By Richard K. Barry A lot of music fans claim to dislike what is known as smooth jazz, sometimes likening it to elevator music. I don't know. I'm okay with some of it, like Spyro Gyra's 1979 album Morning Dance. I particularly like the title track. The one thing I will say about the cut, having worked in radio briefly in the late 1970s, is that the song seemed to be everyone's idea of segueway music into or out of a segment of some kind. You know, music played just before "News at Noon."
(NBC News): "Grisly footage attempts to make case for Syrian strike" (BBC News): "Kerry says support for action against Syria is growing" (Gallup Poll): "Obama's fourth year in office ties as most polarized ever" (New York Times): "Soft jobs data not expected to deter Fed" (Capitol Report): "G-20 communique focuses on trade and economies, ignores Syria"
By Frank Moraes I've begun to think about trillion dollar platinum coins again. In particular, I've been wondering if President Obama is thinking about them. This is the idea that rather than raise the Debt Ceiling, the government can just mint platinum coins of arbitrary value. It is just an accounting trick, but then so is the Debt Ceiling. Basically, it is either the platinum coin (or a similar device to ignore the Debt Ceiling) or the government defaults on its debt, which will cause a crisis and hopefully that would cause the Republicans to finally raise or even repeal the Debt Ceiling.
At this point, I don't have much confidence in the Republican Party. Too much of the party just believes that through Pure Force of Will they will be able to get what they want. By this thinking, any complaints that reaching the Debt Ceiling will be bad are just negotiating tactics of the Democratic Party. And many of those who do understand the danger think it is a good thing. One of the main issues with hitting the Debt Ceiling is that it will greatly increase the borrowing costs of the United States government. What does that matter to Republicans who want to cut spending for the sake of cutting spending? I doubt it occurs to them that doing such a thing would pretty much require raising taxes—but again, that's where the Pure Force of Will comes in.
Yesterday, Peter Schroeder at The Hill reported, House GOP Says it Will Raise Debt Ceiling by Mid-October. That's a deceptive title. All the article says is that Eric Cantor has sent a memo to GOP lawmakers saying that the House will vote to raise the Debt Ceiling but only if they get "fiscal reforms and pro-growth policies," which is defined as balancing the federal budget in 10 years.
West Virginia Rep. Shelley Capito is running for the Senate in 2014. But, as in other races across the country, she is being attacked from the right for not being conservative enough. On a local conservative group's Facebook page they says she is “pro-abortion, pro-bailout and pro-debt: Shelley Moore Capito is just too liberal for WV.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va) is stepping down next year and this state is considered by most a significant opportunity for a Republican pick-up. Secretary of State Natalie Tennant may be the Democratic candidate and recent polling says Capito would receive 45 percent support and Tennant would get 40 percent.
In July, the National Republican Liberty Caucus, which has endorsed Tea Party candidates in the past, endorsed another Republican challenger in the race. It backed Pat McGeehan over Moore Capito.
Well, I respect Shelley Capito for her years of service in the House of Representatives; however, I just believe that West Virginians deserve a true conservative in this race, someone who’s pro-gun, pro-coal, pro-life, and, most importantly, pro-Constitution.
I know it's the same old story, but the radical right continues to be hell-bent on defeating candidates in their own party who have the best chance to win in the general election.
Many of us keep expecting that the failed candidacies of people like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle will stop the Tea Party madness, but it doesn't appear to even be slowing them down. Maybe movement conservatism is never going to go away, and that's not a bad thing for Democrats.
Far be it from me to knock someone else’s religion as long as it doesn’t interfere with someone else’sfaith and freedom. As John Lennon said, “whatever gets you through the night.” In other words, feel free to do whatever you like as long as it doesn’t harm innocent bystanders or force itself on them. If you want to make a deity out of a ’57 Chevy, go for it. But skate over the edge into running other people’s lives, and we have a problem.
That’s what bothers me about the fundamentalist Christians. Not content to wallow in their own
particular brand of worship, they feel compelled to share it with the rest of us. And by “share” I mean force it on the rest of the world by shame, lung power, and legislation.
People who do stuff like that have some sort of inferiority complex; they have to prove themselves better than the schlemiel who doesn’t think of Jesus as their personal savior, and they can’t sleep at night because of their obsession about the gay couple down the street doing unspeakable things in their bedroom. (If my experience is any guide, the most unspeakable thing that goes on in a gay couple’s bedroom is one of them hogging the blanket on a cold night.)
It is clear that John McCain wants a full out war in Syria with ground troops and the like because he wants a war with Iran. He is not alone in this. I believe that this is largely why most conservatives favor the war. And it is most certainly why all the neocons are on board with this. All of the Americans who claim to be such supporters of Israel are always for attacking Iran because the current conservative Israeli government wants that. But I think this goes deeper than just "protection of Israel." For one thing, it is not at all clear that attacking Iran is good for Israel.
I think this all goes back to 4 November 1979: the Iranian hostage crisis. Conservatives in America hold remarkably long grudges. We haven't had official relations with Cuba for over 50 years. Why? I really don't know. Certainly, we didn't have any more of a problem with them than we had with the Soviet Union. What is the big deal? Well, I suppose I know what the big deal is. Cuba is a small enough country that we could get away with our childish behavior. The Soviet Union was not.
The same thing is going on with Iran. As "evil" governments go, Iran is quite good. It has created great stability in the region. And if we want the country to liberalize, we ought to, you know, open up the lines of communication. Word is that the people of Iran are quite positive towards us. I am well aware that liberals as well as conservatives use the same trilogy of terror ("axis of evil") rhetoric. But I really think that if the conservatives like John McCain could just get over their ego hits about the embassy attack, we might be able to have a reasonable relationship with that country and do actual good for its people.
(New York Times): New inquiry for Bachmann on her presidential race" (Associated Press): "Henry: 2014 governor bid unlikely, not impossible [Oklahoma]" (National Journal): "Bad bet: Why Republicans can't win with whites alone"
(The Hill): "Scott Brown to make second trip to Iowa" (Roll Call): "Ami Bera draws third GOP challenger #CA07"
A limited United States intervention in Syria would not require a supplemental appropriations bill from Congress, an Obama administration official told The Huffington Post on Wednesday.
The official’s assessment that a narrowly tailored operation could be paid for with “existing Department of Defense resources” was seconded by two high-ranking aides on Capitol Hill.
However, another Hill staffer argued that without a greater understanding of the operation, it would be impossible to settle on an exact price tag or means of payment.
“Who the f— knows what it will cost? It depends entirely on what happens,” said the staffer.
I’d write more, but I have to go to work and see how much more they’re cutting out of Head Start, IDEA, and Title II this year.
Behind the Ad: Tea Party group attacks Mitch McConnell for not being anti-Obamacare enough
Who: Senate Conservatives Fund (a leading Tea Party group) Where: Kentucky What's going on: Tea Partiers are really on to this idea that it's not enough to oppose Obamacare. One has to agree completely with the idea of "defunding" it, which, in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused to do. National Journal:
The Senate Conservatives Fund, which was founded by former Sen. Jim DeMint but is now independent of him, has not endorsed McConnell's Republican primary opponent, Matt Bevin. The group, however, is openly considering doing so and its executive director, Matt Hoskins, said in July that McConnell "needs to consider whether it might be time to hang it up." The fight to defund President Obama's health care law faces a key Oct. 1 deadline, and the ad says, "Tell Mitch McConnell to join the fight to stop Obamacare, before it's too late."
The point, if you haven't been paying attention, is that some Republican Senators are threatening to force a government shutdown unless Democrats agree to give up on the Affordable Care Act. These people are pledging to block a bill to fund government operations unless Obamacare is defunded.
Tea Party favorites such as Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and McConnell’s fellow Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) have been trying to convince their party to stop funding the government in order to block the health reform law.
Earlier in the summer, McConnell told an audience at a Kentucky health care forum that “shutting down the government will not stop Obamacare.” Other Republicans have simply called shutting down the government a stupid idea which, in any case, seems to be an unpopular concept with voters. Yes, if you're not willing to hold your breath and stamp your feet, even if it's counterproductive to your cause, you're not conservative enough.
Here's the Senate Conservative Fund's ad implying that McConnell simply won't sign on for the one simple thing that will make Obamacare go away. Mitch the Red, they call him. Lucky for McConnell he has company among other GOP senators who are also being attacked by the group like Richard Burr, R-N.C., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
By Richard K. Barry From those of us here at The Reaction who live and die with their respective teams, we hope those of you who feel the same way enjoy tonight's kick-off. Prediction: 36-24 Broncos.
(Toronto Star): "G20 summit: Obama, Putin meet at St. Petersburg gathering" (New York Times): "Brutality of Syrian rebels posing dilemma in West" (Reuters): "Kerry portrait of Syria rebels at odds with intelligence reports" (Fareed Zakaria): "On Syria, words have consequences" (Roll Call): "Bill Clinton explains Obamacare"
“The debate on climate change and global warming has been intensely polarized. A great deal of this noise has clouded the very real and emerging issues that we as an industry and society need to address,” said Johnny Chan, PhD, director of the Guy Carpenter Asia-Pacific Climate Impact Centre. “In order to adapt to climate change and the changing risk landscape, it is necessary to cut through this noise and focus on objective decisions to mitigate both the financial and social risks associated with climate change.”
The evidence of global warming is undeniable and includes increasing air temperatures, increasing ocean water temperatures, tree ring characteristics, ice core characteristics and the retreat of ice caps, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific body that reviews and assesses scientific evidence pertaining to the physics and impacts of climate change. While climate change has been documented with supporting evidence in past centuries, the rate of warming is believed to be unprecedented, IPCC added.
“Based on consistent and mounting scientific evidence, the IPCC has assessed that it is highly unlikely that recent warming trends can be explained away by natural variability alone,” said James Waller, PhD, research meteorologist for GC Analytics. “Estimates show that the mean temperature of the Earth could rise an additional two to four degrees Celsius by the end of the century. This may seem like a relatively small increase, but the impact of rising temperatures, even by a few degrees, could cause a shift in weather patterns, with considerable impact worldwide.”
The impact of weather-related hazards are dependent on the frequency and severity of CAT [ed.note: catastrophic] events, but also on vulnerability, population density, local infrastructure and the property values of affected areas, the report said, and so factors including per-capita gross domestic product, total insured value, population density and annualized property value must be accounted for, according to the report.
So the insurance industry is clearly alarmed at global warming and is convinced that this is not a natural phenomenon but a manmade crisis.
The analysis goes on to point out that sea level rise is the biggest threat to life and property to come out of global warming, which makes sense: higher winds, more frequent storms, and higher temperatures can all be killers but none can kill on the massive scale that floodwaters can – just look at Katrina – and adding water volume can only make things even worse.
(The Salt Lake Tribune): "Huntsman PAC raises $100k, spends half starting up" (Sabato's Crystal Ball): "Omen or not?: What off-off year elections tell us about the future" (TPM): "NRSC spokesman calls McConnell opponent Grimes an ‘empty dress’ who ‘babbles incoherently’" (Roll Call): "Montana Senate field now cleared for Daines | #MTSEN" (USA Today): "Syria vote will ripple through 2014 campaigns"
By Capt. Fogg I like to read books by theoretical physicists who are good at
presenting mind-bending material to the general public. I should say
that I like reading about these things in English because I can't, quite
frankly, even imagine being able to follow the math involved in
portraying multidimensional universes, Calabi-Yau manifolds, P-branes
and loop quantum physics, just to scratch the surface. The
idea of other universes, possibly an infinite number of them with every
point therein stretched out on holographic membranes only a tiny
distance apart yet forever isolated, fascinates me far more than any
science fiction written these days. There was one school of thought not
long ago. I'm not sure it gets any credit or ever did, but it attempts
to explain the relative weakness of the gravitational force by
postulating that force particles, or gravitons are able to leak into
neighboring planes where they perhaps show up as 'dark' matter, but I'm
so far from being able to talk about such things intelligently that I
might as well be in another universe. Another universe perhaps
identical but perhaps subtly different. I have sometimes nonetheless to
wonder if somehow, by some random quantum fluctuation, we don't on
occasion just take that tiny jump to the left, that little step to the
right, and do the time-warp again. I'll bet that
you've occasionally asked yourself if you've just woken up in another
universe, almost exactly like the one you were in yesterday -- almost.
Silly sci-fi scenarios involving worm holes and time warps are just that: silly --
and we've all read or watched the cheesy movies. The pilot loses
contact briefly only to reappear in another time and place. The guy
wakes up on groundhog day every day. You've seen that movie I'm sure. And yet.
(New York Times): "Questions of policy leadership dog Obama before meeting in Russia" (Politico): "Obama's political capital spread thin" (Real Clear Politics): "Obama: 'My credibility is not on the line'" (New York Times): "Paul expected to fillibuster Syria resolution" (Huffington Post): "Former Boehner aides, GOP sources expect House Speaker will step down after 2014 election"
(Washington Post): "Senate committee approves resolution authorizing US strike on Syria" (Time): "Putin sets uncompromising tone ahead of G-20 summit" (Bloomberg): "Widening trade gap signals improving US demand: Economy" (BuzzFeed): "Al Gore's incredible shrinking climate change footprint" (New York Times): "Business losing clout in a GOP moving right"
I watched a bit of the Senate hearings on the resolution on Syria yesterday afternoon, tuning in just in time to see Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) grilling Secretary of State John Kerry on whether or not President Obama would conduct a strike in Syria even if Congress voted against it.
Mr. Paul was at his Tea Party best, carrying on about how the president will violate the Constitution by going to war without the permission of Congress, hinting that Mr. Obama violates the Constitution without breaking a sweat, and visibly annoying Mr. Kerry, who seemed to be more interested in jotting down notes than actually listening to the senator, and when he did respond it was like he was talking to a ten-year-old. (Mr. Paul does bring that out in people.) He assured the gentleman from Kentucky that the Obama administration was not planning on a “classic declaration of war” but a limited capability to teach the Syrian government a lesson. But Sen. Paul kept insisting on getting an assurance from the Secretary that we weren’t going to go to war without Congressional approval.
The maddening thing about the whole discussion is that I and a lot of people agree with Mr. Paul’s view: one foot in the door with “limited action” is still a war, and that over the last sixty years or so we’ve seen presidents of both parties put forces in harm’s way — with or without boots on the ground — without the say-so of Congress, and this does not sound much different. Read more »
(ABC News): "RI Gov. Lincoln Chafee won't run for 2nd term" (Roll Call): "3 local races that could affect the fight for the House" (Boston Globe): "GOP's Baker to declare 2014 run for Mass. governor" (New York Times): "With little time left, mayoral candidates pounce on de Balsio" (The Hill): "Dems’ Kentucky ‘closer’ jabs in early rounds of fight with McConnell"
A meeting between the Wyoming chapter of the NAACP and an organizer for the Ku Klux Klan over the weekend is believed to be the first of its kind.
The meeting between Jimmy Simmons, president of the Casper NAACP, and John Abarr, a KKK organizer from Great Falls, Mont., took place at a hotel in Casper, Wyo., under tight security, the Casper Star-Tribune reported.
The Southern Poverty Law Center and the United Klans of America said Tuesday that the meeting is a first.
Abarr told The Associated Press that he met with Simmons Saturday and ended up filling out an NAACP membership form so he can get the group’s newsletters and some insight into its views. He said he paid the $30 fee to join, plus a $20 donation.
Say what, now?
The NAACP requested the meeting after there were reports that hate literature was being distributed in Gillette, WY, about 130 miles north of Casper, and that black men were being beaten when seen out with white women. The police chief of Gillette has denied any beatings of black men have been reported, altho he admitted the beatings could have taken place just outside of town and therefore out of his jurisdiction.
Y’know, there are some tunes from the Fifties that really, I’m not nostalgic for. This is one of them.
Simmons called the meeting to suss out what the Klan was up to in Wyoming. Abarr denied any violence, and his attendance was sanctioned by the national Klan.
Abarr is part of a separatist movement that wants to carve out the northern tier of the US as a whites-only territory, from Wyoming to the Washington coast.
(Voice of America): "Putin does not rule out UN-backed Syria strike with evidence" (Politico): "Senators craft Syria compromise" (New York Times): "Bushes focus on immigration debate to reclaim their influence" (Houston Chronicle): "Japan's radioactive water leaks: How dangerous?" (CBS News): "Ariel Castro found hanging in prison cell"
(New York Times): "Officials make case for strike before Senate panel" (BBC News): "Syria crisis: Obama wins backing for military strike" (Pew Research Center): "Public opinion runs against Syrian airstrikes" (Politico): "Hillary Clinton backs Obama on Syria" (Washington Post): "Jeffrey Bezos, Washington Post’s next owner, aims for a new ‘golden era’ at the newspaper" (Bloomberg): "Manufacturing in the U.S. expands at a faster pace than forecast"
OK, so you know how you know Syria is probably a mistake to get involved in?
By Carl
John “Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran” McCain AND Lindsey Graham have signed on:
WASHINGTON — The White House’s aggressive push for Congressional approval of an attack on Syria appeared to have won the tentative support of one of President Obama’s most hawkish critics, Senator John McCain, who said Monday that he would back a limited strike if the president did more to arm the Syrian rebels and the attack was punishing enough to weaken the Syrian military.
In an hourlong meeting at the White House, said Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, Mr. Obama gave general support to doing more for the Syrian rebels, although no specifics were agreed upon. Officials said that in the same conversation, which included Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, Mr. Obama indicated that a covert effort by the United States to arm and train Syrian rebels was beginning to yield results: the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria.
There appeared to be broad agreement with the president, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham said, that any attack on Syria should be to “degrade” the Syrian government’s delivery systems. Such a strike could include aircraft, artillery and the kind of rockets that the Obama administration says the forces of President Bashar al-Assad used to carry out an Aug. 21 sarin attack in the Damascus suburbs that killed more than 1,400 people.
(WMUR): "Bradley rules out running for statewide office next year" (The Tennessean): "Kevin Kookogey says he's 'unannounced candidate' for Lamar Alexander's seat" (New York Times): "National gun debate hits close to home in Colorado recall vote" (KDLG): "New polling: Senator Begich has a lead over Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell" (The Hill): "Christie chooses to celebrate wife's birthday instead of rally with Rand Paul"
The hosts of the nation’s leading political talk shows pressed Secretary of State John Kerry on the administration’s decision to seek Congressional authorization for a military strike against Syria, arguing that delaying military action undermined America’s resolve and weakened President Obama.
Though Kerry, who appeared on all five political programs, insisted that Obama’s decision would allow for the proper constitutional process and permit the administration “time to reach out to allies, friends around the world, build support on an international basis,” the hosts appeared to dismiss any need for Congressional deliberations or public debate about the administration’s evidence or the potential consequences of a military attack. NBC’s David Gregory, Fox’s Chris Wallace, CBS’s Major Garrett, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, and CNN’s Gloria Borger went beyond inquiring about the political timing of Obama’s decision to consult with Congress on Saturday. They repeatedly claimed that Obama’s decision to hold off on immediate military action emboldened America’s adversaries and undermined the nation’s “credibility.”
So why would the media talking heads be all rah-rah for war, death and destruction? Because, as William Randolph Hearst knew back in 1898, it sells papers. In this case, it sells ads on cable TV. It’s the action, not the debate in Congress that gets people watching, and people watching sells boner pills and car insurance.
Now am I so cynical as to think that David Gregory, Chris Wallace, Major Garrett, George Stephanopoulos, and Gloria Borger are all cold-hearted bloodthirsty schemers who want American soldiers fighting and dying in Syria purely for the sake of ratings and profits at their corporate headquarters? Of course not. But they also know that the American audience has the attention span of a fruit fly, and if all they see when they turn on the tube is Harry Reid and John Boehner gasping into a microphone, they’re going to off to another rerun of Ice Road Truckers or Real Wives of Leelanau County before you can get out of the La-Z-Boy. (Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)
I came upon an amazing article this weekend. It was from McClatchy back on 3 June 2013, Assad
Backers Reportedly Make Up 43 Percent of Dead in Syria. It is based upon work by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) which is based in London. The article claims that, "The observatory... is considered the most authoritative source for reports on the daily violence in Syria, and it's the only group that routinely attempts to categorize deaths according to whether the victims were civilians, rebels or government fighters."
The results are exactly what you would expect if you don't have an ax to grind. War is hell, and civil war is especially so. According to SOHR, 43.2% (41,648 total) of the deaths are Asaad forces and aligned militias; 36.8% (35,479 total) are civilians; and 17.3% (16,699) are anti-Asaad forces. We can't say who is responsible for the civilian deaths, but even if we assume that Asaad is responsible for all the civilian casualties, the deaths are pretty equally shared.
Of course, these numbers are not without doubt. The Syrian Network for Human Rights counts only rebel and civilian deaths, but their numbers are quite different: 75,992 civilians and 7,606 rebel deaths. I don't think that this changes the picture much, even if these numbers are correct. It is clear that there are massive casualties on both sides and among the civilians.
(New York Times): "President gains McCain’s backing on Syria attack" (TPM): "Assad: If West attacks, 'risk of regional war exists'" (BuzzFeed): "Obama to meet with LGBT activists while in Russia" (Washington Post): "Top-secret U.S. intelligence files show new levels of distrust of Pakistan" (Associated Press): "Rodman in North Korea to visit authoritarian leader; won't say if jailed American on agenda"
By Richard K. Barry Maybe because I'm reading Rick Perlstein's fabulous book Nixonland, but I've got the old trickster on the brain. Knocking around the internet this evening I came across this gem. It's a 2 minute and 15 second campaign ad from 1972 called "Nixon Now." Wonder what it cost in 1972 to air a spot that long? And what a catchy little ditty it is, sort of. At least in an Up With People kind of way. Then again, in an evil Bob Roberts kind of way, it actually scares the crap out of me. CBS News says this about the ad:
The 1972 "Nixon Now" advertisement is memorable for its uncharacteristic nature. Not many would associate Nixon, a firm Cold Warrior who excelled at fierce anti-liberal attack ads, with a spot that scrolls from stills of young people frolicking in the sun to clips of a smiling Nixon shaking hands with constituents. All the while, a festive song hails Nixon for "reaching out to find a way to make tomorrow a brighter day, making dreams reality. More than ever - Nixon now for you and me."
(BBC News): "Syria crisis: Obama's gamble on Congress" (USA Today): "Obama Syria decision adds a twist to G-20 summit" (National Post): "NSA leaks reveal that U.S. was reading Brazil and Mexico leaders’ emails" (Brisbane Times): "Euro manufacturing jumps to two-year high" (Reuters): "America's Diana Nyad, 64, sets record with Cuba-to-Florida swim"
Who: Former state Sen. Bradley Byrne Where: Alabama 1st congressional district What's going on: The Hill reports that Byrne will be going up with his first television ad, highlighting his "work as a public servant to clean up the state’s community college system." They say that the $47,000 positive spot will "air on broadcast for the week beginning Sept. 3, and on cable beginning Friday through Sept. 9." You may or may not recall that Rep. Jo Bonner resigned this House seat on Aug. 2 to become vice-chancellor of the University of Alabama. Primary elections are on September 24. If no runoffs are required, the general election will be on November 5. If runoffs are needed, they will be on November 5, with the general election taking place on December 17. While Byrne is leading in this very Republican district, The Southern Political Report offers this analysis:
The betting is that Byrne will not get a majority in the September 24 primary. Whoever comes in second is likely to run to Byrne’s right, setting up a contest between an establishment conservative and a more ideological, hard-right conservative. Notes Birmingham Southern political science Professor Natalie Davis, if his runoff foe “is a Tea Party type, it would make Bradley Byrne vulnerable. Absent that, he will probably win.” Former state GOP Chairman Marty Connors points out that “Bradley won a plurality in that district, but only a plurality.”
(News Observer): "After soft-opening, 2014 election races to heat up [in Texas]" (Atlanta Journal Constitution): "Gauging the mood of Georgia Democrats" (The Hill): "Ready for Hillary prepares to aid Clinton's down-ballot allies" (USA Today): "Cory Booker's sexuality becomes issue in Senate race" (Politico): "Carl DeMaio to run for San Diego mayor, not House"
By Richard K. Barry The Daily Mail has an absurd headline today that reads, "The image John Kerry WON'T want you to see: U.S. Secretary of State pictured dining with Assad and his wife at Damascus restaurant before war broke out in Syria."
The Mail writes that, "[t]he picture is believed to have been taken in February 2009 in the Naranj restaurant in Damascus when Kerry led a delegation to Syria to discuss ideas and talk about the way forward for peace in the region."
Shocking. Absolutely shocking, I say.
And here's another picture. This one is of President Harry Truman and Prime Minister Winston Churchill with Uncle Joe Stalin at the Postdam Conference in 1945 before things turned Cold War super frosty between the super powers. I guess you're never supposed to talk to people who might become your enemy. Now, that's diplomacy.
(The Guardian): "It may be Labor Day weekend, but union power is waning" (Reuters): ""Putin sees chance to turn tables on Obama at G20" (Roll Call): "Syria will be hard sell in the House, despite classified briefing" (Chicago Tribune): "Obama blinks" (New York Times): "Drug agents use vast phone trove, eclipsing N.S.A.'s"
(CBS News): "Lawmakers indicate need for narrower mandate on Syria" (The Hill): "Hill briefing: Uphill battle for Obama on Syria"
(BBC News): "German election: Merkel battles Steinbrueck in TV duel" (New York Times): "Verizon is expected to pay $130 billion for stake in Vodafone joint venture" (Fox News): "Researchers hope to identify student remains at reform school site"
Behind the Ad: Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) on why he really, really hates ObamaCare
By Richard K. Barry Who: Senator Lamar Alexander Where: Tennessee What's going on: In today's GOP it isn't enough to oppose President Obama and everything he stands for. You have to pile on to prove to the hardcore right that you really mean it. Understanding that fact, Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander has a new ad that started running statewide last Thursday in which he presses his case as a super enthusiastic critic of ObamaCare. The Hill:
It comes on the heels of an attack launched by the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), a group that typically backs conservative primary challengers, charging that Alexander "refuses to join the fight" to defund the law because he's declined to sign on to a letter circulated by conservatives that effectively pledges to shut down the government if the law isn't defunded.
Alexander is obviously trying to avoid a strong primary challenge, and already has a weak one in state Rep. Joe Carr (R). The SCF would like to find a stronger opponent, which is why Alexander is trying establish his credentials as the right kind of conservative. Yesterday the New York Times ran a story about the inability of some GOP senators to head off primary challenges, noting in particular McConnell in Kentucky and Graham in South Carolina. They also give a mention to Alexander:
In Tennessee, Tea Party activists have vowed to take out Lamar Alexander, the veteran senator, former cabinet officer and two-time presidential candidate. “Senator Alexander has never been a true conservative,” said Ben Cunningham, president of the Nashville Tea Party. “His support for the amnesty bill has caused great problems for us,” he said, referring to the Senate immigration bill. “He is at best a moderate.”
Whether or not these incumbents are likely to lose in their primaries, they will have to spend money to fight challengers and, as the Times writes,
Republican incumbents often move to the right to fend off a primary fight from that wing, which only emphasizes party infighting over core issues like immigration and how best to tackle fiscal disagreements on Capitol Hill, often damaging them in a general election.
(The Hill): "Conservatives to Cruz: 'Run, Ted, Run'" (National Journal): "How to beat the Senate Minority Leaders" (Roll Call): "Transgender candidate enters Minnesota House context (MN02)" (policymic): "2016 presidential election: Why the Tea Party is not dead yet" (Kansas City Star): "To beat Sam Brownback, Paul Davis has to escape Obama (Kansas Governor)"
By Frank Moraes Won't you look at that! Joe "War Is a Hell of a Lot of Fun!" Lieberman was on Fox News Sunday this morning. He is not happy that we aren't bombing Syria right now. He told Chris Wallace, "I'm sure that our enemies are cheering now as a result of this decision because they realize it's not clear the president will get authority, and our allies are worried." Who exactly are these "enemies" of which he speaks? It must be Syria and that speaks volumes about what is going on with him and others who are so hot for an attack. They just want to attack Syria and the chemical weapons allegations are just an excuse. As for our allies, he can't mean the UK. I guess he's talking about the rebels, but they are at best a mixed bag.
Now this the man who spent the 1960s avoiding the draft. First it was as an undergraduate. Then it was as a law student. Then, by the time he graduated, he was married with a kid so he got a deferment for that! But since then, he really has never seen a war he doesn't like. The man really should just have been a Republican. It's not like he represented a conservative state; Connecticut went for Obama by over 17 percentage points. So he really believes what he says.
Meanwhile, someone who actually did go to war and who was vilified for it by the Republican chicken hawks, John Kerry is appearing on 5 talk showsthis morning! Samuel Knight reported, "Kerry's hypocrisy, thinly veiled by an over-eager swagger—including a refusal, on This Week to consider the possibility that the administration's case for war will be rejected by Congress—is reminiscent of the dark days of 2002-2003." But it likely doesn't matter anyway. Kerry also said that Obama "has the right to do this no matter what Congress does." Read more »
(NBC News): "Kerry: Samples from Syria tested positive for sarin" (Yahoo News): "Obama's history-defying decision to seek Congressional approval on Syria" (USA Today): "South Africa: Nelson Mandela out of hospital" (BBC): "Fukushima radiation levels '18 times higher' than thought" (New York Times): "David Frost, who interviewed Nixon, is dead"
A blog on politics, philosophy, science, sports, and the arts -- featuring news, commentary, and analysis by Michael J.W. Stickings and the Reaction team.
