up their assholes. Tagg threatened to beat them all up, but he can only pound on just so many at one time. SOOOO inconvenient. Again.
So to look like he really cares about lowly poors, those Americans he pissed on the last time around, he's giving up at least one of his mansions, just to, you know, show what a regular guy he's always been.
Just the fact that he thinks voters will buy this stinky tripe shows how out of touch and what an inveterate loser fuck he really is.
Mittens! Average guy!
My ass.
I may be out of the loop, but has anyone mentioned the irony inherent in a taxpayer-supported Libertarian state publication? It would be like Walmart reviving Pravda.
@Jack Mahoney: I mentioned "The Mike Pence News" in today's Commentariat with a link, & linked to the background story yesterday & to a critique of it.
A lot of observers saw the irony of "Pravda on the Plains."
Marie
Thanks Marie. Must've missed it.