Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Question of the day, about the death of ambitious climate change legislation: The finger pointing has already begun over who's to blame for failing to win any GOP support for a comprehensive measure.

But why did anyone ever expect any Republicans to support it, given the events of the last year and a half?

* David Roberts places the blame exactly where it belongs: Mainly on the "centrist" Senate Democrats who refused to budge "no matter how many compromises were made, no matter how clear the urgency of the problem."

* Harry Reid is promising that some sort of climate change effort could be revived later this year, but let's face it, this just isn't going to happen.

* But: Senate Democrats did win two Republicans over to inch forward last night on efforts to deliver $30 billion in aide to small business.

* Euphemism of the day: The New York Times suggests that the Shirley Sherrod mess and other racial controversies are fueled by "tactical opposition politics from the right." Hey, at least the paper mentioned who the culprit is here.

* Good old David Obey: He cuts through the B.S., identifying the problem clearly as right wing media, specifically Fox.

"It's an ideological hatchet machine and they should be ashamed for carrying that kind of crap without checking it out."

* This will drive some discussion today: Sharron Angle, asked by a voter about what she would do to create jobs as Senator, appeared to say job creation should be left to state governments:

"It really comes from the statehouse to incentivize that kind of stuff in our state," Angle said. "Truly, the lieutenant governor, Brian Krolicki, you should have this conversation with him. That's his job, to make sure that we get business into this state. My job is to create the climate so that everybody wants to come."

* Ronald Brownstein identifies Obama's core problem: He has yet to persuade skeptical voters that activist government is capable of delivering, which may be true, though I'd say the economy is far more responsible than spending and deficits for creating this skepticsm.

* Senator Ben Nelson appears to wholeheartedly agree with the Republican position that unemployment benefits are bad for the deficit but tax cuts for the rich aren't.

* And if Sarah Palin cuts and runs from the lamestream media, then how will she ever handle Al Qaeda?

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  July 23, 2010; 8:34 AM ET
Categories:  Senate Dems  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Politico: Yes, Palin degrades our discourse, but she drives traffic

Comments

The biggest dissapointment of Reid holding onto his seat will be the fact that we'll likely have to deal with his continued 'leadership' in the Senate. If only he would start threatening chairmenships of those Dems that completely walk away from Democratic principals.

In the House...if Dems retain the majority, I'll be thrilled if they lose 20 Blue Dogs. That will make the caucus more consolidated and more progressive.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 23, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

I try to avoid calling for the heads of conservative Dems who don't tow the party line because I understand that the chances of us getting 60 Bernie Sanders is absolutely zero - but I have to admit I'm ready to see Nelson and his plastic hair go bye-bye.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 23, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Can't we have a math competency threshold for senators? If a senator won't agree that subtracting revenue is fiscally identical to adding spending, they have to go back to 4th grade math until they understand this basic concept. I can't believe that anyone would say such tripe.

Posted by: srw3 | July 23, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Climate change bill ? In this climate of joblessness and economic disaster ?

Tell me Greg, which G 20 country so far has pushed for climate change and got it ? Didn't the NZ PM get kicked in his nutz for pushing it and now he is an 'ex-PM' ?

Right cause, but wrong time to push it. When will the dems/progressives/liberals ever learn about timing ?

Posted by: amkeew | July 23, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

"Where have all the serious Republicans gone?"
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment?page=0,0

Posted by: bernielatham | July 23, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Greg: You are correct that the economy is Elephant in the Room. However, even on this Brownstein's point is still valid as he writes:

"Most voters think that the principal beneficiaries of everything government has done to fix the economy since 2009 have been the same interests that broke it: big banks, Wall Street, the wealthy."

How are people supposed to believe in Government when Government primarily helps those who need and deserve help the least? As I've said many times, Obama squandered his chance to be bold and he is suffering now because his half-measures have garnered criticism without reward.

As yet another example, here is the NYT lead Editorial today:

"On Thursday, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, abandoned the fight for meaningful energy and climate legislation. The Republicans — surprise — had been fiercely obstructionist. But the Democratic leaders let them get away with it, as did the White House. It has been weeks since President Obama spoke out about the need for a serious climate bill to address the very real danger of global warming and to lessen this country’s dependence on imported oil. ...

Mr. Obama never fully committed to the fight. He raised hopes here and around the world last year when he pledged in Copenhagen to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent. Until a couple of months ago, he talked a good game, praising the House bill that aimed at the 17 percent target and promising to make every effort to get the Senate to follow. Then, despite the opportunity offered by the oil spill to press for a bold energy policy, the president essentially disappeared. What has passed for advocacy by the White House in recent days has consisted largely of one op-ed article by the energy adviser, Carol Browner, and daily assurances from the press secretary, Robert Gibbs, that the White House was “working behind the scenes.”"

I have never witnessed a more passive presidency.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 23, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Times link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/opinion/23fri1.html?ref=opinion

Posted by: wbgonne | July 23, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

correction: replace math with arithmetic, since it is only addition and subtraction, no fractions, no algebra, no calculus. I don't think that this is too much to ask. And speaking of asking, every republican should be put on the record if they believe that 4th grade arithmetic applies to the federal budget: reducing revenue is fiscally the same as adding spending. Is this too much to ask?

Posted by: srw3 | July 23, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse


Climate change bill ? In this climate of joblessness and economic disaster ?

Tell me Greg, which G 20 country so far has pushed for climate change and got it ? Didn't the NZ PM get kicked in his nutz for pushing it and now he is an 'ex-PM' ?

Right cause, but wrong time to push it. When will the dems/progressives/liberals ever learn about timing ?

Posted by: amkeew | July 23, 2010 9:10 AM |
...............

Right you are, and since China, India, and Brazil got together, at the last summit, and agreed to not do anything about reducing their emissions, that pretty much killed any chance for to save the planet from massive climate change.


I believe it was Kevin Rudd, The Australian Prime Minister, that got cut off at the knees, and removed, by his own party, for having pushed for emissions standards.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 23, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Greg, you might to check out this swampland piece on climate change bill since you seem pissed off that you didn't get your pony.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/07/23/there-will-be-an-energy-bill-soon/

"
Why? Because there is a Supreme Court ruling, now three years old, that carbon dioxide is a poison that needs to be cleaned up. Next year, the Environmental Protection Agency will begin regulating the hell out of Co2. The business community won't like that, nor will many Republicans. "Putting a price on carbon is the only alternative," says Senator Maria Cantwell, who has offered a bill--with Maine Republican Susan Collins as co-sponsor--that would force the 2000 top polluters to participate in an auction to purchase the right to spew; 75% of the income would be returned as a "dividend" to taxpayers, the other 25% would go to alternative energy."

If I want navel gazing, I'll go to dailykos, thank you.

Posted by: amkeew | July 23, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

amkeew:

Climate change and energy reform can and should be sold as economic boosters. New industries, new jobs, new exports. Reduced costs from the calamitous consequences of fossil fuel addiction. Once the auto industry collapsed the government held all the cards. I thought Obama knew all this. Then we have the Gulf Oil Disaster which should have been a capstone for energy reform. Seems to me that most of the failures of this Administration result from their unwillingness to take on the plutocracy. Too beholden to Big Business. And that is a very tough way to sell the idea that government can protect Americans against the plutocracy's excesses.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 23, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

I never thought I'd despise a Senator more than Lieberman. Kudos Ben Nelson for taking the #1. You've clearly worked hard for it.

Posted by: OKeefePup | July 23, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Liam - My bad. Aussie it is. The irony is that Rudd took on the mining lobby, which is powerful and the filthy rich, and he got canned for it and in the same month, the richest mining man died in the plane crash in Africa on a 'mission' to exploit that continent's natural riches.

Posted by: amkeew | July 23, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

I want to keep pointing out where the MSM has really fallen down on the job. They continue to be duped by these Republican Con Artists.

TeaBaggers. There are no Democrats among their ranks. They do not engage in any primary activities for Democratic Candidates.

They only held rallies for Republican Politicians. They only back what the elected Republicans back.

Recall how the Republicans came out to address them, while the health care vote was being debated in Congress.


The MSM are a bunch of useful idiots that keep calling them The Tea Party Movement, when in fact their entire political operations are confined solely within the the election activities of Republican Candidates.

They are the usual right wing Republican Activists, pretending to be something else, and the idiots in the MSM have been taken in by their Kabuki act.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 23, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Yes, carbon pricing CAN be done administratively but what makes you think the Administration will actually do it? And what is done administratively can easily be undone administratively. All it takes is a different president.

BTW: Please insert your pony where the sun don't shine.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 23, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

@TheBBQChickenMadness: I used to think that Reid was worthless as Majority Leader, but I've reconsidered lately after following his reelection campaign tweets - they are *hilarious* & extremely aggressive and jump all over Angles insane comments (not that that's hard). It's made me inclined to think that he's far more of a fighter than most people think. I think a lot of it is that he's in a terrible situation. He's got huge issues on his own side with Nelson. Lieberman's always a pain in the butt. It's been a necessary evil to have to go to Brown, Collins, Snowe to compromise. I think he's a quiet fighter, but has been effective given what he's got.

That said, I would find it more enjoyable to see Schumer or Durbin as Leader, but only b/c both have huge mouths & will be loud as hell. But not sure my desire to hear a more public fight means they would actually be more effective in that different role. May be better for us to leave them as attack dogs who don't have to negotiate.

Posted by: OKeefePup | July 23, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

amkeew: "Why? Because there is a Supreme Court ruling, now three years old, that carbon dioxide is a poison that needs to be cleaned up. Next year, the Environmental Protection Agency will begin regulating the hell out of Co2. The business community won't like that, nor will many Republicans."

Thank you, thank YOU! I have been saying this for weeks now.

Also, as I read it, I think there is a lot of merit to the Cantwell/Collins bill. It's pretty straightforward and easy to understand, treats all polluters equally, doesn't pick any favorites or winners, and keeps a check on consumer's pocketbooks. To my way of thinking, there is a lot to like.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 23, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

And another thing: the United States is NOT Australia. For 100 years we have led the world in new technologies not followed whining and kicking about change. China is already setting limits on its coal plants and developing clean energy sources and they are still in the midst of their industrial revolution.

No. We. Can't. Inspirational it is not.

Later, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 23, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

@srw3: Clearly many of these math-challenged Senators were children left behind…

Posted by: OKeefePup | July 23, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I honestly don't know why people think the Cantwell-Collins legislation will go anywhere. It won't. Kerry-Lieberman-Graham was supposed to supplant with an even more industry friendly bill and even THAT died.

Yes, EPA can do it. The question is will they? I have serious doubts. Maybe someone could get an Administration official on record about this.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 23, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

You want to sell emissions standards, in order to avoid massive climate change.

Sell it as a Vital National Security Issue.

Some of the top Military Brass have said that it is, including General Petraeus.

In this country; The Military gets more spend on it, than in even asks for; so use the Top Brass to sell the need for emissions reductions.

Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats can not say no to The Military, so go after them in that manner.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 23, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat: I try to avoid calling for the heads of conservative Dems who don't tow the party line because I understand that the chances of us getting 60 Bernie Sanders is absolutely zero - but I have to admit I'm ready to see Nelson and his plastic hair go bye-bye.

I have mixed feelings about Blue Dogs. I live in a purply district that has a long term centrist Republican representative (Fred Upton) who has moved markedly to the right because he is getting a primary challenge from an extreme conservative. Would I take a Blue Dog Democrat in place of Upton who supports our agenda most of the time? You bet! Chances are not at all likely a liberal or progressive would be elected here. That is reality, folks.

As far as the Senate is concerned, Democrats really need to instill some party discipline as far as procedural votes go. They should pay a price for joining the opposition in filibusters. Period. That goes for Feingold as well as Nelson.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 23, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

Any idea why Lemieux went rogue and supported the small business loan amendment? And made a statement that goes out of its way to contradict Shelby and other GOPers? I wasn't surprised by Voinovich, who has sometimes been a closet moderate, but disappointed that Collins and Snowe were so shameless in carrying McConnell's water, particularly as GOP makes such patently false objections.

Posted by: BillB10 | July 23, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Speak of the devil:

"Over the past two years, cap-and-trade advocates used the threat of U.S. EPA climate regulations as a key driver in the push for climate legislation on Capitol Hill. Now, Democratic leaders face the challenge of renewed bipartisan interest in handcuffing EPA before it takes action. President Obama and many Democrats reveled six weeks ago in the successful defeat of a Senate bid to neuter EPA's authority over emissions. But with the Senate climate bill dead, new momentum is building for legislation that would pre-empt the agency's power under the Clean Air Act to regulate stationary pollution sources."

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/07/23/23climatewire-efforts-to-block-epas-greenhouse-gas-regulat-50829.html

Posted by: wbgonne | July 23, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Liam: "Sell it as a Vital National Security Issue.

Some of the top Military Brass have said that it is, including General Petraeus.

In this country; The Military gets more spend on it, than in even asks for; so use the Top Brass to sell the need for emissions reductions."

Votevets.org has been running some pretty powerful ads about climate change. If you haven't seen them on the teevee, you can see them on their website. They make the national security link, the death of American soldiers, even the link to putting the $$ into the pockets of Iran. Just excellent.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 23, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"As far as the Senate is concerned, Democrats really need to instill some party discipline as far as procedural votes go. They should pay a price for joining the opposition in filibusters. Period. That goes for Feingold as well as Nelson. "

ITA. I understand that dems from conservative districts/states may have to buck the party on particular pieces of legislation - but joining the repubs on procedural votes is inexcusable to me.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 23, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Maddow took on O'Reilly last night. Worth a watch. I am an unabashed fan.

"You were trying to take the attention off me saying that your network, FOX News, continually crusades on flagrantly bogus stories designed to make white Americans fear black Americans, which FOX News most certainly does for a political purpose even if it upends the lives of individuals like Shirley Sherrod, even as it phrased the fabric of the nation, and even as it makes the American Dream more of a dream and less of a promise.

You can insult us all you want about television ratings, Mr. O'Reilly, and you'll be right that yours are bigger for now and maybe forever. You are the undisputed champion. But even if no one watches us at all, except for my mom and my girlfriend and people who forgot to turn off the TV after Keith, you are still wrong on what really matters and that would be the facts, your highness."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/23/rachel-maddow-responds-to_n_656910.html

Posted by: lmsinca | July 23, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Maddow was pitch perfect against O'Reilly, Imsinca. It really made me smile.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 23, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

What I am talking about is putting on a Media Blitz dog and pony show; to sell the Vital National Security Aspects of getting our carbon use under control.

Committee Members should be holding hearings, where the top Military Brass testify about the Urgent National Security aspect of the problem.

Then have those same Military Brass, appear on all the TV talk shows, including the Sunday ones, spelling out why the Congress and Senate must pass the legislation.

Put the Republicans and Blue Dogs on the spot. Pit them against the Military on this issue, and many of them will be forced to give in, or face ads. accusing them of being soft on National Security.

Let's get to it, White House and Congressional Leaders.

Beat The Republicans over the head, again and again, with their own; "Soft On National Security" club.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 23, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

From Yglesias -

"The Meticulous and Fair Tucker Carlson

From the beginning of Jonathan Strong’s series of articles about JournoList for the Daily Caller, he’s consistently misrepresented the content of the emails he’s writing about. In response, I’ve consistently pushed strong to not only publish his “reporting” on the content of the emails but also the emails themselves so that Strong’s readers could see the evidence for themselves. Given that this would cost Strong nothing, his refusal to do so speaks volumes about the dishonesty of the enterprise he’s engaged in. Now, Strong’s boss, Tucker Carlson, has put out a statement about his publication’s coverage of the story that only compounds the dishonesty:

Tucker’s note doesn’t bother to mention the actual questions that have been raised: That his stories have misstated fact, misled readers, and omitted evidence that would contradict his thesis. He doesn’t explain how a thread in which no journalists suggested shutting down Fox News can be headlined “Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News.” He doesn’t tell us why an article about the open letter that originated on the list left out the fact that I subsequently banned any future letters from the list. He doesn’t detail why his stories haven’t mentioned that one of his own reporters was on the list — his readers would presumably be interested to know that the Daily Caller was part of the liberal media conspiracy.

Instead, Tucker says, well, trust him. “I edited the first four stories myself,” he writes, “and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with.”

This is absurd. If Carlson has never worked with non-liars, then I guess that’s a sad fact about Carlson’s life. But I doubt it. Rather, Carlson just seems to be about as dishonest as Strong and intends to double down on it. But again the point remains: If the JList thread about Fox News is newsworthy enough to merit an article, isn’t it newsworthy enough for the Caller’s audience to read the thread? The reason for this selective release is that the headline doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Fortunately, no other employer seems inclined to follow the Washington Post’s lead and give in to this absurd bullying by punishing its employees for having drifted into Carlson’s field of vision. Consequently, I end up simply feeling bad for (a) Dave Weigel, and (b) the conservative reading public, which Carlson is in the process of duping for no good reason. I’ve seen vaguely parallel conspiracy theories develop on the left from time to time (the legend of Grover Norquist’s Wednesday meetings comes to mind) but never one propounded so cynically or transparently." http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/the-meticulous-and-fair-tucker-carlson/

(further note in next post)

Posted by: bernielatham | July 23, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

As others (like Alterman) have argued, the assault on "news" gathering and reporting as an inherently biased activity permits those like FOX to play fast and loose with facts and honesty in what they promote. It becomes OK to be biased and dishonest because everyone else is. It gives warrant for deceits and falsehoods and carelessness and inaccuracies. It gives warrant for propaganda.

But as ugly as this all is (and as dangerous to our polity) I think it is a mistake to imagine that the only thing Carlson or Breitbart or Limbaugh or Ailes or Armey etc are up to here is merely a continuation of this decades-old attempt to invalidate American (or any other) media and journalism as biased in favor of the left so as to facilitate political propaganda. That's a large part of the story (and, of course, a classic example of the ad hominem) but it's not the most egregious nor the most dangerous aspect of what they do.

The larger consequence being sought is a reframing of how we should come to ascertain what is true and what is false.

We cannot, this reframed epistemology suggests, trust scientists/science (global warming, pollution, evolution, fluoride, innoculations) nor social scientists (correlations between abstinence education and pregnancy/sexual activity) nor historians nor educators nor economists nor specialists nor pollsters nor demographers nor the well educated nor anyone else to get things right IF THEY APPEAR BY EITHER AFFILIATIONS OR BY THEIR CONCLUSIONS TO BELONG TO A DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHICAL/POLITICAL/RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL TRIBE.

If we think of their operations as driving towards this larger end, much becomes understandable that falls outside of the "biased media" proposition.

And this leads one to considerations of in who desires and benefits from such an epistemological reframing.

Posted by: bernielatham | July 23, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

lms - It would have been better if Rachel had gone after that ranter reilly's lack of journalistic ethics and stopped at that. This 'us vs them' only makes her sound defensive. My 2 cents.

Posted by: amkeew | July 23, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Thanks to bernialatham for publishing Yglesias' commentary on Carlson. I also read Carlson's defense of not publishing whole threads - boring and not newsworthy - and found it ridiculous. Don't others have access to the same material and the ability to post, if Carlson won't?

Posted by: BillB10 | July 23, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Why isn't Tucker Carlson letting his readers know that one of his reporters was a member of Journolist, even keeping his membership after being hired by the Daily Caller? Would he be embarassed if his readers thought one of his guys was considered a part of the "liberal media?"

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 23, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

I have something for you to do a thread on: Mark Kirk's record on lying about his past, including his military record:

Here is the latest example of him lying, that has just been exposed by The Chicago Tribune.

"Conflicting details in Kirk's 1976 lake rescue"


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-kirk-coast-guard-20100722,0,7637895.story

"11:58 PM CDT, July 22, 2010


Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk for a decade has told the story of how he nearly drowned when he was 16 while sailboating on Lake Michigan and how his rescue by the Coast Guard inspired him to pursue a career in public service.

The story is sprinkled with attention-grabbing details, but there are inconsistencies in Kirk's statements that suggest parts of his real-life drama have been embellished, a Tribune review has found.

In the most recent instance, the 50-year-old North Shore congressman told a boating magazine that he stood on his overturned sailboat and watched the sun set, when in fact he was rescued in midafternoon on June 15, 1976.

Kirk also has said he swam up to a mile in 42-degree water and that he was rescued with his body temperature hovering two degrees from death. Those declarations are questionable, based on interviews with an eyewitness and medical experts.

Basic elements of Kirk's story are not in dispute. He did capsize his boat, was pulled from the water by the Coast Guard and was taken by ambulance to a hospital. He said any inconsistencies in news accounts or his own words are minor and do not diminish the significance of the traumatic, life-changing experience.

"This is one of the most important events in my life. I was not as well-focused before this event but very well-focused after, aware of your own mortality," Kirk told the Tribune in a recent interview while standing near the spot on Lake Michigan where he set sail in 1976. "But … 34 years ago as a 16-year-old, this is the way I remember it."

It is not the first time this year Kirk has had to reconcile his public statements about major moments in his life with records that contradict him or don't back up the details as he tells them. Questions about Kirk's descriptions of his military career have become a significant issue in his race with Democratic state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias to fill the seat once held by President Barack Obama.

Kirk, a Navy Reserve officer, recently apologized for repeatedly overstating his military achievements, from claiming an award for his intelligence unit as his own to saying he came under enemy fire while flying intelligence missions over Iraq. Stung by criticism, Kirk now declines to talk about his Navy service and instead refers questioners to his military records.

The Tribune examined the boating story in light of Kirk's acknowledgment that he overstated his military career."

Be sure to go to the link, and read the entire long article from the Tribune.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 23, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

From Benen:

"Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has a plan for what the Republicans should do if they win control of the House of Representatives: Spend all their time investigating the Obama administration.

"Oh, I think that's all we should do," Bachmann told the Three Fingers of Politics website. "I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another, and expose all the nonsense that has gone on."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 23, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

All, check out Politico's admission about Sarah Palin:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/politico_yes_palin_degrades_di.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 23, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

The Big Fat Pillbilly is Mad at the Fox Cable News Network, because they did not stay steadfastly racist enough, in their coverage of the Breibart Doctored Video clip.


"(CNN) – Rush Limbaugh said Thursday on his radio show that Fox News and at least one of its anchors "caved" in its coverage of Shirley Sherrod, the former USDA employee who was fired in haste on Monday after an edited clip of her was posted on a conservative website.

"I have to go after it … because even Fox caved on this," Limbaugh said. "Even Shep Smith. Even poor old Shep Smith went down there and said that everybody's wrong on this, that [BigGovernment.com founder Andrew] Breitbart is wrong and so forth. There's only a handful of us that have the guts to put this story straight. If we don't hammer back nobody will.""

Posted by: Liam-still | July 23, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Bachmann: the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | July 23, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"But why did anyone ever expect any Republicans to support it, given the events of the last year and a half?"
---------------------------------------------

A very fair question. Here's another. With no hope of Republican support, did anyone seriously expect Democrats could possibly push it past the 60 vote threshhold that it the minimum standard of success for senate Democrats these days?

Oops, never mind. I see that you've already answered that question:

---------------------------------------------
"David Roberts places the blame exactly where it belongs: Mainly on the "centrist" Senate Democrats..."
---------------------------------------------

Posted by: CalD | July 23, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

So we must have faith in their judgment as peer reviewed professionals? That's religion and delusional religion because there is plenty of debate out there. And isn’t it a little silly to still argue that GWing is real this late in game? There is no reason to have faith in the end of the world from what clearly looks like bad, unprofessional and political science that was hyped by an equally irresponsible media. Try being a denier because it doesn’t mean we stop addressing pollution, only the CO2 mistake. Get ahead of the curve and be a responsible environmentalist and climate change denier.
We as deniers WERE all believers and if you just made the time to see for yourself that there is good news of no climate crisis, it would be worth it and make you happier and a better person who can spread optimism and courage to our children. It’s all good. There is enough debate out there to explain the absence of the predicted crisis.
Life is good

Posted by: paulmerrifield | July 24, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company