Listening to Now: Gregory Porter - "Liquid Spirit"

By Richard K. Barry

There is so much music out there I can't begin to keep up with new stuff. But, for me, new stuff tends to be jazz and I tend to lean on my monthly subscription of Downbeat magazine as a source. This month a jazz singer by the name of Gregory Porter is on the cover. As you can see from his website, the accolades are flowing in. 

Here's an artist's bio written by Steve Leggett at All Music:

Jazz, soul, and gospel singer, songwriter, and actor Gregory Porter was born in Los Angeles, California but grew up in Bakersfield, California, where his mother was a minister. As a child, he fell under the spell of his mother's Nat King Cole records, learning to imitate and sing like Cole, but his early aspirations were in sports.

He was awarded a football scholarship to attend San Diego State University, but after an injury to his shoulder derailed his sports career, he began performing in local jazz clubs, which is where he met saxophonist, composer, and pianist Kamau Kenyatta. Kenyatta became Porter's mentor, introducing him to flutist Hubert Laws, who featured Porter's vocals on a track on his 1998 album Hubert Laws' Remembers the Unforgettable Nat King Cole. Laws' sister, Eloise Laws, heard Porter during the studio sessions and was impressed with his singing; he helped him get cast as one of the leads in a new musical It Ain't Nothing But the Blues, which eventually enjoyed a run on Broadway.

The gates were open for Porter. His debut album, Water, appeared in 2010, and was followed by a second, Be Good, released two years later in 2012. In September of 2013, Porter (accompanied by Airto) appeared on a track from Kentiyah Presents Evolutionary Minded: Furthering the Legacy of Gil Scott-Heron, with M-1, Brian Jackson, Chuck D., Killah Priest, Martin Luther, and others; a week later, he issued his third album, Liquid Spirit, produced by Brian Bacchus.

The is the title track of 2013 album called Liquid Spirit, written by the Mr. Porter. 

P.M. Headlines

(Fox News): "House Republicans' new spending bill calls for 1-year delay on Obamacare"

(Politico): "Prepare for shutdown"

(ABC News): "Kerry: UN resolution on Syria shows diplomacy powerful enough to 'defuse worst weapons of war'"

(New York Times): "N.S.A. gathers data on social connections of U.S. citizens"

(Washington Post): "BlackBerry CEO ‘very disappointed’ with earnings"

On the Hustings

(The Hill): "Biden to campaign for Booker"

(The Guardian): "Chris Christie's broad appeal sets up historic win in New Jersey. And then?"

(MSNBC): "Report: Wendy Davis running for Texas governor"

(Shreveport Times): "Sen. Mary Landrieu sticks with health care law"

(Roll Call): ""Democrats land ex-Hill aide for top House race in California [CA-21st]"

(Cincinnati.com): "Businessman to challenge Boehner in GOP primary"

Yes, this will work

By Richard K. Barry

I know, I know. It's just a cute little political yuk. And I don't mean to be mean, but this may be the strongest case Republican nominee Joe Lhota has in his bid to become the next mayor of New York City.

Lhota is the former chairman of the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority and former deputy mayor under Rudolph Guiliani. He won the Republican primary on September 10, 2013 with 52.5% of the vote, defeating John Catsimatidis, who got 40.7%, and George T. McDonald, who received 6.8%. He will face the Democratic nominee Bill de Blasio in the mayoral general election on November 5, 2013.

About a week ago, Quinnipiac University released a poll showing that Mr. de Blasio had the support of 66 percent of likely voters, compared with 25 percent for Mr. Lhota.

If you have no idea who Joe Lhota is and need a reason to dislike him, you might start with his red baiting. I think that'll work about as well as the beard thing.

Around the Blogs

By Richard K. Barry

Things we enjoyed reading over the past week on equal rights, Republican craziness, the politics of war and more...

Juan Cole: Removing Iran from the war queue

The Rude Pundit: Compromise for thee but not for me

Bark Bark Woof Woof: Ted in charge

Connecting the Dots: Bending towards justice over the very long haul

Human Voices: Jim DeMint's denialism

The Political Junkie: The not new idea of gay soldiers

Republican arsonists

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You've heard, perhaps, that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Well:

President Obama on Friday implored House Republicans to fund the government, criticizing them for threatening "to burn the house down simply because you haven't gotten 100 percent of your way."

In comments from the White House press briefing room, Obama reiterated he would not negotiate on the debt ceiling or relent to GOP demands to delay or defund his healthcare law in exchange for funding the government. 

"My message to Congress is this: Do not shut down the government. Do not shut down the economy. Pass a budget on time. Pay our bills on time," Obama said.

Easier said than done when you're dealing with the right-wing extremists who control the Republican Party.

Internal divisions are bad enough. What the hell are you supposed to do when one of its two main occupants wants to burn down the whole fucking thing?

Whatever it is, I'm against it, or for it

By Richard K. Barry

Politics may not be easy, but public policy is certainly hard. Last week the CNBC's third-quarter All-America Economic Survey asked half of the 812 poll respondents if they support Obamacare and the other half if they support the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Their intention, it seems obvious, was to catch people out either supporting or rejecting health care reform not based on their understanding of its provisions, but upon the extent to which they associate it with President Obama.

Guess what? The ruse worked.

First thing: 30 percent of the public don't know what ACA is, vs. only 12 percent when we asked about Obamacare.

Now for the difference: 29 percent of the public supports Obamacare compared with 22 percent who support ACA. Forty-six percent oppose Obamacare and 37 percent oppose ACA. So putting Obama in the name raises the positives and the negatives. Gender and partisanship are responsible for the differences. Men, independents and Republicans are more negative on Obamacare than ACA. Young people, Democrats, nonwhites and women are more positive on Obamacare.

I'm not particularly critical of people who don't have the time or interest to delve into the intricacies of a given piece of legislation and what it will or won't deliver. I tend to accept the basic premise of what political scientists call democratic elitism, the idea that we elect leaders who present a basic framework of ideas for our approval at election time, and then we let them deal with the details once in office. I don't accept it because I think it's a good thing, but because I think it's a true thing.

As I say, public policy is hard and we are not likely to avoid being deceived by those we elect unless we are willing to do the difficult work of understanding what they are up to day in and day out. 

Much as I support health care reform and some other things President Obama has tried to do, I do not like them simply because he, as someone for whom I voted, is their author. If only the other side would not reject things they might otherwise support simply because of their source, what a wonderful world it would be. 

On that point, Steve Benen relates a story that has received some play recently:

It's easy to love the Kentucky State Fair anecdote. Even President Obama heard about it. The story, first reported by Jason Cherkis, notes a "middle-aged man in a red golf shirt" who shuffled up to a small folding table to hear about the state's health benefit exchange established by the Affordable Care Act. The man was impressed with what he heard, telling one of the workers behind the table, "This beats Obamacare I hope."

Right.

Ted Cruz and the new face of the Republican Party

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Le Parti Républicain, c'est moi.

If you've been following the Obamacare-debt ceiling-government shutdown drama playing out in Washington, you'll know, unless you've got your head up your ass like most Republicans, that it's pretty much a lose-lose-lose situation for the GOP.

Republicans will apparently do anything and everything to try to stop Obamacare -- they object to it on radical-right ideological grounds but also, less explicitly, because they know, or at least the smart ones do, that it will be a boon to Democrats at the polls for years to come -- and that means working aggressively to defund it by threatening a) to shut down the government or b) to block an increase to the debt ceiling. (Yes, they will risk immense hardship and even global economic armageddon to get what they want.)

The problem, for them, is that shutting down the government would be extremely unpopular (they would be hit with the blame for it, as they were in the '90s), while the markets and their own business base would react negatively, to say the least, were the country to find itself unable to pay off its debts. Republican establishmentarians like John Boehner know this and would like to rein in the extremists, but the extremists aren't that easily pacified, not least because the establishmentarians are responsible to a great extent for empowering them -- it's called reaping what you've sown. The establishment was more than happy to align itself with the teabaggers and others on the far right when it meant getting votes, but now it's stuck with a hugely powerful and, within the party, hugely popular base to which it must continue to pay its respects.

In any event, there's really no way out of this mess. Republicans have resorted to hostage-taking in the hopes that President Obama would cave, as he has before, but he stresses that he won't play that game this time around. And, really, he has all the leverage -- he just needs to remain firm. Whether it's a continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government running or an increase to the debt ceiling, he'll get what he wants because ultimately Republicans will have to give in to avoid the wrath of the voters at the polls next year. In other words, it's give up the effort to defund Obamacare or commit electoral suicide. (Actually, though, there's no guarantee they'll act rationally and give in. Many of them seem prepared to fight to the bitter end.)

Read more »

When extreme isn't extreme enough

By Frank Moraes

Guess who said the following: "Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holder of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits." Ronald Reagan. But as David Horsey says, "The current crop of congressional Republicans have more in common with the Weather Underground of the 1960s than they do with traditional Republicans, including the man they claim to venerate, Ronald Reagan." Of course, let's not hold up Ronald Reagan as a kind of ideal. If the Democrats hadn't given him his enormous tax cuts, he might have been leading the charge for a government default. The main thing, though, is that a serious threat of a government default was always unthinkable—at least up to two years ago.

Last night, Politico reported some amazing news, House Republicans Lack Votes to Move Plan to Raise Debt Ceiling. Let me put this in perspective. Remember yesterday when I reported on the Ridiculous GOP Debt Ceiling "Plan"? This was the House Republicans' laundry list of every policy they've ever wanted: Obamacare delay, tax cuts, entitlement cuts, more oil drilling, and even an end to net neutrality. John Boehner couldn't get his caucus to agree to that.

According to the article, the Republicans didn't think there was enough in terms of deficit reduction. It reported, "Conservatives complained that it lacked specific spending cuts and failed to tackle entitlement reform." But not to worry! Representative Tom Cole said the leadership was tinkering with the bill. And Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers said they were working on the exact timing for the vote.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "House G.O.P. to plan next step as budget clock runs down"

(The Hill): "Reid's parting shot to Boehner: Pass our bill, or it's a shutdown"

(Washington Post): "U.N. Security Council unanimously passes Syria chemical weapons resolution"

(BBC News): "Iran nuclear: Rivals rally as Rouhani returns from UN"

(Boston Globe): "A stern warning on global warming: Warns of nearing key carbon level; says main cause is human activity"

Listening to Now: Wes Montgomery - "Full House"

By Richard K. Barry

I'm taking a jazz ensemble improvisation course at the Toronto Conservatory, which sounds impressive except for the fact that I have no idea what I'm doing. These jazz guys are constantly changing key centres, which makes me crazy. Pick a key. Stick with it. Like blues or rock. I can do that. 

Anyway, one of the tunes we're working on is Wes Montgomery's "Full House." 

P.M. Headlines

(Associated Press): "U.S, Iran leaders talk for the first time since 1979"

(National Review): "Cruz to House conservatives: "Oppose Boehner"

(Public Policy Polling): "Cruz emerges as GOP leader"

(New York Times): "A Republican ransom note"

(The Hill): "Senate approves measure to keep federal government operating"

Ridiculous GOP debt ceiling "plan"

By Frank Moraes

There hasn't been much news recently—at least on the national level. I think this is because everyone is waiting around to see just what the Republicans do to fuck everything up. The Republicans work as the equivalent of Iago in politics. Or perhaps a better analogy would be Worm fromRounders. He fucks everything up, but he doesn't have a reason for it. It is just how he rolls. That seems to be the case with the Republicans and the government shutdown and Debt Ceiling crisis.

This morning, Jonathan Strong at National Review provided us with the goods, Revealed: The House GOP's Debt-Ceiling Plan. And it is quite a "plan." Basically, it is just a conservative wish list. The Debt Ceiling bill that the House Republicans are cooking up says, "We'll raise the Debt Ceiling, and all you have to give us is everything we've ever wanted." Well, that's not exactly true. They aren't asking for the death penalty for women using birth control and anyone caught having "unnatural" sex. But otherwise, it is all in there.

They want Obamacare delayed for the exact period of time they will limit the Debt Ceiling. But wait, there's more! They want the Keystone Pipeline green lighted, more oil drilling offshore, and an end to EPA carbon regulations. They want an end to net neutrality. They want tort reform. Not satisfied? There's more! They want to cut the child tax credit. They want to means test Medicare. They what the REINS Act which would politicizes all scientific judgments in regulations. But don't answer yet, because there is so much more! They want to gut Dodd-Frank. They want entitlement "reform" (i.e. cuts). They want the Ryan budget plan!

Read more »

On the Hustings

(New York Times): "Hers to lose: Inside Christine Quinn’s bid for mayor"

(Politico): "2006 dispute led to temporary restraining order against E.W. Jackson"

(The Hill): "Allen West: 'Of course' I'll run for Senate if Rubio runs for president"

(Roll Call): "Tea Party candidate eyes Thad Cochran primary challenge [Miss.]"

(Washington Examiner): "GOP attacks vulnerable Dems who refused to defund Obamacare"

DeMint wants a Mulligan

By Mustang Bobby

Former Sen. Jim DeMint, who left the Senate to make a pile of money scamming wingnuts through the Heritage Foundation, claims that the election of 2012 didn’t count because the Republicans never got their real message out and Mitt Romney sucked as a conservative.

DeMint thinks the election results don’t accurately reflect national sentiment and therefore can’t be used to argue against his desire to move the party to the right. True conservatism never got a hearing—particularly not in regard to Obamacare, which was, after all, modeled after a Massachusetts law signed by Romney. “Because of Romney and Romneycare, we did not litigate the Obamacare issue,” he says. Essentially, DeMint is declaring a mistrial. His side can still prevail, he says, but only by awakening the angry, alienated masses who were put off by Romney’s tepid impersonation of a conservative.

So much for the GOP re-examination, autopsy, and rebranding. (By the way, as upyernoz reminds us, Romneycare, which begat Obamacare, was invented by the Heritage Foundation.)

The good news is that if the Republicans actually listen to Mr. DeMint — and the point theBusiness Week article is that he’s the one really calling the shots on Capitol Hill — it’s going to be a very long time before there’s another Republican president.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "What happens if the government shuts down?"

(Baltimore Sun): "Ted Cruz wins by losing"

(The Hill): "House Republicans lack votes to move plan to raise debt ceiling"

(The Hill): "Boehner: House unlikely to accept clean funding bill from Senate"

(New York Times): "Obama scorns G.O.P. ‘blackmail’ on health law"

P.M. Headlines

(Bloomberg): "Democrat Manchin breaks ranks to back mandate delay"

(Matthew Yglesias): "House GOP just showed why Obama can't compromise on the debt ceiling"

(Huffington Post): "Republicans willing to risk debt limit disaster to win concessions"

(Jonathan Chait): "House Republicans issue ransom demand: Implement Romney plan or the economy gets it"

(CNBC): "What's in a name? Lots when it comes to Obamacare/ACA"

Equal rights

By Mustang Bobby

Alex Roarty in The Atlantic wonders if gay-rights laws are trampling on freedom of religion.

Conservatives may have found another way to stem the rising tide of rights for America’s gays and lesbians. Rather than a frontal assault on the constitutionality of, say, same-sex marriage, they’re taking another tack — asserting that their own civil rights are violated when they’re forced to treat gay couples like straight ones.

Take the case of Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, co-owners of a small Albuquerque, New Mexico, photography company. Last month, the New Mexico Supreme Court determined the couple had acted illegally in 2006 when they refused to take pictures of a commitment ceremony (held in lieu of a still-illegal marriage) between a gay couple. Noting that state law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, the state court decreed that accommodating different types of people was the “price of citizenship” in America.

It was yet another victory for gay-rights advocates, who have watched public opinion swell in their favor in recent years. But to the Hugeunins and those who have rallied to their cause, the case represents something else: a rare opportunity to shift public opinion in the other direction.

The Huguenins argue being forced to photograph the ceremony amounted to a persecution of their faith and an infringement on their First Amendment rights. “This idea that people in America can be compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives as the ‘price of citizenship’ is an unbelievable attack on freedom,” Jim Campbell, an attorney for the Huguenins, told National Journal. “Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin were simply trying to live their lives and operate their business in accordance with their faith.”

No, treating other people like shit because your mythology and bigotry says you should is not an excuse or a right. You can believe whatever you want, but when you open a business to the public, then you have no expectation of exclusion.

On the other hand, the Huguenins could open a megachurch and discriminate against whomever they choose. Not only that, the money’s better.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

On the Hustings

(Washington Post): "McAuliffe, Cuccinelli take their bitter battle to the airwaves"

(Politicker): "Anthony Weiner eyed media gigs long before mayoral bid: Sources"

(Ralston Reports): ""The Democratic 2014 turnout machine, courtesy of Pat Hickey"

(Public Policy Polling): "Coakley, Markey ahead in 2014 races [Mass.]"

(Roll Call): "Social Conservatism Rebounds in Special-Election Primary | #AL01"

Something's not right here

By Carl

You may recall a story from a few weeks ago about a NYC cab jumping a curb and hitting a British tourist, mangling her lower leg and forcing it to be amputated. Her life was saved by a passerby who quickly wrapped his belt around her leg as a tourniquet before paramedics could scoot her to a hospital.

Well, you’ll be pleased to read that the victim is grateful not only to the gentleman who came to her aid but to many other strangers – including TV’s Dr. Oz – who assisted her, and is keeping a very positive attitude about the whole thing.

But…

You will not be pleased with the rest of the story.

First, the driver, Faisal Himon will be getting his license back in a few days and will be out on the streets of NY, terrorizing tourists and residents alike again.

Now that you’ve taken a breath and released your rage, you may recall that a stranger leaped into action, likely saving the girl’s life.

Yea?

Yea. That didn’t work out so well for our hero…

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Republicans are a cult more than a party

By Frank Moraes

Jonathan Chait wonders if any positive information about Obamacare can get through the conservative media blackout, Someone Tell Ted Cruz the Obamacare War Is Over. He isn't alone; a lot of people wonder how it can be that in conservativeworld, all the news is bad. But this is just more of liberal commentators thinking that the conservative movement is just like any other political movement. It is best to think of modern conservatism as cult.

Regardless of what kind of healthcare reform had been implemented, liberals would have been hopefully optimistic that it would work. Most liberals are not that keen on Obamacare, but even if they had gotten the single payer system that they wanted, they would have watched closely to see how it was doing. They would have been pretty sure that it was going to work well, but they would have been ultimately constrained by the facts on the ground.

Conservatives are quite different. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that conservative opinion leaders are quite different. They don't think that conservative policies are the best; they know. So when it comes to Obamacare, they are sure it is going to be bad. They don't need the random bit of positive data to confuse the issue. Anyway, what makes a policy the best is not what works the best as most people would define it. The attack on Obamacare is not even about the ridiculous notion that it will deprive people of "freedom" by making them change their healthcare. (It doesn't do that, anyway, not that it matters.) They aren't even against it because of their generalized hatred of poor people who the program helps. They are against the program because it raises taxes a small amount on the wealthy.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Salon): "Ted Cruz’s long-term strategy: Brilliant, but stupid"

(Red State): ""In a battle between Ted Cruz and Harry Reid, we must stand with Senator Cruz"

(The Hill): "Senate advances stopgap spending bill defunding ObamaCare"

(Real Clear Politics): "President Obama job approval"

(New York Times): "Iran’s leader, denouncing Holocaust, stirs dispute"

P.M. Headlines

(Chicago Tribune): "Ted Cruz catapults to fame with marathon anti-Obamacare speech"

(New York Times): "The embarrassment of Senator Ted Cruz"

(Politico): "HHS reveals Obamacare coverage prices for federal exchanges"

(Washington Post): "New debt limit deadline is Oct. 17"

(USA Today): "$87 million in fines, criminal charges in Libor probe"

Democrats aren't in trouble in 2014

By Frank Moraes

Should we be worried about the Democrats' chances in the 2014 elections? Charlie Cook thinks we should. He has been looking at the polling from NBC News/Wall Street Journal. And he is right that it isn't a slam dunk for the Democrats regardless. But I think he's overstating the problems.

Most of his article presents relatively good news to the Democrats. In generic polling, Democrats have a 45-42 advantage over Republicans. But these generic polls tend to overstate the Democratic advantage by 2 percentage points. Thus, right now, it looks like the Democrats have a 1 percentage point advantage in 2014. This is not great. In 2012, the advantage was 47-42. According to Cook's 2-point rule, that gave the Democrats a 3 percentage point advantage, which is about right (the Democrats did better than that in the White House and Senate, but worse in the House). In 2010, the disadvantage was 43-45, or a 4 percentage point advantage for the Republicans. So the Democrats are looking a lot better for 2014 than they looked for 2010.

Read more »

On the Hustings

(Roll Call): "Byrne, Young advance to runoff in Alabama special election | #AL01"

(Politico): "Steve Schmidt rants against GOP ‘asininity’"

(Charlie Cook): "Democrats need to keep an eye on Republican-tilting independent voters"

(Real Clear Politics): "Sean Eldridge faces tough race in NY-19"

(The Hill): "FreedomWorks endorses Boehner ally's primary opponent"

Cruz I lose

By Capt. Fogg

I don’t like that Cruz-I-Lose
I do not like him
On the Tube
I do not like him
He’s a boob.
I don’t like him on the floor
I don’t like him, he’s a whore
I do not like him here or there.
I do not like him ANYWHERE!

Someone needs to kick his legs out

By Carl

I’ll give Ted Cruz credit for one thing, and one thing only: he’s not making a bullshit filibuster:

Republican Ted Cruz of Texas was still on the Senate floor talking Wednesday-- a dramatic step in defense of his high profile and controversial plan to prevent any funding for Obamacare.

"I intend to speak in support of defunding Obamacare until I am no longer able to stand," he said

Tuesday. "All across this country, Americans are suffering because of Obamacare. Obamacare isn't working."

Of course, he’s wrong: Obamacare isn’t working, it’s true. That’s because it hasn’t been implemented yet. But no one is suffering. In fact, they are thriving and will thrive even more.

Among Cruz’s concerns about national health insurance is how people will “lose their jobs or have their hours cut” (not a direct quote, but you can imagine that’s in his notes.)

Read more »

An olive twig to Tehran

By Mustang Bobby

It wasn’t exactly a kum-by-yah moment, and there was no pre-planned spontaneous back-room handshake, but President Obama, speaking to the U.N. yesterday, at least offered a glimmer of easing tensions with Iran.

The United States and Iran have been isolated from one another since the Islamic revolution of 1979. This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a history of U.S. interference in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing the Iranian government during the Cold War. On the other hand, Americans see an Iranian government that has declared the United States an enemy and directly or through proxies taken American hostages, killed U.S. troops and civilians, and threatened our ally Israel with destruction.

“I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight. The suspicions run too deep. But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road toward a different relationship, one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.

It’s a small step and may lead not much further than that, but it sure beats the hell out of “bomb bomb bomb Iran.”

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Senator Cruz rails through night against Obamacare"

(CBS News): "Premiums on Obamacare marketplaces beat expectations, report shows"

(Jonathan Cohn): "This optimistic news actually makes a shutdown more likely"

(New York Times): "Obama and Rouhani miss each other, diplomatically, at U.N."

(Paul Krugman): "What’s it all about then"

P.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "Iranian President Hassan Rouhani calls for new nuclear talks"

(New Republic): "Obama just gave his most significant foreign policy speech"

(CNN): "What do shutdown and debt limit have to do with Obamacare?"

(ABC News): "Ted Cruz vows to speak against Obamacare: ‘Until I am no longer able to stand’"

(The Hill): "Kerry to sign UN arms treaty"

Well, now this is interesting

By Carl

President Obama made an overture to Iran today at the United Nations:

This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a history of US interference in their affairs, and America's role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the cold war.

This is the first official acknowledgement of CIA involvement in the 1953 coup that overthrew the very popular elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was friendly towards the Soviet Union, and installing an ally in the Shah.

Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Parsing Hillary-speak

By Richard K. Barry

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently gave an interview to  New York magazine. It was her first longer interview since leaving the State Department at the end of last year. It was written by Joe Hagan, and contains these two nuggets below about Ms. Clinton's intentions in 2016. Yeah. She's running.

I’m both pragmatic and realistic. I think I have a pretty good idea of the political and governmental challenges that are facing our leaders, and I’ll do whatever I can from whatever position I find myself in to advocate for the values and the policies I think are right for the country. I will just continue to weigh what the factors are that would influence me making a decision one way or the other.

And:

I’m not in any hurry. I think it’s a serious decision, not to be made lightly, but it’s also not one that has to be made soon. This election is more than three years away, and I just don’t think it’s good for the country. It’s like when you meet somebody at a party and they look over your shoulder to see who else is there, and you want to talk to them about something that’s really important; in fact, maybe you came to the party to talk to that particular person, and they just want to know what’s next. I feel like that’s our political process right now. I just don’t think it is good.

People are making a lot out of the fact that this is the first time she has publicly declared she is thinking about running.  I suspect she's thinking a lot about running. 

On the Hustings

(Political Wire): "Lonegan closing on Booker"

(Roll Call): "How bad is the GOP rift? Worse than Democrats in the 1980s"

(Washington Post): "McAuliffe leads Cuccinelli in Virginia governor’s race"

(Real Clear Politics): "Sen. Graham in toughest re-election of career"

(Politico): "Wendy Davis vs. Greg Abbott in Texas: ‘Bruising’"

(Washington Post): "E.W. Jackson says non-Christians are engaged in ‘some sort of false religion’"

No harm, no foul

By Mustang Bobby

Henry Olsen at the National Review goes off on House Republicans:

The conservative war on food stamps is the most baffling political move of the year. Conservatives have suffered for years from the stereotype that they are heartless Scrooge McDucks more concerned with our money than other people’s lives. Yet in this case, conservatives make the taking of food from the mouths of the genuinely hungry a top priority. What gives? And why are conservatives overlooking a far more egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars in the farm bill?

They may have suffered from the stereotype of being greedy bastards, but it has rarely lost them an election. I’m hard-pressed to think of a candidate who was defeated by campaigning against a government program, even one that benefits the people who vote for him or her.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Behind the Ad: The Koch brothers redefine bad taste

By Richard K. Barry

Who: Generation Opportunity

Where: Online

What's going on: In this ad, a man with an Uncle Sam mask, wearing a blue glove and carrying a speculum presents himself to a young female patient in a "compromising position" on the examination table. The point? "Don’t let the government play doctor. Opt out of Obamacare.”

According to the Portland Business Journal:

The ad [is] reportedly funded by Generation Opportunity, a conservative group funded by the billionaire Koch brothers and ... part of a broad campaign to dissuade younger people from enrolling in health insurance, since their participation is key to the success of the law. 

I guess, depending on your view of the Affordable Care Act, you'll find the ad either amusing or creepy as hell.

I'm going with creepy as hell, in particular in the way the woman in the compromising position is struggling to get away. Not funny.

A.M. Headlines

(BBC New Africa): "Kenya stand-off"

(New York Times): "Senate Democratic leader sets stage for budget showdown"

(The Hill): "Reid, Cruz begin ObamaCare slugfest"

(The American Prospect): "The finger of blame points only one way"

(Real Clear Politics): "IRS official at heart of Tea Party scandal retires"

P.M. Headlines

(Pew Research): "Blame for both sides as possible government shutdown approaches"

(CNBC): "Most Americans against defunding Obamacare: Survey"

(Gallup Politics): "Americans' desire for gov't leaders to compromise increases"

(New York Times): "Lower health insurance premiums to come at cost of fewer choices"

(Wall Street Journal): "BlackBerry strikes preliminary go-private deal for $4.7 billion"

Kenya stand-off

By Carl

The siege at a shopping mall in Kenya is entering its third day today. While the government has responded forcefully, the attackers – presumed to be terrorists from a subsidiary of Al Qaeda, and who’d have thought even terrorism would be corporatized? – have dug in pretty deeply:

NAIROBI — Loud explosions and sporadic bursts of gunfire could be heard coming from an upscale mall here on Monday, as Kenyan security forces tried to dislodge Islamist militants who were believed to be holed up inside the building with hostages for a third consecutive day.

By afternoon, large plumes of smoke were rising from the area, but it was unclear whether the explosions were triggered by the heavily armed militants from Somalia’s al-Shabab militia or by security forces inside the Westgate Premier Shopping Mall.

Al-Shabab is a Somalian-based, Al Qaeda derived group, existing in a nation that has no gun control, no taxes, and no central government. A perfect conservative experiment!

The Kenyan government claims that the hostages have either all been freed or killed (including up to five Americans, with at least one dead.) But then, wouldn’t a government claim they had any situation under control?

The thing that disturbs me most about this attack is that Al Qaeda has long used Africa as a staging area to signal when they were about to attack on US soil. In 1992, Osama bin Laden sent Al Qaeda forces into Somalia to assist the warlords in the battles with NATO forces. Also in 1992, bin Laden moved to Sudan.

Early 1993 saw the first World Trade Center attack by forces of Omar Abdel-Rahman, leader of an organization with close ties to Al Qaeda through Ayman al Zawahiri.

In 1998, attacks were executed against US embassies in Dar es Salaam and Naiobi. In 2000, Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole.

And then, of course, came September 11. You could make the case that floating a fishing boat laden with explosives is not a bad test run for flying a plane loaded with fuel into an American skyscraper.

So what to make of a mall attack and hostage-taking (and potential destruction) in terms of an attack on American soil?

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

On the Hustings

(The Hill): "Eyeing GOP grassroots, Senate candidates embrace shutdown threat"

(National Journal): "Iowa GOP infighting could cost a Senate seat"

(Reuters): "Clinton mulls idea of White House run, aware of 'challenges'"

(Fremont Tribune): "Neb. state Sen. Dubas joins 2014 governor's race"

(Tampa Bay Times): "Murphy picks up endorsement of Sen. Bill Nelson in House race"

(Huffington Post): "House Democrats raise big money off Republican push to 'defund Obamacare'"

There'll be a hot time in Stockholm tonight

By Capt. Fogg

Everyone knows there are two sides to every story and so things generate their own opposites if only to fulfill the expectations, and so light creates dark, even if dark is nothing at all.

It's a trivial notion, of course, but the practice of using the shadow of a thing to discredit or obliterate that thing has consequences that are far from trivial, because the nothing we give a name to can, at least in the emotional logic the public loves and public passion feeds on, cancel out something. Every assertion that must be blunted or countered or denounced can be reversed in sign, so to speak and used to cancel the assertion. At least it can in a world, in an inner universe of the mind where people don't think too much or too well and can be convinced that one's image in a mirror can cancel itself out if we don't like what we see. There must be two sides if we're to reduce a question of fact to a matter of opinion and that's just what the game is.

Read more »

Base camp

By Mustang Bobby

For all the crap that the Very Serious People and mainstream Republicans are dumping on Ted Cruz, it’s not like it’s going to have any impact on the people he’s trying to reach: the hard-core wingnuts that comprise the GOP base who vote in primaries and who think that pissing off people like Karl Rove and the Sunday soldiers like Ross Douthat and David Brooks is a badge of honor.

And as long as Sarah Palin is on his side, they’ll never waver. It’s always 2008 as they head into 2016.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(Politico): "McCaskill: Too many GOP 'tantrums'"

(Los Angeles Times): "In Washington, countdown to a shutdown"

(New York Times): "Lawmakers point fingers over budget deadlock"

(Mediaite): "NRA’s LaPierre on Navy Yard shooting: ‘There weren’t enough good guys with guns’"

(Associated Press): "Close ties between White House, NSA spying review"

P.M. Headlines

(Fox News): "Obama honors shooting victims, urges Americans to help stop gun violence"

(BBC News): "Nairobi Westgate attack: 'Most hostages are rescued'"

(Mediaite): "Fox’s Wallace stunned: GOP leaders sent me opposition research on Ted Cruz"

(New York Magazine): "Hillary in midair"

(Al Jazeera America): "California signs state's first fracking rules"

On the Hustings

(Spiegel Online): "Election triumph: Merkel victorious but faces tough talks"

(The Detroit News): "Sen. Rand Paul wins presidential straw poll at Mackinac Island GOP event"

(Real Clear Politics): "Election 2016 presidential polls"

(The Hill): "Coal-state Dem candidates rip Obama for new EPA rules"

(Roll Call): "House Democrats outraise GOP in August"