Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Uh, too little, too late? Stanley McChrystal's pushback begins: His camp says Rolling Stone violated the agreed-upon interview ground rules.

* New Newsweek poll: Fifty percent approve of the decision to sack McChrystal.

* But: Afghanistan is become a real political problem, with 53 percent disapproving of his handling of the war.

* Takedown of the day: John Cole versus Jeffrey Goldberg. Brutal.

* Special bonus takedown from Adam Serwer.

* Who woulda thunk it? Jon Kyl finally walks back his claim that Obama was holding border security hostage to immigration reform.

* Which prompts Steve Benen to ask:

So, here's the question for Fox News and other conservative media outlets that heavily pushed Kyl's original story: will you be equally diligent in letting the public know about his revised version of the events?

* And the snark o' the day from Barbara Morrill: "Basically what we have is Jon Kyl claiming that Jon Kyl's words were taken out of context by Jon Kyl."

* Ezra Klein pulls the plug on Journolist. The republic no longer needs to fear that shadowy left wing cabal's dastardly scheme to destroy our journalistic institutions from within.

* An amazingly useful guide to FinReg.

* Question of the day, from Jon Walker: If Senate Dems really believe Republicans are scuttling legislation to destroy the economy for political reasons, why don't they start passing bills with procedural hardball?

* Ignoring ugly smears: I missed this yesterday, but it's noteworthy that the new head of the Office of Legal Counsel was appointed despite being smeared by the Cheneyites as one of the "Al Qaeda Seven."

* Wit and wisdom from billionaire, Kendrick Meek challenger and religious scholar Jeff Greene: Anyone who knows anything about the Koran knows that it contains "all kinds of this crazy stuff."

* And Lindsey Graham says he will not lift a finger on energy reform until the oil stops gushing. Or something like that.

What else is happening?

UPDATE, 7:15 p.m.: Interesting takes from Jed Lewison and Digby on the meaning of Marco Rubio's support for repealing just about all of Obamacare except the preexisting conditions provision.

By Greg Sargent  |  June 25, 2010; 6:47 PM ET
Categories:  Financial reform , Foreign policy and national security , Political media , Senate Dems  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: On David Weigel's resignation
Next: Saturday Roundup

Comments

Why didn't McChrystal's camp push back when they were contacted during the fact-checking? Kinda late now...

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 25, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

"Wit and wisdom from billionaire, Kendrick Meek challenger and religious scholar Jeff Greene: Anyone who knows anything about the Koran knows that it contains "all kinds of this crazy stuff.""

It was written by morans!

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

"So, here's the question for Fox News and other conservative media outlets that heavily pushed Kyl's original story: will you be equally diligent in letting the public know about his revised version of the events?"

HAHAHAAAAHHHAA!!! What was that, joke of the day?

Posted by: SDJeff | June 25, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

sue -- it's an interesting question...check out the buried stuff about Rolling Stone not giving them a heads up about what was coming

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 25, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of McChrystal, Mark Ambinder had an interesting post yesterday:

"The fact, revealed in Rolling Stone, that Gen. Stanley McChrystal voted for President Obama may well have been a planted nugget designed to show how receptive McChrystal was to Obama's worldview. But several people who worked for, and continue to work for, Gen. McChrystal say that it's true. McChrystal told his subordinates about his ballot choice in November of 2008. More surprisingly, this choice did not surprise them. McChrystal was a hard core operator, aggressive as hell, a JSOC ninja -- but he was also a social liberal who tolerated, nay, welcomed gay people into his inner circle, who disdained Fox News, and who grew increasingly frustrated with his reputation as Dick Cheney's hired assassin."

More: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/mcchrystals-social-liberalism-and-the-integration-of-gays-in-the-military/58663/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 25, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

"the new head of the Office of Legal Counsel was appointed despite being smeared by the Cheneyites as one of the "Al Qaeda Seven.""

Waiting now for Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol, "Team Torture", to respond to this fresh assault on all that is good and pure.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

"And Lindsey Graham says he will not lift a finger on energy reform until the oil stops gushing. Or something like that."

I'm willing to believe he's telling the truth, but not the whole truth, since he left out "or after."

Posted by: jimeh | June 25, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Ed Kilgore on the Republicans killing the jobs bill:


"But there could be political consequences as well, as voters begin to realize that there is no big pot of money labeled "waste, fraud and abuse" that can be tapped to balance state budgets, much less to fund the high-end personal and corporate tax cuts that many Republicans continue to call for in the latest incarnation of the discredited theory of supply-side economics.

In other words, the anti-government populism that conservatives are counting on as electoral magic this November may lose some of its appeal when reality sets in. And Democrats should be quick to point out there is no such thing as a free "austerity" lunch. "
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/06/state_aid_failure_will_have_co.php#comments

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

By the way commenters, I'm told that the higher ups are exploring a possible new platform for comments that could -- COULD -- make blockquoting, html and live links possible.

Fingers crossed.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 25, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

"Why didn't McChrystal's camp push back when they were contacted during the fact-checking? Kinda late now..."

Sue, Greg, whoever else, Daily Show made a good point of that....like, what did McChrystal think? As if he could trust a counterculture hippie magazine to keep his secret?

Posted by: SDJeff | June 25, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Jeff, yeah, I saw John Stewart's take on it. Fun stuff.

But, also, the RS editor said that they contacted the McChrystal camp prior to publication to fact-check, and got no objections. THAT would have been the time to push back.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 25, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Along with Cole on Goldberg, Serwer writes:

"This is an extraordinary statement from someone who touted a nonexistent link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Goldberg's reporting was cited by President Bush as proof that even the liberals knew his claims about Iraq were true. Of course it doesn't matter that these claims were false, or that they helped lead the country into an unnecessary war where thousands died because Goldberg is "toilet trained."

It's important to understand what "toilet training" means. One can, like Marc Thiessen, Bill Kristol, or any other member of the Post's conservative pundit stable, advocate for the most horrible applications of state violence imaginable, and even do so dishonestly, as long as you do so without disparaging certain protected elites. The quality or veracity of your reportage or your argument is quite irrelevant. " http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=06&year=2010&base_name=on_weigel

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Benen notes the following quote from that genius Kilmeade of FOX...

"Quote of the Day, from "Fox & Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade: "It took the president a matter of hours to pick a commander in Afghanistan, so why is it taking months to plug the leaking oil?"

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Dave Weigel fired: just more evidence of the corporate suckfest the WaPo has become since Donald Graham inherited the paper.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | June 25, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Greg: "By the way commenters, I'm told that the higher ups are exploring a possible new platform for comments that could -- COULD -- make blockquoting, html and live links possible.

Fingers crossed."

Hell, Greg, I'm gonna light a novena candle, do a midnight Wiccan ritual and chant Buddhist incantations!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 25, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"midnight Wiccan ritual"

Redundant, sue.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Final graph from Tomasky today on Weigel. But read it all.

"I mostly feel terribly for Dave. He was obviously set up by someone who wanted to sink him. And it's lousy that this happened to a fun and engaging forum. My only solace is knowing that the people who think that by breaking up J-list they've scored some major triumph over the vast left-wing conspiracy are deluding themselves, which I suppose is something."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jun/25/usa

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Martha Nussbaum (whom I confess to being in love with) on Huckabee's claim he was quoting her on his "ick" response to gay people:

"I have never used the phrase "ick factor" in any of my three books dealing with the emotion of disgust, or in any articles. I use the term "projective disgust" to characterize the disgust that many people feel when they imagine gay sex acts. What does that term mean, and to whom does it apply? The view I develop, on the basis of recent psychological research, is that projective disgust has its origin in a discomfort with one's own body and its messier animal aspects, including sexuality, and that, in a defense mechanism, disgust is then projected outward onto vulnerable groups who are characterized as hyperphysical and hypersexual. In this way, the uncomfortable people displace their discomfort onto others, who are then targeted for various forms of social discrimination.

Thus the people to whom the term "projective disgust" applies are the insecure and emotionally stunted people who campaign against equal rights for gays and lesbians, not gays and lesbians themselves.

Mr. Huckabee has gotten bad information about my work and has completely turned its meaning upside down, imputing to me a position (that gays and lesbians are disgusting) that I criticize as childish and morally deficient.

He owes me a public apology."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jun/25/mikehuckabee-gay-rights-nussbaum

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Does Graham speak for all of "them" when he says he will not lift a finger on (any) policy issues?

Posted by: hoser3 | June 25, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

By the way commenters, I'm told that the higher ups are exploring a possible new platform for comments that could -- COULD -- make blockquoting, html and live links possible.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 25, 2010 7:20 PM |

Will the platform also automatically delete all comments that have ever been posted, once the WaPo blogger is fired (pardon me, "resigns"), as has happened with every single comment ever posted on "Right Now"?

Nice way for WaPo to tell us that our comments are inconsequential . . .

Posted by: bearclaw1 | June 25, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who has read Jeff Toobin's "A Vast Conspiracy" will have a good understanding of the money and covert machinations that were put towards bringing down Bill Clinton's administration. And anyone who has been following American politics over the last two or more decades would have held the reasonable proposition that, with near certainty, the same efforts and money would be put towards bringing down the present administration. Smears, intimations and claims of bad intentions and criminal connections etc we all knew would arise.

What has thrown me for a loop is how much worse the right is now than it was then. The Sowell/Palin/Beck Obama=Hitler explicit analogy, the threats states will have to carve themselves off from the nation (because of Obama), the explicit calls to gather arms for a potential revolution (against Obama), the daily identification of social democrat policies many of which have been in place for decades or are in place in all other western nations with Marxism and communism and which represent the destruction of the nation, etc etc.

This is insane.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Another take on the General:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/adrian-hamilton/adrian-hamilton-once-again-those-who-reveal-the-truth-are-punished-2011039.html

Posted by: actuator | June 25, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

I learned a new word yesterday... anosognosia. No, I can't say it, either.

Google News suggested I might like the posting "The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is." It's by Errol Morris writing on NYT's Opinionator blog.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/

It's long. It's got five parts. It has a strong epistemological flavor to it. But it succinctly captured the essence of Half-Baked Alaska and her loony followers, and that it got me hooked. Basically, they're too stupid to perceive their stupidity.

EM opens by interviewing David Dunning, known for the Dunning-Kruger Effect — "Our incompetence masks our ability to recognize our incompetence."

The implications of that observation explain a lot of what we've been seeing.

DD: "[W]e measured skills ... grammar, logic. And our test-subjects were all college students ... . ... We believed that they should know [when] they were doing badly, and when they didn’t, that really surprised us."

That doesn't surprise me. Not one bit.

DD: "People will often make the case, 'We can’t be that stupid, or we would have been evolutionarily wiped out as a species a long time ago.' ... One could argue that evolution suggests we’re not idiots, but I would say, 'Well, no. Evolution just makes sure we’re not blithering idiots.' "

There's a fascinating bit about Woodrow Wilson's last year in office. He had a major stroke and became mentally incapacitated. His wife and doctor conspired to keep everybody away from him. They basically took over running things.

That was the year the League of Nations treaty went down in the Senate. One of WW's problems was that he did not perceive his incapacitation. He remained adamant in his refusal to negotiate any of the treaty's terms with Henry Cabot Lodge, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If WW had retained any ability to be rational, he likely would have gotten something livable. But he didn't, and he ended up getting nothing. And we know how that worked out.

Warning: Rummy's "unknown unknowns" comes up for discussion.

Posted by: jzap | June 25, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

@actuator - What's the reading you take from that piece?

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Holy Hashpipe:

"Anyone who has read Jeff Toobin's "A Vast Conspiracy" will have a good understanding of the money and covert machinations that were put towards bringing down Bill Clinton's administration. And anyone who has been following American politics over the last two or more decades would have held the reasonable proposition that, with near certainty, the same efforts and money would be put towards bringing down the present administration. Smears, intimations and claims of bad intentions and criminal connections etc we all knew would arise.

What has thrown me for a loop is how much worse the right is now than it was then. The Sowell/Palin/Beck Obama=Hitler explicit analogy, the threats states will have to carve themselves off from the nation (because of Obama), the explicit calls to gather arms for a potential revolution (against Obama), the daily identification of social democrat policies many of which have been in place for decades or are in place in all other western nations with Marxism and communism and which represent the destruction of the nation, etc etc."
Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 8:50 PM

This is indeed insane. You win the hyperbole of the day award. Ever catch DailyKos before the '08 election? Or even before the inauguration? Many a fellow Democrat was convinced that Bush was going to remain in office. And not to paint my own party into a bit of a corner but didn't we sort of initiate the "deligetimatization" of the President via the 2000 "Selected not Elected" meme? And followed that up with the 2004 "Diebold and the Republicans" (BIRS) stole Ohio mantra?

Your right Bernie, those dang wingnuts don't understand principled opposition, only extreme noise. Were doomed! We cant win elections! We barely hold power now!!!!!!11!!!!!eleventy11!!!!11

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | June 25, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

@jzap - Well, we sure see evidence of that each day, don't we? As an educator, it is an interesting set of questions that arise in trying to sort out why people presume education (even if self-education) is somehow unnecessary to knowledge and understanding.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Here's what Republicans wanted in the jobs/unemployment extender bill. Even though Dems paid for everything but the actual unemployment extensions, it wasn't enough. You decide who can be trusted to run our government and wants to restore the economy rather than just wait for it to fail and swoop in to pick at the carcas. And please don't forget all the blame the victim language coming from certain quarters. They're lazy, they need to just get a job, they should be drug tested, etc. etc.

* Delay the scheduled 21% cut to physicians' Medicare payments through 2012, one year longer than the provision in the House bill;
* Redirect $8 billion for Medicaid payments to primary care physicians in 2013 and 2014 to a grant program that would let states increase primary care payments permanently;
* Eliminate the nearly $24 billion federal state Medicaid aid package, which Senate Democrats restored earlier this week;
* Include medical malpractice reforms that some physician groups have been lobbying for;
* Lower the affordability exemption for the individual coverage mandate in the new health reform law, from 8% to 5%, to save $11 billion;
* Omit an expanded prescription drug discount program from the Democrats' extenders bill, which Republicans described as "government-imposed price controls on prescription drugs"; and
* Provide $26 billion in net tax cuts, compared with $18 billion in tax increases in the Democrats' bill.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 25, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

@TrollMcWingNut - Well, you appear to be living up to your self-descriptor.

List, please, the Dem state governors or their Attorneys General who, during the Bush administration, threatened to take their states out of the Union because Bush policies were fascist?

Name, please, the cable news personalities who, during that period, were making charges each night that Bush was setting up secret concentration camps for those who held different political ideas, or were claiming, each night, that Bush was the equal of Hitler or Napoleon or Marx or some such.

Link for us or cite those examples you seem to imagine exist where candidates for federal seats were claiming that armed insurrection was perhaps on the near horizon and that arming ourselves was a necessary and prudent hedge against the possible or likely removal of freedoms. Please provide links to photographs of marches where hundreds or thousands of protesters met to support those same fears.

As regards the election...you might want to read the SC dissents on that ruling.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Those freaking wingnuts:

"Here's what Republicans wanted in the jobs/unemployment extender bill. Even though Dems paid for everything but the actual unemployment extensions, it wasn't enough. You decide who can be trusted to run our government and wants to restore the economy rather than just wait for it to fail and swoop in to pick at the carcas. And please don't forget all the blame the victim language coming from certain quarters. They're lazy, they need to just get a job, they should be drug tested, etc. etc.

* Delay the scheduled 21% cut to physicians' Medicare payments through 2012, one year longer than the provision in the House bill;
* Redirect $8 billion for Medicaid payments to primary care physicians in 2013 and 2014 to a grant program that would let states increase primary care payments permanently;
* Eliminate the nearly $24 billion federal state Medicaid aid package, which Senate Democrats restored earlier this week;
* Include medical malpractice reforms that some physician groups have been lobbying for;
* Lower the affordability exemption for the individual coverage mandate in the new health reform law, from 8% to 5%, to save $11 billion;
* Omit an expanded prescription drug discount program from the Democrats' extenders bill, which Republicans described as "government-imposed price controls on prescription drugs"; and
* Provide $26 billion in net tax cuts, compared with $18 billion in tax increases in the Democrats' bill."
Posted by: lmsinca | June 25, 2010 10:04 PM

If only there was some sort of big fund, I don't know, something like a $750 billion fund, lying around somewhere where we could find the $35 billion for the UE benefits? I'm starting to think my party just doesn't care enough to help out the unemployed.

" * Delay the scheduled 21% cut to physicians' Medicare payments through 2012, one year longer than the provision in the House bill;
* Redirect $8 billion for Medicaid payments to primary care physicians in 2013 and 2014 to a grant program that would let states increase primary care payments permanently;"

The unmitigated temerity of these slimy wingnuts! Who are they to demand that the AMA live with the consequences of their endorsement of HIR? I mean, it's not like we juggled the numbers so that it wouldn't add to the deficit (snicker)!


Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | June 25, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Jeff Goldberg - he's never been a dependable fellow. Unless you're a neocon or just love war all to bits when it targets them dirty muslim types.
http://harpers.org/archive/2006/06/sb-goldbergs-war-1151687978

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Yglesias on Weigel:

"Re: Dave Weigel
It’s not surprising to me that some conservatives don’t like my friend Dave Weigel. He does excellent, no-holds-barred reporting on the conservative movement and that sometimes makes the movement look foolish. At the same time, he’s always done a good job of staying on excellent terms with many conservatives and players in the movement—that’s part of how he reports effectively. So somehow we got to the point where Fishbowl DC writer and lobbyist Matt Dornic decided he wanted to start publicly campaigning for Weigel to be fired and a writer at The Daily Caller teamed up with someone with access to an off-the-record email list to embarrass Dave by leaking some intemperate emails that he’d written with an expectation of privacy.

It sort of surprises me that this campaign worked, and The Washington Post seems to have felt that these emails constitute a good reason to accept Weigel’s resignation. I say “sort of” because obviously no organization that employs Charles Krauthammer on a regular basis can be counted on to exercise sound judgment in a consistent way. Ben Smith argues persuasively that this confirms the theory he’s held for some time that the Post was confused when they hired Dave and thought they were getting a “conservative blogger” to counterbalance Ezra Klein. It’s a bit confusing to me how one could have thought that, but a lot about the Post confuses me.

It doesn’t surprise me at all to see Jeffrey Goldberg dancing on Weigel’s grave. In some ways, it’s an illustrative contrast. For all the hate that’s been directed at Dave lately, nobody disputes any of his actual reporting. Instead they’re digging around his private emails. All I’ve ever seen Goldberg do in private is be funny and charming. It’s his work that’s dangerous and inaccurate.

To sum up, though, I think the odds that Dave Weigel will still be doing political reporting in 2030 are much better than the odds that Kaplan, Inc.’s political journalism subsidiary will still be in business."

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 25, 2010 7:47 PM
====================================

With a little bit of creativity, those effects can be achieved.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/06/25/blogosphere-update/

Maybe not perfect, but the point can be made.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | June 25, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Here's an interesting bit from Yglesias coming off a report by Texiera:

"Another interesting finding is the significant growth rate of key subgroups of women who vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. I’ve found that there is a tendency to discuss “women” as if they are like any other interest group or constituency, but women are in fact the majority of voters. So, by definition, if more and more women identify as Democrats, then to cobble together a majority Republicans must lock in an even larger lead among male voters."
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/06/troubling-trends-for-the-gop/

Thus underlining why Republicans might want to advance a narrative that it's really their party who represents women.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

McWing, the little game you're playing isn't really all that funny or clever. But go ahead and have a little fun rather than actually debate the issues.

Here's a little critique of the Thune Ammendment I listed above and Dems already re-directed stimulus and defense spending money to help pay for this. Typically unemployment benefits are not offset as that defeats the purpose of the stimulus.

"Republicans are reminding everyone that they offered a paid-for version of the bill — the Thune amendment — that would have accomplished many of the same things, but Democrats objected.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said that the Thune amendment was paid for by unpractical budget cuts.

His legislation would essentially shut down much of the federal government for the last two and a half months of this fiscal year (which ends September 30), threatening such basic services as providing Social Security checks, ensuring food safety, and inspecting mines.

Tomorrow, 1.2 million people will have lost their unemployment benefits since the federal program expired on June 2. Several hundred thousand more will continue to lose benefits each week this drags on."

http://www.mlive.com/michigan-job-search/index.ssf/2010/06/democrats_third_version_of_federal_unemp.html

Posted by: lmsinca | June 25, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

You're right Bernie,

I can't find a thing. We've never done or said such things that those wingnuts out there, in their teabagging frenzy say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY_1ZlzyW5k&feature=related

I mean, that kind of behavior is way out of line:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7FaSEQ-fKc

Our interlocutors are fair and balanced:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/03/31/ed-schultz-insists-hes-never-spewed-hate-his-msnbc-show

We're not like those redneck racists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uMcIcTWDvU

I'm with you!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | June 25, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

"This is indeed insane. You win the hyperbole of the day award. Ever catch DailyKos before the '08 election? Or even before the inauguration? Many a fellow Democrat was convinced that Bush was going to remain in office. And not to paint my own party into a bit of a corner but didn't we sort of initiate the "deligetimatization" of the President via the 2000 "Selected not Elected" meme? And followed that up with the 2004 "Diebold and the Republicans" (BIRS) stole Ohio mantra?"

The 2000 election was stolen. No doubt about that. The man with the lower popular vote in the nation as well as Florida was declared the victor by the 5 republicans on the Supreme Court.

2004 had major abnormalities but the fact that Bush even got more than 40% just showed that the voters got what they deserved, which was an extension of everything that went wrong in his first term, ie disaster in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the economy.

There were many progressives who thought Bush and Cheney wouldn't leave without a fight, as many people believed they would be investigated for war crimes. Obviously that never happened, so those fears were unfounded.

That's a far cry from the secession and revolution talk we hear now. Research the 1850s. I'm not saying we're headed for a civil war but the paranoia from southerners and conservatives is reminiscent of that time.

Posted by: SDJeff | June 25, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

@T - Sorry, not even close to an honest attempt. I set you a task of actually drawing parallels of equal magnitude. You really didn't even try. I can't see a good reason to respond to bother reading your posts or responding to you in the future.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | June 25, 2010 10:35 PM |
=======================================

You aren't with us.

Here's your peer group.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/425/kukluxklan.jpg
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | June 25, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

@SD - Give him a go if you like but I expect the pursuit to be fruitless.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Here's the thing Imsinca, Pelosi, though loathe to do it, seems to think that there is some money lying around to use to offset the UE extension:

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told HuffPost on Friday that reauthorizing the benefits remains an urgent task, raising the possibility that Democrats might agree to offset the cost of the spending.

"It really has to happen," said Pelosi of reauthorizing extended benefits. "One of the debates that goes on now -- which I completely resist, but it's one of the debates going on -- is at the end of the day, these people have to have their benefits, and should we begin paying for unemployment benefits?" (source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/25/879388/-Pelosi-says-passing-jobless-benefits-remains-urgent)

In extremis, what's more important to her? Offsetting the UI extension or bashing Republicans? (let's ignore Nelson's party affiliation for now, shall we?)

I was also wondering if there was something the government owned that they could sell that might pay for the extension? Anything come to mind? Anything?

http://www.mahalo.com/answers/what-percentage-of-the-new-gm-company-does-the-government-own

I tell ya, I got nothing.

I'll ask it again. What's more important? A philosophical devotion to Keynes or getting the UI extension offset and therefore passed?


Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | June 25, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Bernie this hurts:

"@T - Sorry, not even close to an honest attempt. I set you a task of actually drawing parallels of equal magnitude. You really didn't even try. I can't see a good reason to respond to bother reading your posts or responding to you in the future."

Posted by: bernielatham | June 25, 2010 10:51 PM

I've always considered you the arbiter of all things. I hang my head in shame. Darn these Rethuglican wingnuts for clouding my judgement! I personally blame Karl Rove

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | June 25, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

SDJeff,

Thanks for proving my point.

Why would you show a picture of Democratic Senator Byrd?

Is there a Klan Godwin? We should call it the ifthethunderdontgetya:

"We were having a heated discussion about the prevailing media narrative on the former regime when he went full ifthethunderdontgetya.

Whatya think?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | June 25, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Here's the thing McWing, you left out the part that supports my argument. If the Dems have to do something counter-productive to get people their benefits, I'm sure they'll try, as opposed to Republicans who really don't appear to give a damn.

"While Republicans and conservative Democrats like Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have insisted that the entire bill be offset, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have refused to cave so far. Historically, extended unemployment benefits in times of high unemployment are always classified as "emergency" spending, so it's not offset.

"It's a completely bad idea because the stimulative effect that you get from putting money down is all set on either reducing something else or raising taxes," said Pelosi. "So the double purpose of it, which is to reduce the needs of the unemployed and the stimulative effect, are canceled out."

Jobless benefits have been treated by every Congress and every administration since the program began as emergency spending, and as Debbie Stabenow said in a conference call with reporters today, "If 15 million people out of work isn't an emergency, I don't know what is." The offsets Republicans have been pushing for the hardest are the most potentially damaging to any hope of further economic growth. They want to raid what's left of the already-appropriated stimulus funds to pay jobless benefits, a suggestion at cross-purposes, since the stimulus money is supposed to be creating the jobs to get these folks working again. Not that lapses in logic have ever bothered Republicans."

Posted by: lmsinca | June 25, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

I love it when wingnuts try to excuse 40 years of gooper Southern strategy by referring to 1960's era Democrats.

It is a perfect demonstration of their dishonesty.

http://sports.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20060519/news_1c19fixin.html
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | June 25, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Bernie (@ 10:07):

Hyperbole in overdrive only works on the kidz.

I'm like c'mon skeemer, 2000 was, like, back in the day brokay. Hyt'chya!

Posted by: tao9 | June 25, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca,

You state: "Here's the thing McWing, you left out the part that supports my argument. If the Dems have to do something counter-productive to get people their benefits, I'm sure they'll try, as opposed to Republicans who really don't appear to give a damn.

"While Republicans and conservative Democrats like Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have insisted that the entire bill be offset, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have refused to cave so far. Historically, extended unemployment benefits in times of high unemployment are always classified as "emergency" spending, so it's not offset.

"It's a completely bad idea because the stimulative effect that you get from putting money down is all set on either reducing something else or raising taxes," said Pelosi. "So the double purpose of it, which is to reduce the needs of the unemployed and the stimulative effect, are canceled out."

Jobless benefits have been treated by every Congress and every administration since the program began as emergency spending, and as Debbie Stabenow said in a conference call with reporters today, "If 15 million people out of work isn't an emergency, I don't know what is." The offsets Republicans have been pushing for the hardest are the most potentially damaging to any hope of further economic growth. They want to raid what's left of the already-appropriated stimulus funds to pay jobless benefits, a suggestion at cross-purposes, since the stimulus money is supposed to be creating the jobs to get these folks working again. Not that lapses in logic have ever bothered Republicans."

It may shock you to realize that not everybody accepts the Keynsian (sp?) arguement about stimulus spending. There may even be some goodhearted people in this country who do not think the Stimulus had any positive effect and in fact had a negative effect. I'm not prepared to have a long, drawn-out discussion on economic theory. I'm merely trying to point out that it's not just one side that is working in bad faith. the UI exetension could pass in an hour if it is offset. I think about Micky Kaus's common refrain that nothing in Congress can happen until it does. Let's face facts, Pelosi and Reid are allowing people to suffer to score political points. To acknowledge this does not necessarily absolve the opposition party.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | June 25, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Ifthethunderdontgetya,

I love it when Democrats try to excuse 40 years of Democratic class warfare by referring to 1980's era Republican strategists.

It is a perfect demonstration of their dishonesty.

http://sports.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20060519/news_1c19fixin.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | June 25, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Bernie: Jeff Goldberg ...

I was gonna disagree with you 'til I realized I was thinking of Jeff Goldblum.

Earth girls may indeed be easy, but the 8th dimension is really where it's at.

Posted by: jzap | June 25, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

P.S. Why are those freshwater guys such luddites?

Posted by: jzap | June 25, 2010 11:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm not prepared to have a long, drawn-out discussion on economic theory.

- Trolly Wingnut

===========================

Shorter: My side has been totally discredited in the past decade, so let's talk about something else.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | June 25, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

McWing, thanks for dropping the schtick, maybe someday we can have a real discussion. For now we'll just disagree re motives.

Have a nice weekend all, off to the beach in the a.m. Later.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 26, 2010 12:20 AM | Report abuse

I meant to link this earlier. The media totally missed the story re the Rolling Stone article while some of us have been begging for something to change other than Generals. Good night again!

"So a story that was an indictment of the war became a lesson in how the White House would be sticking with its plan. As the Washington Post (6/24/10) put it, Obama's "decision to turn over the Afghan command to Gen. David H. Petraeus allowed the president to keep his war strategy intact." NBC Pentagon reporter Jim Miklasziewski (6/23/10) declared that "the military is very high on David Petraeus, and there should be no slowdown or hitch in the Afghanistan strategy." NBC reporter Chuck Todd (6/23/10) noted that the "one thing the president made clear: He may be changing commanders, but not the mission.... Trading McChrystal for Petraeus neutralized what could have turned into another political mess."

Of course, the war in Afghanistan would already seem to qualify as a "mess," to say the very least. But for now, Obama asserted presidential control--and that's something most reporters and pundits were eager to cheer."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/25-7

Posted by: lmsinca | June 26, 2010 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Your right Ifthethunderdontgetya:

"Shorter: My side has been totally discredited in the past decade, so let's talk about something else."

In the middle of a discussion about political motives, and about who is or is not acting in good faith, a responsible commenter is obligated to drop in 2000 word treatises advocating Hayak, Smith and Von Mises. How thoughtless of me.

And your insightful analysis was certainly well sourced.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | June 26, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Shorter: My side has been totally discredited in the past decade, so let's talk about something else.

And most of the debt was run up during the Bush era. Incomes of the vast majority were flat while the top 1% saw their incomes skyrocket. Exactly what school of economics says that its a good idea to fund 2 wars, two tax cuts for the wealthy, buy off seniors with a flawed prescription drug plan, preside over the biggest financial crisis and economic slump since the great depression, and leave the disaster for someone else to clean up?

Posted by: srw3 | June 26, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

srw3, you state: "And most of the debt was run up during the Bush era. Incomes of the vast majority were flat while the top 1% saw their incomes skyrocket. Exactly what school of economics says that its a good idea to fund 2 wars, two tax cuts for the wealthy, buy off seniors with a flawed prescription drug plan, preside over the biggest financial crisis and economic slump since the great depression, and leave the disaster for someone else to clean up?"

Whats hilarious is that I agree with much of what you say, I to(o? I can never remember 1 o or 2)find deficit spending distasteful. If it makes you feel better, i thought/think that the drug plan was/is a disaster. Bush obviously was not nearly rigorous enough in properly regulating Fannie and Freddie and he and Congress essentially bankrupted us to increase home ownership, at least temporarily, by a couple of percent.

What I don't understand though is if we agree that deficit spending is a big cause of our current depression, why would you support someone who is essentially quadrupling it? I'd be willing to hold hearings on Bush's spending malfeasance and any possible penal ramifications that it may entail if you'll agree the same consequence goes for any current or former member of our legislature that voted for deficit spending. You in?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | June 26, 2010 12:53 AM | Report abuse

There's no such word as FinReg, GregSar.

Posted by: pj_camp | June 26, 2010 2:05 AM | Report abuse

Jzap "earth girls are easy"

Earth guys are easier.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 26, 2010 6:59 AM | Report abuse

"On Friday, however, officials close to McChrystal began trying to salvage his reputation by asserting that the author, Michael Hastings, quoted the general and his staff in conversations that he was allowed to witness but not report." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504087.html?hpid=topnews

Not much of a salvage operation. "Sure, darling, I did tell all the guys at the office that you're a fat, ugly slob and I hate being married to you but I didn't know that you were standing behind me!"

Posted by: bernielatham | June 26, 2010 7:13 AM | Report abuse

tao said: "Hyperbole in overdrive only works on the kidz."

I invite you to take up the relatively simple task I set that was un-attempted by the other fellow. If I'm guilty of hyperbole (in any gear) you ought to have little problem.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 26, 2010 7:18 AM | Report abuse

Sunday Times of London retracts its "climategate" coverage (long after damage done, of course)...

"The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.

In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure . . . was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that . . . Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change. . . . A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this."
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html

Posted by: bernielatham | June 26, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse

COP leader describes the flow of oil into the Gulf as "nothing more than a trickle" http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/06/25#0044

Posted by: bernielatham | June 26, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Texas GOP platform points the way forward for American consservatives...


"We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights.

Our policy [on Israel] is based on God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise..." http://washingtonindependent.com/88487/texas-gop-unveils-brand-new-far-right-platform

Barely missing the cut (hoping to get it in next year)"

"Acknowledging God's injunction in Lev.15: 19-24, we affirm that Congress will bar all women from voting while in their period of menstrual uncleanness"

Posted by: bernielatham | June 26, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

@TMCWN:I'd be willing to hold hearings on Bush's spending malfeasance and any possible penal ramifications that it may entail if you'll agree the same consequence goes for any current or former member of our legislature that voted for deficit spending. You in?

All kinds of deficit spending is not the same. Deficit spending for things like unnecessary wars and tax cuts that redistributes income radically upward to the top 1% IS NEVER A GOOD WAY TO SPEND MONEY, DEFICIT OR NO. Countercyclical spending on infrastructure, aid to states, direct job creation (since businesses are not hiring), and subsidizing business through low interest rates is a good thing because the big issue in the economy is lack of demand. So no, I am not in. Even though it was way too small the stimulus did stop unemployment from continuing to rise and even cut it a little bit. More spending on unemployment is the best of the best ways to get money directly into the economy. Tax cuts for the rich is the least effective way to get money flowing in the economy. Until the economy gets going again, there is no way to bring deficits down because not enough people are paying taxes right now. Do you understand the concept of a deflationary spiral? There is no incentive to spend if people believe that prices are flat or going down. Less spending means that people cut prices more, and so it goes. That is the major problem in this ecnomy right now.

Posted by: srw3 | June 26, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"Jon Kyl finally walks back his claim that Obama was holding border security hostage to immigration reform."

This is a much bigger deal than it is being credited. Kyl lied about what Obama said in a private meeting. Kyl's spokesman specifically denied the WH spox's disavowal by saying that only Kyl and Obama were in the room.

Are there no repercussions for Republicans for anything anymore? When did the GOP get a free pass the say or do anything without regard to truth or decency? Where is the apology from Kyl to Obama? Where is the shame for falesely calling the POTUS a liar?

Is this country insane?

Posted by: wbgonne | June 26, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

I totally agree wbgonne. That Kyl thing is absolutely unbelievable. He just flat out lies. In public. To everyone, including the media. And everyone knows it. And yet what?

It seems like it's just generally accepted that these people -- who are out to damage this President by any means possible, even if it means damaging the country -- are FLAGRANTLY LYING and getting away with it. It doesn't even matter what it's about. The Stimulus, HCR, Energy Reform, Immigration. These people are FLAGRANT, SERIAL liars and yet nobody seems to care when they get caught again and again. It is madness.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 26, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

FinReg @NYT:

“It’s a tough bill, and shows the pendulum is swinging toward tighter regulation,” said Frederick Cannon, a banking analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods in New York. “This is going to pressure bank earnings well into the future.”

[...]

Of course, all the big banks would feel some effect. Goldman Sachs, for example, would have to rein in its high-rolling traders. Wells Fargo would be subjected to stricter rules on consumer lending. And many large banks would feel the pinch of lower transaction fees on debit cards.

[...]

Charles Geisst, a professor of finance at Manhattan College and a Wall Street historian, said the bill, which is expected to be signed by President Obama before the Fourth of July holiday, was the most comprehensive financial regulation since the Great Depression because it touched on so many different areas. But he said its effects would not be as fundamental as the impact of changes made in the wake of the Depression.

“It doesn’t go anywhere near,” he said. “It doesn’t change institutional behavior like that did. This is business as usual, with some moderation.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/business/26morgan.html

Of course it could be tougher.

But it's still pretty impressive. We'll just have to keep the pendulum swinging that direction (towards regulating behemoth banks and wall street excess).

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 26, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"These people are FLAGRANT, SERIAL liars and yet nobody seems to care when they get caught again and again. It is madness."

Ethan, I really think they're just politicians and they want more power, and they'll do anything to get it. Let's face it, they ALL lie, even Obama. Some of them are better than others at it. If you or I were a member of congress, we'd probably have to lie sometime too. It goes with the territory. They can't please everybody, so they tell different "truths" to different people.

Now, what the republicans lie about is what's most disturbing to me.

Posted by: SDJeff | June 26, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

All, Saturday roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/saturday_roundup_7.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 26, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Ethan & Jeff:

I think this is important and I'm going to re-post on Greg's new thread.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 26, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company