;)
The Commentariat -- April 9, 2015
Internal links removed.
Afternoon News:
Thomas Erdbrink of the New York Times: "Iran’s supreme leader challenged on Thursday two of the United States’ bedrock principles in the nuclear negotiations, declaring that all economic sanctions would have to be lifted on the day any agreement is signed and that military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors.The assertions by the leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could be tactical...."
Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post: "The State Department has finished its review of Cuba’s presence on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism and forwarded its recommendation to the White House, President Obama said Thursday. Obama said he is waiting for his top aides to review the document and place it before him for a final decision."
... Ben Kamisar of the Hill: "The Clinton Foundation reportedly accepted millions of dollars from a Colombian oil company head before then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to support a trade deal with Colombia despite worries of human rights violations." Here's the original report in International Business Times.
*****
Sahil Kapur of TPM: "President Barack Obama warned the Supreme Court in an interview Wednesday that a ruling to invalidate Obamacare subsidies would be 'a bad decision' and result in 'millions of people losing their health insurance.'... In a separate interview with ABC News on Wednesday, Obama called the lawsuit 'the last gasp' of Obamacare opponents. The remarks in the pair of interviews represent the most extensive thoughts the president has offered recently on King v. Burwell...."
President Obama on the impacts of climate change on public health:
... CW: Sometimes I imagine myself being asked the same questions President Obama is asked. And each time I realize that my responses would not be a quarter as thorough or compelling as Obama's answers. We are really fortunate to have a president who is, as Joe Biden once put it, "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." Me, I'm clean.
Michael Shear of the New York Times:"President Obama is calling for an end to ... therapies aimed at 'repairing' gay, lesbian and transgender youth. His decision on the issue is the latest example of his continuing embrace of gay rights. In a statement that was posted on Wednesday evening alongside a WhiteHouse.gov petition..., Mr. Obama condemned the practice, sometimes called 'conversion' or 'reparative' therapy, which is supported by some socially conservative organizations and religious doctors."
Michael Shear: "A federal judge in Texas on Tuesday angrily denied the federal government’s request to allow President Obama’s immigration executive actions to proceed, even as an appeals court signaled that it might disagree with the judge when it takes the issue up next week. Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in Brownsville, refused late Tuesday night to lift the injunction he had placed in February on the president’s immigration program, saying that to do so would cause irreparable harm."
Carol Leonnig & Keith Alexander of the Washington Post: "The Secret Service has put a senior supervisor on leave and suspended his security clearance after a female employee accused him of assaulting her after-hours at agency headquarters last week, the agency said Wednesday.... The Secret Service also took away his gun and badge after agency investigators launched a preliminary review of the complaint and conducted 'subsequent corroborative interviews' Thursday afternoon...."
Nicholas Kristof: "A newly released global index finds that America falls short, along with other powerful countries, on what matters most: assuring a high quality of life for ordinary citizens.... As an American, what saddens me is also that our political system seems unable to rise to the challenges.... Our children — so our political system remains in gridlock, even as other countries pass us by."
David Sanger of the New York Times: "The C.I.A. director, John O. Brennan, speaking Tuesday night at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, suggested that a key to the deal [on containment of Iran's nuclear program] was the election of President Hassan Rouhani, who had hardly been the supreme leader’s first choice. It took more than two years, he suggested, for the new president, a former nuclear negotiator himself, to persuade the far more isolated Ayatollah Khamenei that 'six years of sanctions had really hit,' and that the economic future imperiled the regime."
Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed: Sen. Tom "Cotton said any military action against Iran would not be like the Iraq War and would instead be similar to 1999’s Operation Desert Fox, a four-day bombing campaign against Iraq ordered by President Bill Clinton." ...
... Steve Benen: "Look, we’ve seen this play before, and we have a pretty good idea how it turns out. When a right-wing neoconservative tells Americans that we can launch a new military offensive in the Middle East, it won’t last long, and the whole thing will greatly improve our national security interests, there’s reason for some skepticism.... But don’t worry, America, Tom Cotton thinks this would all be easy and we could drop our bombs without consequence. What could possibly go wrong?" ...
... Yo, Bibi!
Worth sharing: Here's how the #IranDeal would shut down Iran's pathway to a nuclear weapon → http://t.co/BWuabs0TNz pic.twitter.com/8aYQi2KEgq
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 8, 2015
... Via David Knowles of Bloomberg.
Presidential Race
"Rand Paul Gets 'Testy' on Abortion and Foreign Policy Flip-Flops." Sabrina Siddiqui of the Guardian: Rand Paul's "defensive demeanor in response to tough questions has reporters wondering if Paul is truly prepared to run for president.... in a pair of contentious interviews during his first stop in New Hampshire, Paul found himself on the defensive – on topics ranging from Iran and Israel to abortion and his confrontations with women – as political watchers raised questions about whether Paul would be too extreme for the world’s biggest campaign stage.... The testy exchange [between Paul & NBC's Savannah Guthrie] was quickly seized upon as another example of Paul being condescending toward a female reporter, following a February interview on CNBC in which he 'shushed' anchor Kelly Evans and told her to 'calm down'." ...
... Gail Collins: "Once Paul began sniffing the presidential air, position changes started coming rapid-fire, and he’s gotten quite touchy when people point that out. 'No, no, no, nonononono,' he said, accusing NBC’s Savannah Guthrie of 'editorializing' when she listed several of his recent shifts." Also, Rand has put the kibosh on asking him any questions about things he said prior to his getting into politics, which was way back in 2010. ...
... Fortunately for us all, as Akhilleus pointed out in yesterday's commentary, for a mere $20 we can now purchase Rand Paul Flip-Flops from his own campaign:
Show off your support with these full color, and vibrant flip flops. -- Small print in the ad.
CW: As Akhilleus pointed out, the main text of the ad describes the flip-flops as "sandals." It appears to me Rand's crack staff did some careless editing. Probably the original description of the footwear used the term "flip-flops"; then for some completely unknown reason, somebody decided "flip-flops" were an inauspicious campaign product. Unfortunately for Senator Flip-Flop, the campaign editor missed the small print & forgot to change the title of the product photo, which includes the word "flipflop". Those little red flames on the flip-flops may signify what Randy is going down in.
... Here's Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post journosplaining why Rand's mansplaining is not good campaign strategy. CW: Cillizza doesn't mention that the Democratic nominee in all likelihood will be a woman. Should Randy be her opponent, there's a mighty good chance we'll see Rand's shushing & mansplaining in Democratic campaign ads.
... Philip Elliott of the AP: "Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul ... is dodging a central question about abortion: What exceptions, if any, should be made if the procedure were to be banned? In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, Paul would not say if his opposition to abortion rights includes an exception in cases of rape, incest or risk to the life of the mother.... In the past, Paul has supported legislation that would ban abortion with exceptions, while at other times, he's backed bills seeking a broader bar on abortion." ...
... Eric Bradner of CNN: "Rand Paul says he doesn't want to be grilled about abortion until Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz answers similarly tough questions. Wasserman Schultz hit back -- highlighting Paul's testy interviews with female television anchors, too, by saying she hopes he can 'respond without 'shushing' me.' But Paul, the Kentucky Republican senator who launched his 2016 presidential campaign this week, said her answer made it sound like she is indeed okay 'killing a seven-pound baby.'" ...
... Brian Beutler of the New Republic: "... for all his natural talent, Paul can't reconcile his beliefs with his ambitions. That's a huge problem for a national politician. It will define his candidacy." ...
... Paul tells Wolf Blizter he gets "universally short-tempered & testy with both male & female reporters" & describes his hostility as "pretty much equal opportunity." Video.
Nicholas Confessore of the New York Times tries to figure out the sources of Ted Cruz's $31 million -- the amount his campaign claims a network of secretive SuperPACS has raised this week. Thanks to Victoria D. for the link.
Beyond the Beltway
Kate Zernicke of the New York Times: "The federal investigation into the lane closings at the George Washington Bridge appears to be coming to a head, with an announcement of indictments as early as next week.... [Chris] Christie’s political ambitions wait on [U.S. Attorney Paul] Fishman. As [the investigation] has dragged on, he has pushed past the dates he set for a decision on whether to run for president in 2016.... Even if the investigation produces no legal problems for Mr. Christie, any indictments will almost certainly add to his political challenges. People close to the case say prosecutors are likely to bring charges based on a rarely used provision of a fraud statute...."
Wesley Lowery & Elahe Izadi of the Washington Post: "The mayor of the South Carolina town [-- North Charleston --] where a white officer was filmed fatally shooting an unarmed black man called the incident a 'horrible tragedy' as he announced that all patrol officers would be outfitted with body cameras." ...
... Lauren Williams of Think Progress: "The popular crowd-funding site GoFundMe rejected a campaign to raise money for the South Carolina officer charged with fatally shooting an unarmed black man last week." ...
... Alan Blinder & Marc Santora of the New York Times: "For many in [North Charleston, S.C.,] a city that has long had a troubled relationship between the police and black residents, [the police killing of Walter Scott] was proof not just of a possible crime but of a pattern of abuse — a concern that mirrors many of the issues over policing that have played out nationally. As in other parts of the nation, the distrust here was rooted in police tactics put in place many years ago to combat rising violence that have remained in force as crime has ebbed.... On Wednesday, dozens of people gathered outside City Hall in North Charleston to protest what they said was a persistent abuse of power by the police." ...
... CW: Jamelle Bouie looks at the traffic stop itself, which is what caught my eye immediately upon first reading the story about the video of this apparent murder. "Where traffic safety stops are mostly painless (other than tickets), investigatory stops involve searches, impromptu interrogations, and occasionally handcuffs and weapons.... In investigatory stops..., drivers are stopped for exceedingly minor violations — driving too slowly, malfunctioning lights, failure to signal — which are used as pretext for investigations of the driver and the vehicle.... In [a national] study, 60 percent of all stops for whites were for traffic safety, versus 35 percent for blacks. By contrast, 52 percent of all stops for blacks (versus 34 percent for whites) were for events in which the reasons were minor (“You didn’t signal at the stop sign”). ...
... David Graham of the Atlantic: "Of more than 22,000 stops in 2014 in North Charleston, 16,730 involved African Americans — almost 76 percent of stops, much higher than the city's black population. Most of those, some 10,600, involved black men, like Scott.... Two-thirds of stops that failed to produce a ticket or arrest involved black drivers.... Slager wasn't the only officer charged in South Carolina on Tuesday. Justin Gregory Craven, an officer in North Augusta, was arrested and charged in the death of Ernest Satterwhite, whom Craven shot repeatedly after a car chase that ended in Satterwhite's driveway. That shooting, too, was caught on video. " ...
... Jeff Stein of the Ithaca Voice in Salon: "South Carolina police have fired on 209 suspects over the past five years, but only a few have been charged and none have ever been convicted, according to The State, a South Carolina newspaper.... Legal documents present a stunning account of police brutality in North Charleston, where the population is 47 percent black but the police force is about 80 percent white, according to the [New York] Times." ...
... Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post: "For the second time in exactly seven months, an unarmed African American man was shot by a white South Carolina police officer in broad daylight during a routine traffic stop. For the second time, the law enforcement officer fabricated events to bolster his 'felt threatened' defense. For the second time, video emerged showing the truth.... A routine traffic stop is never routine when you’re black." ...
... Matt Apuzzo & Timothy Williams of the New York Times: "While cameras frequently exonerate officers in shootings, the recent spate of videos has raised uncomfortable questions about how much the American criminal justice system can rely on the accounts of police officers when the cameras are not rolling.... Though the courts have held that people have a constitutional right to record the police, those who do are frequently challenged by officers.... Data is [sic.!] still spotty, but an early study in Rialto, Calif., suggests that when officers carry body cameras, they are less likely to use force." ...
... But for the Video. Ryan Grim & Nick Wing of the Huffington Post write a report of the police killing of Walter Scott as if the video of the actual shooting had never been shot or become public. Their story "relies entirely on local news reports, which sourced their version of events to information from police, the attorney for the officer, 'witnesses' and police statements. Many of those claims turned out to be lies. Slager has been charged with murder. Whenever possible, this article pulls verbatim from local news reports."
Ana Swanson of the Washington Post: "Kansas became the first state to sharply restrict second-trimester abortions on Tuesday, opening another front in the battle between anti-abortion and pro-choice activists at the state level. Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, a strong opponent of abortion, signed the law on Tuesday surrounded by anti-abortion activists and poster-sized images of fetuses. The law, which takes effect July 1, will ban a type of abortion called dilation and evacuation."
Hunter Schwarz of the Washington Post: Louisiana Gov. Bobby "Jindal said he plans to support his state's own [marriage discrimination] bill. Judging from how Indiana's bill catapulted Gov. Mike Pence (R) to the national spotlight, Jindal could soon see the same thing happen for him — and not necessarily in a good way.... Louisiana's Marriage and Conscience Act is more focused and deals specifically with religious beliefs in relation to same-sex marriage.... The bill would allow private businesses to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage and not provide the same benefits to same-sex married couples...."
Mark Stern of Slate: "In March, Florida’s severely conservative House of Representatives did a surprisingly good thing and voted to repeal a state law barring gay couples from adopting children. The vote was entirely symbolic, since the blatantly unconstitutional statute had already been invalidated by the courts.... In response to the adoption ban repeal, Republican representatives are supporting a 'revenge' bill that would give state-funded adoption agencies the ability to refuse to adopt out children to gay couples in the name of religion.... In a recent Florida House Judiciary Committee meeting, [10-year-old] Nathaniel Gill — the son of the gay man who successfully toppled Florida’s adoption ban in the courts — ...was abruptly cut off [mid-testimony] by Republican Committee Chair Charles McBurney." ...
... CW: Stern doesn't seem to understand that being mean to kids is an integral part of the GOP platform.
Share Article
Reader Comments (13)
Thanks to Citizens United, Ted Cruz super PACS have already raised $31 million. A major donor may be a secretive Long Island hedge fund billionaire. Franklin's words about our democracy - "if you can keep it!" - echo.
I can't think of a more repulsive candidate....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/us/super-pacs-network-quickly-raises-31-million-for-ted-cruz.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad
@Victoria. Fortunately, I think in this case, the only people to profit from Ted's windfall will be media outlets, ad-men & the like. I feel certain we will not be condemned to President Ted. It is distressing, of course, that we live in a country where tens of thousands of people will shell out for this grandstanding charlatan. Also, that billionaires are such bigots.
Marie
Dear Marie,
Alas, I do not share your certainty that we will never suffer President Ted Cruz. However repellant a lizard he is, we ignore his demagogic effectiveness at our peril. There is nothing to which this person will not stoop, which makes him a very dangerous opponent. My old friend Wild Bill told me many years ago that he doubted that American democracy could survive a single significant terrorist incident. 11 September 2001 was that event. Intelligence is manifested by action. As we hasten toward the global apocalypse of our own creation, what effective action is still on offer?
Best,
Keith Howard
Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post confirms Marie's wisdom in choosing "Confederates" to describe the Rightists, although he refers specifically to the GOP:
"Fueled by the mega-donations of the mega-rich, today’s Republican Party is not just far from being the party of Lincoln: It’s really the party of Jefferson Davis. It suppresses black voting; it opposes federal efforts to mitigate poverty; it objects to federal investment in infrastructure and education just as the antebellum South opposed internal improvements and rejected public education; it scorns compromise. It is nearly all white. It is the lineal descendant of Lee’s army, and the descendants of Grant’s have yet to subdue it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-longer-the-party-of-lincoln/2015/04/08/bcc46068-de19-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html
Me, I still prefer the term "Redeemers", the Confederacy's rearguard, but hey, chacun a son gout y'all.
I have to agree with observations that Li'l Randy's run for glory will be marred by his inability to keep his cool under fire. He's a spoiled, egotistical brat who doesn't feel he should have to answer to lesser beings (reporters, women, etc.) unless they treat him with cringing obeisance. And I don't necessarily agree with Brian Beutler's claim that Randy is comfortable talking about policy ideas in public settings. He is as long as no one asks him about the numerous inconsistencies in his thinking and as long as no one questions him or asks him if he has a clue WTF he's talking about.
He rattles easily, is uncomfortable having to defend his positions if he's questioned by someone armed with facts and examples, and gets snippy almost instantly. The Guthrie interview is a prime example. Plus, as is often the case, he's just not very smart. He chides her for editorializing. She clearly wasn't doing anything of the kind. She was asking a legitimate question arising from his own public statements and subsequent flip-flops. But he may have come to the interview with the understanding, perhaps warned by a handler, that his past would now be measured against his new positions.
And it's one thing for a person's views to evolve. Mine do. Most of us, given new information and new life experiences can and should adjust our thinking accordingly if warranted. Such adjustments can easily be explained. But we usually don't change bedrock positions we have developed over years. I may feel that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a rat bastard murdering son of a bitch who perpetrated a heinous crime, but I don't believe in the death penalty. If a family member had been killed or severely injured, I might think, for a few moments, that I'd love to see him fry and I'd even volunteer to pull the switch. But then I'd probably (at least I think I would) revert to my longstanding animosity towards the death penalty. It's a strongly held position and I take it seriously.
Rand Paul's flip-flops are in some ways akin to that kind of switch. It's just not believable. Maybe a more skillful and less petulant, juvenile candidate could navigate those tricky waters, but not him.
And I'm so happy to hear, from his talk with Wolf Blitzer, that he's an equal opportunity dickhead. Sorry, I don't buy that either. I've never seen him go at men the way he goes at women. And it's probably true that many of his followers see his demonstrations of pique and his insulting treatment of those women as him being a manly man and standing up to pain in the ass reporters (especially uppity women). You may recall that he-man Rand, during his run for the senate, stood by one of his minions even after he threw a female protester to the street and stomped her head. In fact, Paul said that the stomping was "no big deal" and actually demanded that the victim, Lauren Valle, apologize to him personally.
The guy really is a flaming asshole.
In a way, Buddha Boy reminds me of the Jack Nicholson character in "A Few Good Men". Everyone remembers the "You can't handle the truth" speech, but the crux of that scene is that the Nicholson character, another egotistical asshole who doesn't believe anyone should be able to question him, is pushed by Tom Cruise's defense attorney into losing his temper and admitting that he had given an order that led to the death of a marine under his command. He's arrested and led away.
If only...
Okay, one more about this little shit and then I'm done with him for today. I think.
So the Little One won't answer any questions about abortion until the head of the DNC answers first. (What ever happened to "I know you are, but what am I?")
Really, Randy? "You first! You first!" What are you, 7?
First, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not running for president. You are, douchebag. And taking her pro-choice stance and deciding that that means all Democrats are fine with abortion right up to the birth date doesn't even deserve a response. (Although I bet he thinks he was real slick with that one. He's always such a smug, self-satisfied prick.)
Once more. This guy is a flaming, gaping asshole.
I'd like to say that the statistics for traffic stops in SC that demonstrate an abiding bias in favor of stopping black males for minor infractions is surprising. It's not.
I'm waiting now for the inevitable right-wing attacks on the character of the man who was murdered in cold blood by a police officer. The right has been immensely successful in portraying those with badges as unquestioned heroes, and their victims as murderous thugs. Even the unarmed ones shot dead for the crime of driving with a broken tail light. Oh yeah, and being black.
We'll be treated to more disclaimers that this is that most famous of pro-violence police support, an "isolated incident". Looking around the country, it looks like isolated incidents pop up with frightening regularity, almost as if there's a.....a pattern.
And there is.
In New York City, "stop and frisk" has been part of this pattern. Stop and Frisk came about because of a criminologist's idea called "Broken Windows Policing". The idea behind broken windows sounds almost reasonable until you think about the underlying assumptions.
According to Wikipedia, "The theory states that maintaining and monitoring urban environments to prevent small crimes such as vandalism, public drinking and toll-jumping helps to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness, thereby preventing more serious crimes from happening."
So Broken Windows policing became the order of the day. And then someone had a great idea. If we hand out summonses for minor infractions and order people to go to court to resolve their "crimes" we can give them a "get out of jail" card as long as they pony up some cash. According to a piece in the NY Daily News, Broken Windows eventually would go on to pull in $8.7 million in 2013 alone, the second highest amount taken in by the city's criminal courts. It's a money maker. City officials in Ferguson, MO and other St. Louis County towns, and very likely many other municipalities, have been having a grand old time filling their coffers from fines imposed on black Americans. In NYC, that $8.7 Million was made largely off African American and Latino communities. From the Daily News article: "Roughly 81% of the 7.3 million people hit with violations between 2001 and 2013 were black and Hispanic, according to a New York Civil Liberties Union calculation of available race data on summons forms."
And if you don't go, a warrant is issued. And all of these violations appear on your record making future employment even more difficult than it already is. Many of these "violations" are for bullshit "infractions". One man was ticketed for violating an open container statute. He was sitting on his front porch drinking a beer. Another kid was fined because an officer could hear his radio as he opened his car door to pump some gas.
But here is the flaw with the thinking underlying Broken Windows, the idea that someone sitting on his front porch drinking a beer will, in a few years, be shooting down innocents in the streets or selling hard drugs. A NY Times article on the Dark Side of Broken Windows frames it this way: "Underpinning the execution of “broken windows” is the conviction that someone doing something stupid — committing a minor act of vandalism, for instance — is on the path to becoming someone bad."
Which brings us to the jump from ticketing someone for hopping a subway turnstyle to the use of deadly force at a traffic stop. And thinking it's justified. And even worse? Having a substantial number of citizens thinking it's okay too.
If you buy the underlying premise that certain sectors of society are simply prone to bad actions, then your thinking that you should fear for your life in the most mundane situations almost seems to be a reasonable conclusion. That is, if you're prone to circular logic. But thanks to right-wing, and even mainstream media, race-baiting, opportunistic politicians like Rudy Giuliani, and a never ending stream of hate and bile directed against blacks and Latinos, many whites believe the police are fully within their rights to resort to violence, as long as members of these outsider groups are in the crosshairs.
A 2014 General Social Survey indicates that 7 out of 10 whites believe violence is justified during police interactions.
And the media is no help. One of the most popular TV franchises in history, the Law and Order shows, has migrated from New York to Chicago where Dick Wolf, the creator, has upped the ante with Chicago PD, a show that puts police violence and torture front and center. But not as a demonstration of what not to do. Despite the revelations over the last few years of actual torture by Chicago police officials, the premise of the show is the more violence, the better. Sometimes it's just the threat of torture, but sometimes it's actual torture, or at least severe beatings. Of course, it's always for a good cause, a kid has been kidnapped and may be killed. A mother is being held hostage, you get the idea. They seem to be making the case that torture is allowed when necessary. Not only allowed, but required.
The problem here is the slippery slope that puts us on. It doesn't matter that Chicago PD and other TV cop shows are fictional fantasies, the idea is that police are a species threatened with imminent death at every moment (and in some cases, that's not far off the mark) and so need leeway when dealing with bad guys.
But leeway is one thing. Torture and beatings another. And how far is it from beating a suspect to using a taser and then a gun at a routine traffic stop?
Oh, we'll hear plenty from the Law and Order crowd. And it won't be very long before we have three or four or fifty more "isolated incidents".
Thank god we have John Roberts to remind us that racism is no longer something about which we need concern ourselves.
Just for the hell of it, and that location is apropos to this one, I thought I'd check out breitbart.com (aka Confederate Loony Central) to see what the wingnuts had to say about one of their own murdering an unarmed citizen in SC who was running away.
Nothing. No comments. Hmmmm.....But comments for another piece declare that all the evidence is not in, that we don't know what happened before the shooting (what, did Scott call him a doo-doo head?), and, of course, it's all Obama's fault, and Al Sharpton's and liberals, of course, are to blame).
But on another story, the breathless reporting about how that evil slut Savannah Guthrie tried to "screw" poor Rand Paul, there are hundreds of comments. One takes great pains to point out that Guthrie has wrinkles, so she can't be taken seriously (she could never work with Murdoch's blonde bimbos, apparently) and that she can't stand on her own two feet and needs help from liberals to protect her from Li'l Randy.
I'm not even gonna link any of this shit, because fuck all of them to hell.
Just the idea that a reporter's facial wrinkles proves that she's wrong and their guy is right is so outrageously stupid that I really don't even know what else to say.
The right in this country has a lot to answer for.
@AK: I can understand your fatigue at concentrating so much on Rand Paul today, but here's the pivotal interview he had with Rachel back in May, 2010, just after he won his senate seat. Not only did this FEMALE interviewer not let him hoodwink her, but she ended with a warning that his stance on civil rights would present a problem for him in the future. Watch how he answers her questions in what one could call a gallimaufry––a confusing jumble of non-related issues in order to side-step her query about discrimination. He was left with a hang-dog appearance and as far as I know has never been back on her program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4FTd-1m-o
@Marie: "... CW: Sometimes I imagine myself being asked the same questions President Obama is asked. And each time I realize that my responses would not be a quarter as thorough or compelling as Obama's answers. We are really fortunate to have a president who is, as Joe Biden once put it, "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." Me, I'm clean."
I just love that!!!!
Ak,
Perhaps someone should break out the Santorum extinguisher to quench Lil' Randy's fire.
@P.D. Pepe: I just love what Marie said, too.
Whatever else you can say about the 2016 field, it is unlikely the next president will measure up to Barack Obama.
Yeah, is it not interesting that Barack Obama has become the man we all thought he was back in 2008? Amazing what being a lame-duck can do for one's integrity! That and being completely fed up with all the ass wipes with whom he has had to play nice. I am absolutely back in love with him and have stopped being upset for being an Obama Organizer.