Listening to Now: Tom Jones and Chieftans - The Tennessee Waltz

By Richard K. Barry

The Long Black Veil is an album released by the Chieftans on Dec. 31, 1995. It contains songs performed by a number of well known artists accompanied by the band. Participating artists include Sting, Marianne Faithful, Ry Cooder, Mark Knopfler, Van Morrison and the Stones.

CD Universe:

"Have I Told You Lately That I Love You?," performed with Van Morrison, won a 1996 Grammy Award for Best Pop Collaboration With Vocals. The Long Black Veil was nominated for a 1996 Grammy for Best Contemporary Folk Album.

I've always liked this Tom Jones collaboration on "Tennessee Waltz," much as I am surprised by that. The song was written in 1946 by Redd Stewart and Pee Wee King and, of course, made famous by Patti Page.

What, will these hands ne'er be clean?

By Capt. Fogg

There's a lesson to be learned from the trial of Guatemala's former dictator Efrian Rios Montt, ‘a man of great personal integrity . . . totally dedicated to democracy’ said Ronald Reagan, surprised upon visiting him in Honduras that Central America was composed of several countries. But few Americans will care or will even be aware that at long last he's been found guilty of genocide and war crimes.

The things that went on in Guatemala  were gruesome, horrifying and heart-breaking but I don't have the stomach to relate even part of it.  You can read about it here and if you do, if you can tear yourself away from Boston Bomber stories, School shooting stories' da scores' and Cleveland sex slaves long enough, perhaps you'll take a further moment to meditate and perhaps agonize over the part our country, always howling about freedom as if we invented it, played in yet another sordid and brutal horror.

Yes, Rios Montt is a monster like so many Latin American monsters in Chile, Argentina and elsewhere, all of whom were supported by the Land of the Free and even placed in power by violent  US assistance.  Rios Montt whose  squads were supported and advised by and trained by the Reagan administration, wasn't a Communist you see and that's what counts and so it didn't matter that he raped, tortured, brutalized attempted to murder an entire ethnicity because they were better off dead than Red. better off dead than getting in the way of  the very few and very rich. Red of course means looking for some hero to improve life from the hopeless, unchanging, grinding, disease ridden, starvation and poverty Central American Kleptocracy needs in order to provide a most excellent life for people like Rios Montt and his generals.


Read more »

Behind the Ad: Pro-McConnell group runs an anti-ObamaCare spot

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series)

Who: Kentucky Opportunity Coalition

Where: Lexington and Louisville

What's going on: In places like Kentucky it would seem that people like the idea of going bankrupt when they get sick. Or maybe they are stupid enough to believe ads like this one that tell them that affordable healthcare is the worst thing that has ever happened to America.

It is true that many provisions of the health care law will go into effect in 2014 and that implementation of such a significant program will no doubt come with some glitches. The Republicans are hoping to make something out of that.

Politics is always about timing and Republicans better attack now before Americans start liking the idea of having health care, which I think they will.

So far, Democrats don't have a candidate to run against McConnell though Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes seems to be their best chance, if she runs.

McConnell is a nasty piece of work and will be hard to beat, though he shouldn't be.

 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Vegas oddsmakers say betting against Rove is "as good as it gets"

By Richard K. Barry

Andy Borowitz at The New Yorker notes that the new attack ad by Karl Rove against Hillary Clinton,  which I posted this morning, has pushed her stock to the point that "oddsmakers now say she is virtually guaranteed to be the next President of the United States."

People were bullish on Hillary before this,” said Tracy Klugian, a leading Las Vegas oddsmaker for over forty years. “But the Rove thing makes it a lock.”

After American Crossroads’s historic string of defeats in 2012, “Serious gamblers wait to see who Rove is supporting and then bet the house on the other side.”

Best line in the short piece is this:

While acknowledging that “there’s no sure thing” in the world of gambling, Mr. Klugian said that for professional gamblers, betting against Karl Rove is “as good as it gets.”

I know it's a silly little reference, but after Rove's pathetic performance in 2012, who is taking him seriously? And why would anyone give him money to do what he does? 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Enough already

By Mustang Bobby

The women held captive in Cleveland have been rescued. They have been reunited with their families. The man accused of the crime is in jail, been charged, and is awaiting trial.

So let the justice system and the families do their jobs and leave them alone. The story, as far as the minute-by-minute updates with BREAKING NEWS banners and breathless reporters in the middle of the street in east Cleveland, is over.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Behind the Ad: Karl Rove's first shameless attack on Clinton (there will be more)

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: American Crossroads (AKA Karl Rove)

Where: Web ad

What's going on: In what the New York Times is calling the first attack ad of the 2016 presidential campaign, American Crossroads accuses Hillary Clinton of mishandling the Benghazi killings. 

I think we can all agree that the administration's initial response to the attack was inept. Susan Rice put too much emphasis on the internet anti-Islam video as a possible cause when in fact it "turned out that the killers used protests over the video to launch a pre-planned attack."

As Andrew Rosenthal of the Times writes, this does not amount to a coverup, as Republicans love to say, but rather is simply a matter of poor communications.

And the other thing Republican love to hammer away at is the "pointless argument over whether the administration labeled the attacks “terrorism” early enough and often enough."

Having no argument has never stopped these people from arguing, and so it goes. 

The idiots at Fox have been saying all week that this is worse than Watergate because no one died due to Nixon's subversion of democracy. It does make me ask about all those who died because Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. I guess that doesn't count. 

Brace yourselves. Rosenthal is right when he says:

Mr. Rove built his reputation on smear tactics and the politics of fear. If he’s willing to go this far in an attack ad on Mrs. Clinton before she even says she’s running for president, can you imagine what an actual campaign will be like?

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(NBC News): "Clinton remains GOP focus as administration defends Benghazi talking points"

(The Hill): "White House denies misleading public on Benghazi talking points"

(MSNBC): "Largest fast food strike yet as workers walk out in Michigan"

(New York Times): "Pakistanis vote as violence mars end of vibrant campaign"

(Boston Globe): "National Democrats hit Gomez for role in group critical of Obama"

P.M. Headlines

(Slate): "Jason Richwine resigns from the Heritage Foundation"

(ABC News): "Exclusive: Benghazi talking points underwent 12 revisions, scrubbed terror reference"

(ThinkProgress): "What ABC left out of its report on Benghazi talking points"

(CNN): "Crews finish installing World Trade Center spire"

(New York Times): "IRS apologizes to conservative groups over audits"

The Benghazi scandal that isn't: How Republicans and the media are distorting a tragedy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Another day, another breathless report of something supposedly "new" in the whole Benghazi saga, which really just amounts to a media-enabled Republican assault on the the Obama Administration -- first the president himself as the target, now, with Republicans looking ahead to 2016, Hillary Clinton.

Today it's from Jonathan Karl of ABC News, who "reports" the following:

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

Okay... and? 

As ThinkProgress notes:

[T]he ABC report suggests the State Department "scrubbed" the talking points of terror references as some sort of nefarious cover-up of what really happened in Benghazi for political reasons. This, of course, playing into the GOP's conspiracy theory that President Obama was trying to preserve his campaign theme that his policies has significantly crippled the terror network. 

And I would note that Karl's piece seems to be written from the perspective of those conspiracy theories. At the very least, Karl is playing right along with the right's obsessions. ThinkProgress continues:

The story soon set reporters and Twitter alight. "Scrubbing the truth from Benghazi," a National Journal headline read. Even the BBC speculated that "heads will roll."

But absent in ABC's report is the key point that Obama and various members of his administration referred to the Benghazi assault as a terror attack on numerous occasions shortly after the incident (thereby negating the need to "scrub" any references in the talking points) and that then-CIA Director David Petraeus said the terrorist references were taken out to, as the New York Times reported, "avoid tipping off the groups" that may have been involved.

Basically, the State Department -- specifically former Cheney advisor Victoria Nuland -- was more involved in the development of the talking points than previously reported.

Republicans and their various enablers in the media -- who may think they're digging for the truth but are really just doing the Republicans' bidding -- seem to think this rises to the level of, well, something possibly worse than Watergate.

Read more »

Behind the Ad: The other special House election -- in Missouri's 8th Congressional District

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: The Jason Smith campaign.

Where: Missouri's 8th Congressional District

What's going on: Jo Ann Emerson resigned her House seat back in January of this year. She did that to take a job as president and CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. The election to replace her is on June 4.

The reason you may not have heard about this election is that it is in one of reddest congressional districts in America. Ms. Emerson won the seat in 2012 by a 72 to 25 percent margin. On February 9, 2013, per Missouri statute, Jason Smith was selected by the 8th District Republican Central Committee to be the Republican candidate in the June special election.

He is also the Missouri state House Speaker Pro Tem.

Democrats have nominated Bootheal Region state Rep. Steve Hodges. Charlie Cook notes that Emerson resigned at a time that might have made this election concurrent with municipal elections and therefore helped with turnout. In a very Republican state that would obviously help the Republican. But Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon decided to push it to June where it will stand alone and presumably result in lower turnout, which could aid Hodges.

It may also give Hodges time to define the election in terms of personality and not party, because if it's about party, its over for the Democrats. As Cook writes, Smith would have to show some pretty glaring deficiencies to lose. 

So, that's why you haven't heard about this one, unless you live in Missouri. 


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Money matters

By Mustang Bobby 

The way the Republicans tell it, the economy is still collapsing, the deficit is ballooning, the tax hikes in January are killing business, and Barack Obama is a socialist bent on crushing small business under the heel of the federal government with regulations on top of regulations. Oh god oh god we're all gonna die.

Except none of that is true:

The Congressional Budget Office reported Tuesday that the federal budget deficit is declining this year compared to fiscal 2012.

For the first seven months of 2013, the deficit was $489 billion. That is $231 billion less than the budget shortfall for the comparable period last year.

The decrease is almost entirely due to revenue increases.

And we are seeing the strongest rate of job growth in eight years.

Meanwhile, the stock market is booming, the Dow having hit 15,000 earlier this week.

As for the growth of regulations from the federal government, it's a canard you always hear from the Republicans — the party of vaginal probes, by the way — but it's been debunked time and again, even when it was a campaign issue for Mitt Romney.

As I've said before, if Barack Obama is a socialist, he really sucks at it.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Behind the Ad: The Benghazi attack ad that never aired

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: The Republican National Committee.

Where: Never aired.

What's going on: Jonathan Karl of ABC News got his hands on an ad created by the Republican National Committee to attack Obama over Benghazi, though it was never aired.

It was made last fall in the final weeks of the 2012 presidential campaign.

It begins with a replay of Hillary Clinton's famous "3 a.m. phone call" commercial from the 2008 campaign that she used to criticize Barack Obama's political experience and then moves to an image of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in flames:

Over the images of the attack – in which four Americans were killed – words appear on the screen:

"The Call Came … On September 12, 2012." As the screen goes black, the words continue: "Security Requests Denied. Four Americans Dead. And an Administration whose story is still changing. The Call Came."

Karl writes that a source familiar with the creation of the ad said it was approved by the RNC leadership but didn't run because Romney's campaign was afraid it would detract from their efforts to focus on the economy.

Whether or not that was the right call by Romney's people, something tells me we haven't heard the last of this approach, which I suspect will be used against Clinton should she run in 2016.

As with so much of the politicking the GOP does, it appeals to the already converted rather than helping to  expand their base. In other words, it's pure Fox News theatrics.



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(Politico): "Heritage Foundation does damage control"

(First Read): "First Thoughts: GOP shifts focus to Hillary"

(Rolling Stone): "Joe Biden: The Rolling Stone interview"

(Time): "Millennials: The Me Me Me Generation"

(ThinkProgress): "Darrell Issa acknowledges he learned nothing new from the Benghazi hearing"

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Latinos sharply narrow eduction gap"

(Politico): "Obama pivots back to jobs in Austin"

(Politico): "McCarthy's nomination in doubt, angering Democrats"

(Star Tribune): "Minnesota House approves gay marriage bill after two-hour debate"

(Washington Post): "Ohio prosecutor to seek murder charges against Ariel Castro"

Behind the Ad: Rep. Ed Markey invented the internet (not really)

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.) 

Who: The Ed Markey Senate campaign. 

Where: Massachusetts, on broadcast and cable television.

What's going on: In his first post-primary ad, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) talks about his record supporting the telecom industry.

The backstory is that Republicans have been critical of Markey for failing to address jobs and the economy in his campaign.

As The Hill notes:

The ad features Diane Hessan, CEO of a Boston-based communications firm, vouching for Markey's efforts.

"Then Ed Markey fought to break up monopolies and transform the telecom industry, unleashing competition and private sector investment and creating good jobs," she says.

His Republican opponent Gabriel Gomez and his campaign are also trying to make Markey's age and long tenure in Congress into a bad thing, which they are contrasting with Gomez's youth and business background:

Markey's assertion that he's in part responsible for the development of innovative technologies used by young people, including Facebook and smartphones, could counter the perception that he's out of touch.

It's all in the game -- trying to blunt criticism that you know will keep on coming.


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Tempest in a teapot that doesn't exist: The Republican "outrage" on Benghazi

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So we were told by Fox News and pretty much the entirety of the Republican conspiracy machine that yesterday's testimony before the (Republican-led) House committee "investigating" the Benghazi attack and its aftermath would provide the evidence that would finally expose President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, and anyone and everyone else the Republicans have been targeting as liars, and therefore as worthy of impeachment or whatever other severe punishment the vindicated Republicans wished to mete out.

Alas, it was nothing of the sort. Instead the testimony of the key Republican witnesses only served to crush the various right-wing conspiracy theories -- e.g., fighter jets could have been sent but weren't, a special forces team that could have helped was held back in Tripoli, Ambassador Rice's statements on the Sunday talk-show circuit were evidence of partisan-political interference -- that have become gospel among Republicans, not just with the crazies in the House and throughout conservative media but with media-promoted superstars like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Kevin Drum sums up the whole nonsense:

Was Benghazi mishandled? Maybe. Are there lessons to be learned? Probably. Is there a scandal or a coverup? There's never been any evidence of it, and there still isn't. This is a show that goes on and on without end, but it never delivers a payoff. Issa and his colleagues need to start paying more attention to stuff that actually matters, and give up on the Fox-friendly conspiracy theories that never pan out. Enough's enough.

Yes, but it won't be for Republicans, because it's not really about Benghazi. (If Republicans really gave a shit, maybe they wouldn't have voted against funding for diplomatic missions. As usual, their outrage is completely faux.) Before last November's election, it was about taking down the president. But now, with Obama secure in his second term, it's about taking down the Republicans' worst nightmare for 2016, Hillary Clinton. It's obvious. Steve M. looks ahead:

They're going to let up a little on Obama after 2014, and Hillary's going to become the most evil person in the world again. They may even decide they kind of like Obama, if they can figure out a way to use that against her. It's going to be bizarre. And it's going to be as ugly as the Obama-hate has been.

It's ugly, it's vicious, it's pathetic, and it's pretty much all they've got. So expect much, much more of it.

Winning votes with smears, lies, and ridiculous conspiracy theories. It's the Republican way.

Read more »

Nothing new on immigration

By Frank Moraes 

Jonathan Chait wrote yesterday morning that immigration reform is different this time. He focused on the conservative push back against the Heritage Foundation paper than said that immigration reform would cost us a trillion dollars and cause us all to die of syphilis next year. As he correctly noted, this paper is actually not any worse than other papers conservatives accepted like Paul Ryan's budget causing unemployment to drop to 3% and that the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves.

All of this is true, and yet I don't think that immigration reform is really different this time. What you have to understand is that the modern Republican Party doesn't really make compromises. Steve Benen wrote a post the other day at Maddow Blog about Eric Cantor's new Republican rebranding campaign. The great new idea is to appeal to women with a media blitz. And what are they going to tell women? Only that they should support the "Working Families Flexibility Act." That is a euphemism, of course. It should be called the "Employer Flexibility to Screw Employees Act." It is an idea that the Republican Party has been pushing for decades. My point is that even when Republicans reach out to a group of people, they aren't willing to do anything; it's just, "You should love us just the way we are because we ain't changing a thing."

The same thing is going on in the immigration bill. There has always been a large part of the Republican elite who want immigration reform. Let's face it: it's good for business. In the long term, it is good for everyone. In the short term, it is good for Walmart. The business interests who will lose out on more legal workers are small and weak. So the Republican leadership wants this and always has. What's different this time is that they lost last time. Before, they thought with a Republican president, they would be able to get their law. Now they know they have to fight for it.

And look at how typical the conservative response to the Heritage paper was. Those who are against immigration reform embraced it; those who are for immigration reform denounced it. And yes, those denouncing it did it with facts. But conservatives are fine with facts when they are helpful. But facts have no relationship to truth for them. They are just rhetorical devices. All we are seeing now is an argument between two sides that has long existed in the Republican Party. There's nothing new here.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Behind the Ad: The NRA comes to the rescue of Sen. Kelly Ayotte

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.) 

Who: The National Rifle Association.

Where: New Hampshire.

What's going on: Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has been getting hammered for her vote against recent gun control legislation. The fact that she represents a state close to the horrific events in Newtown, Connecticut hasn't helped her, and her polling numbers have taken a hit.

The NRA has now come out with a new pro-Ayotte ad, their first TV ad in the state, though they have been running spots on the radio there.

The ad starts with a picture of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has been backing ads critical of Ayotte for her vote against gun control legislation that failed in the Senate. It suggests that the attack is in some way inaccurate, though Ayotte's vote is a matter of public record.

The ad is built on the premise that Ayotte has in the past voted for other measures that the NRA believes are consistent with public safety:

The ad goes on to highlight a series of Ayotte's votes that it characterizes as working to improve background checks, reform the mental health system and increase resources to prosecute criminals using guns.

Even if true, her no vote on the highest profile gun control measure in a long time makes her vulnerable and she and the NRA know it:

According to a Public Policy Polling survey, half of voters said Ayotte's vote on background checks made them less inclined to vote for her, and only a quarter said it made them more likely to support her.

Lucky for her she isn't up for re-election until 2016.


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Official offers account from Libya of Benghazi attack"

(Reuters): "Minnesota House set to vote on gay marriage bill"

(WBUR): "Markey edges Gomez in WBUR Senate poll"

(WGHP Fox): "Jody Arias could face death penalty after conviction"

(New York Times): "Boston bomb inquiry looks at Russia trip"

P.M. Headlines

(Wall Street Journal): "Blacks surpass whites in voter turnout, census data"

(USA Today): "Gay marriage legal in 11 states, could Minn., Ill. be next?"

(Boston Globe): "National Democrats hit Gomez for role with group critical of Obama"

(New York Times): "State senator taped 7 elected officials in corruption inquiry"

(The Guardian): "Stephen Hawking joins academic boycott of Israel"

Final Republican casualty

By Frank Moraes 

Today over at The Plum Line, Jamelle Bouie discussed an issue that is close to my heart, "Don't Expect the GOP to Change on Gay Rights Anytime Soon." I think all this talk of the Republican Party moderating itself is nonsense. It is all a kind of mass pundit delusion. Moderates especially really want to think that the Republicans will be reasonable. And by that, they mean more liberal on the social issues that moderates care about.

Remember when Bobby Jindal created a stir about how Republicans had to stop being the "stupid party"? And what did he do to prove he wasn't stupid? He almost destroyed his political career by proposing an end to the state income tax to be replaced by a regressive sales tax. Republican claims at reform are nothing by a desire that the electorate won't notice all the terrible things they are trying to do.

Bouie noted that the Republicans are not going to moderate on same sex marriage even though a plurality of Republicans favors it. The problem is that the most consistent voters, the old, white, bigoted evangelicals really hate same sex marriage. And so the Republican Party is trying to appeal to them. But I wonder. Does that really explain it?

After all, the conservative base doesn't vote so consistently because they love the Republican Party. You see that in polls. About 30% of the electorate think of themselves as Republican. But often, the party only gets an approval of about 20%. The difference isn't people who are tending toward the Democrats; they just think the Republicans are being too liberal. These people are still going to go to the polls and vote Republican, even if they think the party has turned communist.

So why doesn't the GOP change?

Read more »

Benghazi again

By Mustang Bobby

Republicans never run out of dead horses to whip: 

Republican lawmakers, who have spent months seeking to tie President Obama to last year's deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, are increasingly focusing their probe on a new target: former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The GOP-led investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others now centers heavily on the State Department and whether officials there deliberately misled the public about the nature of the assault.

Three State Department officials are scheduled to testify before a House committee on Wednesday about the Benghazi attack and its aftermath.

"I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday. “...We're going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton."

On Monday, a Fox News anchor asked Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) how damaging the issue is for Clinton. "I think it's damaging because it happened under her watch," replied Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding Wednesday's hearing.

It's pretty obvious that this is a preemptive attack on Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, and the Republicans are going all in on it; Mike Huckabee said this will be worse than Watergate. (Note: Watergate is the Godwin's Law of scandals: the longer the discussion goes on, the chances that someone will compare a scandal to Watergate increase to a factor of dead certainty.)

It was terrible that people were killed in the attack in Libya last September. But it's worse that the Republicans are exploiting it for no other reason than politics, and their crocodile tears over the death of Ambassador Stevens wouldn't seem so craven if they had bothered to look into the lies and deceptions that killed and wounded several thousand American soldiers in Iraq.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

As if we don't have enough to worry about

By Carl 

It looks like China and India are heading towards their own version of the Cold War:

Under cover of night last month, a platoon of People's Liberation Army soldiers hiked across barren mountains and set up camp in the foothills of the Himalayas, one of the most inhospitable places on earth for a bivouac.

But it wasn't just an exercise in high-altitude preparedness. The Chinese camp was 19 kilometres on the Indian side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which separates Ladakh in the state of Jammu & Kashmir from Aksai Chin.

The border here has never been demarcated and remains a thorn in Beijing's side. A Foreign Ministry spokesman insisted the soldiers were still in China.

The incursion comes as Beijing is on an imperialist expansion kick. It is already embroiled in territorial disputes with neighbours like Japan and the Philippines over islands, and mineral and fishing rights. It recently started cruises to to the Paracel Islands, which is claimed by Vietnam.

Now, the latest land grab, which has passed almost unnoticed in the western press. But it has raised alarm bells in New Delhi, brought protesters out onto the streets and recalls alarming memories of 1962, when the two countries fought a short-lived war triggered by border disputes, and a standoff in 1986.

Well, OK, then! Two nuclear powers are edging closer and closer to outright hostilities! How do I sign up for Mars One again?

China has long given assistance to Pakistan to keep India otherwise occupied, but the combination of American intervention in the region as well as Pakistan's own internal struggle to keep the Taliban and Islamists tamped down has rendered that an exercise in academia. So I'm guessing China is finding some other way to kick India in the nuts.

Given China's other pots on burners, like North Korea, Iran, and Africa, you'd think they'd want to fix this as peacefully and unobtrusively as possible. And so far, they've managed to keep the skirmishes on the back burner, even in India. 

Read more »

Behind the Ad: I thought Terry McAuliffe was smarter than this

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: Republican National Committee.

Where: A webspot.

What's going on: Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat running for governor of Virginia, put an ad out recently that focused on the theme of family. Unfortunately for McAuliffe, he wrote a memoir in 2007 that was too good not to use against him to criticize where family might fit in his personal ranking of priorities, which is to say, not very high.

It's not a big deal, and it is kind of funny. The RNC took excerpts from his memoirs and made this little video below.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has an interesting perspective:

So what does this have to do with the race for governor? Actually, not a hell of a lot. It paints McAuliffe as a Type-A workaholic that puts his family somewhere below his political aspirations, at least when presented outside the context of the memoir as a whole. That could be seen as a positive, perhaps, by voters who think that elected officials should their [work] considerations above that of family while in office, although it's going to leave a pretty negative personal impression of McAuliffe in general.

Of course, that's the real point of these kind of ads, which is why people dislike negative campaigning in this sense, rather than the entirely respectable practice of rebutting policy positions and voting records. Character attacks like these purportedly turn people off to politics, although there doesn't seem to be too much evidence of that at the polling stations. On the other hand, McAuliffe wrote the memoir to bolster his political standing — advertising himself, in a real sense, for his political career — so anything he wrote is certainly fair game for scrutiny. Why he shared these passages from his life is anyone’s guess, but it at least leaves the impression that McAuliffe isn't in touch with how they make him look.

I tend to agree with Morrissey. It doesn't mean much, but it does make you wonder about a guy who seems to think the story told below is somehow cute.


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "One hospital charges $8,000 - another $38,000"

(CNN): "Sanford wins South Carolina House vote"

(New York Times): "Delaware, continuing a trend, becomes the 11th state to allow same-sex unions"

(Politico): "Immigration battle: Marco Rubio vs. Jim DeMint"

(NJ.com): "N.J. Politics Roundup: Christie reveals secret weight-loss surgery, will co-host 'Today'"

P.M. Headlines

(USA Today): "Hagel orders changes to confront military sexual abuse"

(New York Times): "Delaware to allow same-sex marriage"

(Reuters): "South Carolina voters decide fate of disgraced ex-governor"

(The Hill): "Obama: US has a 'moral obligation' to help end civil war in Syria"

(CNN): "Flake willing to support background checks, with changes to internet sales"

Tyranny and the end of gun culture

By Frank Moraes

Ed Kilgore over at Political Animal has a great article, None Dare Call it Treason. It is about the new NRA president, James Porter, and his loose talk of tyranny and violent opposition to it. I know the kind of guy. There is an enormous subsection of the male population who have fantasies about taking up arms against the government. And it isn't limited to conservatives (although it primarily is). I've talked to young slacker game addicts who have told me about their desires to make their simulated urban combat real. Of course, most of these people do not go out and join the army. They just live with their fantasies. In fact, I dare say that most of them are cowards. Regardless, I think that is usually what's going on when some guy says something like, "Obama's not a valid president, somebody ought to take him out!" (Not that Porter would go so far; he would just say that Obama is a "fake president.")

Kilgore notes that these kinds of guys normally think of themselves as ultra-patriots. Yet they are "deliberately courting the impression that loyalty to their country is strictly contingent on the maintenance of laws and policies they favor, to be achieved if not by ballots then by bullets." You know: treason. In fact, I think it is only because of conservative mythology that we as a society put up with this. We apparently have to take it as given that Timothy McVeigh is a patriot, right up to the point that he starts bombing government buildings. If it were reversed—if liberals went around talking armed insurrection—the FBI would be all over them. But we are supposed to assume that conservatives are patriotic, even though right now, conservatives are the only major group in our society that are rightly called revolutionary.

Read more »

Would it be so bad if Mark Sanford continued to be a national punchline?

By Richard K. Barry

If Mark Sanford does win the special House election in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District, and he might do that, what would it mean? Not very much. In fact, if Colbert Busch wins, it won't mean very much either.

If Sanford pulls it out, Democrats can comfort themselves with the notion that it is a very red district in a very red state. If Colbert Busch wins, Republicans can say, with good reason, that their candidate was fatally flawed.

The more interesting question may be, is winning that good for the GOP?

As The Week puts it:

Losing... might not be so bad for Democrats. Sure, a defeat would mean "a bit of short-term pain" for the party, says Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan in The Washington Post, but there's potential for some long-term gain. "Sanford is damaged goods." First, he acknowledged in 2009 that he went AWOL from his job to visit his mistress in Argentina, while claiming he was "hiking the Appalachian Trail." Then, more recently, he was accused of trespassing in his ex-wife's house to watch the Super Bowl with one of his four sons. This stuff has made Sanford a national punchline.

Not only, they say, would the late-night talk show jokes start again, but "every GOPer in the House and Senate will be asked whether they support Sanford and what they think of serving with him."

The GOP has a difficult enough time with women voters, as we all know. This guy could win the election, but having someone with his profile and his history in the House Republican Conference may not be the best outcome for the party.

And, on top of that, one would have to think Colbert Busch would be hard pressed to retain the seat against almost anyone else in 2014. If a Republican is likely to occupy the seat in the longer term, Democrats should want it to be this guy.

Let the GOP be known as the "party of men who leave their wives for younger women."

Having said that, I'd prefer to win, but losing has its upside.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Epic fail

By Carl

Some moron is coming to NYC to give away shotguns.

The man behind an effort to put free shotguns in the hands of homeowners says he’ll dole them out in the Big Apple by the end of the year — and the lawmen may not be able to stop him.

“We’re coming — and we’re going to get shotguns into the hands of responsible citizens,” said Kyle Coplen, who founded the nonprofit the Armed Citizen Project in January.

“When criminals fear the citizenry, it deters crime,” the 29-year-old added.

Um. No. Statistically, when criminals fear capture, it deters crime. This is why the homeowners best defense is his neighbors. Or noise from inside his home. Or even just a fake alarm sticker on his door. Or failing that, a strong lock.

That’s not me suggesting that. That’s the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies guidance. When it comes to studying crime and crime prevention, suffice it to say they have a far bigger interest in it than some balding asshole cowboy from Houston.

By extension, the whole argument for guns falls apart quickly if you bother to look at the numbers. Guns in the home are more likely to attract crimes and criminals, for everything from domestic violence to burglary. When criminals know there’s a gun inside, they’re more likely to try and steal it, because most criminals injured or killed by guns aren’t injured or killed by people defending themselves or their property. They’re most likely, by far, to be injured or killed by other criminals.

In that respect, defending a criminal from another criminal, then yes, owning a gun makes sense: if you’re a felon. Remember how “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”? That’s because they need them more than homeowners do.

Too, gun permits in the city -- even for a long gun kept strictly in the home -- are damned expensive: $230 including fingerprinting. Plus, if you have even a traffic ticket, you can be denied for possession.

This is a publicity stunt, but a dangerous one. Perhaps ol’ Kyle here should spend even one night sleeping in his car in the South Bronx before offering these weapons of war for free. 

 
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind)

Just another government bailout

By Mustang Bobby

Remember how a lot of people said that bailing out the auto industry was a waste of money and that we should let Detroit go bankrupt?

Yeah, how’d that work out, anyway?

Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced the next step in its plan to sell its approximately 241.7 million remaining shares of General Motors (GM) common stock with the initiation of a second pre-defined written trading plan.

“TARP’s emergency support to GM during the financial crisis was necessary to prevent the collapse of the American auto industry and save more than one million American jobs,” said Tim Massad, Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability. “Earlier this year, Treasury launched an effort to sell its remaining shares in GM common stock. We are pleased with the progress to date and will continue exiting this investment in accordance with our previously announced plan and timetable, and in a manner that maximizes returns for taxpayers.”

Treasury’s sale of its GM common stock is part of its continuing efforts to wind down the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). To date, Treasury has already recovered nearly 94.6 percent ($396.70 billion) of the funds disbursed through TARP ($419.37 billion). Excluding the housing programs, Treasury disbursed $411.72 billion for all TARP investment programs and has now recovered $414.25 (including the proceeds from sales of all Treasury AIG shares).

In short, the government recovered almost all the money spent on TARP and actually made a profit. Plus it is selling the rest of its GM stock at a profit as well.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Gov. Christie: Fighting old battles

By Richard K. Barry

Who: Gov. Chris Christie's reelection campaign

Where: New Jersey

What's going on: It's hard to get very excited about the New Jersey governor's race. Christie is going to win. Blah, blah, blah. With the first television commercial of his reelection effort he highlights his bipartisan efforts on behalf of victims of Hurricane Sandy, which is what you'd expect - maybe. 

The spot talks about "working with Democrats and Republicans, believing that as long as you stick to your principles, compromise isn’t a dirty word.” And it is true that Christie has to win reelection in New Jersey before he can contemplate running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. And it is also true that he does well with independents and moderates, which would put him in a good position to  compete in a general election.

But working across the aisle is not the best way to appeal to Republican party purists who don't like the big man. It's not the best way to run for the nomination. Criticizing House Republicans over storm relief may work well at home, but perhaps not across the country.

It's an obvious point, but given how easy his victory is going to be in New Jersey, why is he going out of his way to piss off the people in his own party who hate bipartisanship? Why is he still fighting the last war?

Just asking.



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(Chicago Tribune): "Brady resigns as Illinois GOP chairman amid gay marriage controversy"

(The Guardian): "US air force sexual assault prevention unit chief charged with sexual battery"

(Washington Post): "Obama 'willing to try anything," goes golfing with Republican senators"

(New York Times): "US directly blames China's military for cyberattacks"

(The Hill): "Reid calls Sen. Cruz a 'schoolyard bully'"

P.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Battle over immigration bill starts in Congress"

(CBS News): "Diplomat: US Special Forces told 'you can't go' to Banghazi during attacks"

(New York Times): "Behind the scenes at Fox"

(CNN): "NRA has record conference turnout, new president"

(The Hill): "Rep. Mike Rogers pushed for FBI chief"

Stupidest Shithole in America: Burkesville, Kentucky

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(It's our fourth entry in this new series. The first three were Nelson, Georgia; Mississippi; and Dietrich, Idaho.)

No, I'm not making light of the tragedy. Seriously, this is the sort of insanity we're dealing with:

Last Monday, Kristian Sparks and his sister, Caroline, visited a Fred's Super Dollar store here. A store manager recalled that it was an ordinary shopping trip, saying that the boy was outgoing and energetic, his little sister was cute and their grandmother was "like any grandmother — she bought them anything they wanted."

The next day Kristian, 5, shot and killed his 2-year-old sister with a gun marketed for children as "My First Rifle" in what the authorities said was an accident.

The death has convulsed this rural community of 1,800 in south-central Kentucky, where everyone seems to know the extended Sparks family, which is now riven by grief. But as mourners gathered for Caroline's funeral on Saturday, there were equally strong emotions directed at the outside world, which has been quick to pass judgment on the parents and a way of life in which many see nothing unusual about introducing children to firearms while they are still in kindergarten.

If you live in a place where it's a way of life for children to have their own guns, and if in that place the general response to a tragedy like this is to circle the wagons and emphasize that there's nothing wrong with children having their own guns, that there's nothing wrong with your way of life, then, let's be clear, you live in a shithole.