;)
The Commentariat -- Jan. 29, 2013
Obama 2.0. Seung Min Kim of Politico: "Sen. John Kerry received unanimous approval Tuesday from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to become the next secretary of state, quickly clearing a key hurdle on his way to become the nation's next chief diplomat. The full Senate is expected to take up Kerry's confirmation later Tuesday." Kerry told the committee he was "beyond words," but of course that wasn't true:
... Kathryn Wolfe & Burgess Everett of Politico: "Ray LaHood announced Tuesday that he will leave his post as secretary of transportation, the latest in a line of Cabinet members to step down following President Barack Obama's reelection. President Obama said 'every American who travels by air, rail or highway can thank Ray for his commitment to making our entire transportation system safer and stronger.'"
David Nakamura & Rosalind Helderman of the Washington Post: "The Obama administration has developed its own proposals for immigration reform that are more liberal than a separate bipartisan effort in the Senate, including a quicker path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, people with knowledge of the proposals said. President Obama is expected to provide some details of the White House plans during a Tuesday appearance in Las Vegas, where he will call for broad changes to the nation's immigration laws. The speech will kick off a public push by the administration in support of the broadest overhaul of immigration law in nearly three decades." ...
... Ashley Parker of the New York Times: "A bipartisan group of senators unveiled on Monday a set of principles for comprehensive immigration legislation that includes a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants already in the country illegally, contingent on first securing the nation's borders. The group hopes to have legislation drafted by March, and a vote before the August recess. Speaker John A. Boehner, whose support will be crucial for shepherding any bill through the Republican-controlled House, did not comment on the principles, but his office offered a brief [meaningless] statement." ...
... Adam Serwer of Mother Jones: "... the plan ... also contains several tripwires that, if triggered, could destroy the entire effort.... The Gang of Eight's framework isn't all terrible -- it's just unworkable. It places conditions it's unlikely to meet, and then further compounds the problem by putting a veto in the hands of people who are likely to oppose the plan even if those conditions were met." ...
... Kevin Cirilli of Politico: "Rush Limbaugh said Monday that it's up to him and Fox News to stop amnesty for undocumented immigrants.... Limbaugh said on his program that [Sen. Marco] Rubio is scheduled to appear on his radio program Tuesday." Rubio is a member of the bipartisan group of senators who drew up the immigration "principles." CW: let's see if Rubio can stand up to Rushbo.
** Jonathan Chait: "On November 8..., Charles Krauthammer laid out the way forward for" Republicans. They "needed to adopt immigration reform, including amnesty. Otherwise, the party' anti-government bromides offered a perfectly suitable ideological platform.... As the party's response has taken form..., it is following Krauthammer's prescription, almost to the letter. The key figures leading the way are Paul Ryan, the Republicans' de facto leader, and Marco Rubio, perhaps its leading presidential candidate. The two have moved generally in tandem, with Rubio leading the way on immigration, but the whole party apparatus has jolted into action." ...
... CW: so maybe Krauthammer, not Rush, is the actual new leader. We'll see. One thing about the GOP, their actual leaders are more apt to be media stars than politicians because for Republicans, the message is the medium. Their actual programs suck for average Americans, so they are almost wholly dependent upon hucksters to do their bidding. ...
Rachel Maddow interviews Paul Krugman on Republican governance. Thanks to contributor Diane for the heads-up:
The Two Faces of Paul
Look, if we had a Clinton presidency, if we had Erskine Bowles, I think we would have fixed this fiscal mess by now. That's not the kind of presidency we're dealing with right now. -- Paul Ryan on "Press the Meat," Sunday ...
... Steve Benen: " Perhaps now would be a good time to remind Paul Ryan that Clinton was able to eliminate the deficit, start paying off the national debt, and deliver the largest surpluses in American history after -- wait for it -- raising taxes a whole lot. He raised taxes on the wealthy, the middle class, and the private sector, despite howls from congressional Republicans who said Clinton's economic plan would obviously do lasting damage to the economy and force a deep recession. ... On raising taxes, Clinton was further to the left" than Obama.
I think the sequester is going to happen. We think these sequesters will happen because the Democrats have opposed our efforts to replace those cuts with others -- and they've offered no alternatives. -- Paul Ryan, "Press the Meat" ...
... Jed Lewison of Daily Kos: "... this is a perfect example of how Paul Ryan likes to straddle the fence. On the one hand, he's trying to sound like Republicans think these spending cuts are a good idea.... On the other hand, he's trying to blame Democrats for the spending cuts. If only Democrats would cut other (nameless, always nameless) things..., then we wouldn't have to embrace these automatic spending cuts." ...
... Lewison again: "... four months ago ... Ryan was making the case during the 2012 vice presidential debate that the sequester's potential spending cuts emboldened the terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.... now that Ryan once again supports moving forward with those spending cuts, isn't it fair to conclude that Ryan -- by his own logic -- is standing with the terrorists?"
Keynesian economics -- it's pretty clear that doesn't work. -- Paul Ryan, "Press the Meat" ...
... Paul Krugman: "... you know what has actually failed? Ryan's Paulite/Randite monetary economics.... Outside that bubble, a fair number of people have noticed that Keynesian economics has performed spectacularly in the crisis -- it successfully predicted that deficits wouldn't drive up interest rates, that monetary expansion wouldn't be inflationary, that austerity policies in Britain and elsewhere would hit economic growth.... Two years ago Ryan led the charge of Republicans demanding that Ben Bernanke stop his expansionary policies, issuing dire warnings about rising interest rates and soaring inflation.... How have Ryan and those of like mind reacted to the spectacular failure of their doctrine in practice? As far as I can tell, they haven't even acknowledged that they have a problem."
We're not preaching austerity; we're preaching growth & opportunity. -- Paul Ryan, "Press the Meat" ...
... Constant Weader: this is true. Ryan is not preaching austerity; he's writing & passing austerity programs. He is preaching growth & opportunity, but he won't vote for jobs & infrastructure bills. I had to watch a lot of the Ryan interview to get that citation about the failure of Keynesian economics. What was striking was how Ryan was able to distance himself from his own remarks the moment David Gregory played the clips. Ryan's responses: "That was said" (passive voice, as if somebody else had said it & was wrong); "That was taken out of context," etc. The man has zero trouble contradicting himself. He is either absolutely insane or a shameless flim-flam man. He isn't both. Take your pick.
New York Times Editors: "Harry Reid should ... secure Senate passage of the latest version of the Leahy-Crapo bill [which reauthorizes the Violence against Women Act]. That move would help put pressure on Speaker John Boehner and other Republican leaders in the House to stop playing ideological games and reach agreement with the Senate on extending this lifesaving law."
Ylan Mui of the Washington Post: "The nation's housing market is surging again after years of historic declines, and the unique forces powering its return could last well into 2013. The number of homes for sale is at its lowest level since before the recession, sparking competition among buyers that has led to 10 straight months of price increases. The volume of activity is the highest since 2007. Builders broke ground in December on the most new housing developments in four years. And interest rates on mortgages are expected to remain near all-time lows through much of the year, galvanizing once-skeptical buyers."..."
... CW: the itty-bitty upswing in the economy is another reason Obama's win over Romney was so important. It isn't just that Romney-Paul would be taking credit for the "confidence" their win inspired in homebuyers; it is that millions would believe them. All sluggishness would be Obama's fault; all green shoots would be Romney's doing.
Jodi Rudoren of the New York Times: Yair "Lapid's stunning success in last week's [Israeli] election, in which his new Yesh Atid became Israel's second largest party, is being viewed by many voters, activists and analysts here as a victory for the secular mainstream in the intensifying identity battle gripping the country."
News Ledes
AP "Parents of children killed in the Newtown school shooting called for better enforcement of gun laws and tougher penalties for violators Monday at a hearing [called by a Connecticut state legislative committee] that revealed the divide in the gun-control debate, with advocates for gun rights shouting at the father of one 6-year-old victim."
New York Times: "Reacting to the growing chaos in several Egyptian cities, including Cairo, [Egypt's] the Army chief of staff warned on Tuesday of the 'collapse of the state' if political forces in the country did not reconcile, reflecting growing impatience with the crisis from Egypt's most powerful institution."
AP: "There was no alarm, no extinguishers, no sprinklers and almost no escape from the nightclub that became a death trap for more than 200 Brazilian college students." CW: so, a brilliant place to stage a pyrotechnics display.
Share Article
Reader Comments (12)
Maddow had an interview with Krugman tonight. The set-up was the distance between the "populist" message falling from the mouths of Republicans and their actual actions to veer further and further right in states ala Bobby Jindal. If only the rest of the MSM could pick up on this pathetic scam.
I will maintain my belief that the immigration proposal is so much blah blah blah. The substantive parts are merely bargaining chips for Republicans. Republicans think talking about immigration like they give a shit is enough. They believe they are the cleverest people in the room and in particular, immigrants are too dumb to catch on - wink wink. That "path to citizenship" will be so treacherous and steep, it will be impassable. Oh and while I'm at it kiss my ass Schummer whose effusive praise and BS about McCain being "inspiring" has put me off my feed - trust me, being off my feed is rare. Just exactly what does a Senator have to do to ensure that his disgraceful, mean spirited, ignorant behavior IS his legacy. Jeebus, I am tired of others trying to rescue this pathetic pile of shit.
@Diane-
On The Ed Show tonight--John McCain got real (yikes) and admitted that Republican support for an immigration bill is all about
"the elections!" DUH! This man is so emotionally stunted, he does not realize what he said--that immigrants DO NOT MATTER to him--or the rest of the Mighty Righties. All they care about are the results of the next election.
Asswipes all.
@CW — It was really hard to pick just one. I'd go with:
Ryan is a shamelessly, insane flim-flam man, absolutely.
Marie, re the bad/happy word you are looking for, the best I could think of is "sinful." "Sin" is bad, but as the nuns taught us, part of the problem is that it seems like a good idea at the time. "Sinful" has the connotation of being "bad" but not really -- and we really do like it -- as in "This chocolate cake is sinful, to die for." Close to that comes the word "wicked." The meaning of these words depends on the context and delivery, not just the dictionary definition.
Diane, you're on to something. The New Republican slogan could be, "We Appear to Give a Shit About Issues That Are Important to YOU!"
Brooks outdoes himself today. Were I Christian, I might describe his talent as Satanic, the way he lures us in with remarkably reasonable statements and conclusions for the first half, only then to get down to business (a new Republican majority made up of fictitious "reasonable" people who will then block Democratic initiatives!) in the second half.
As I've said before, ever since I began reading Brooks to learn how a master can make the patently unreasonable appear reasonable, it's much a more enjoyable exercise.
Perhaps Brooks is auditioning to be the next Republican Rove Svengali. Clearly, he seems to view the current Republican Party the same way Newt Gingrich has viewed current wives.
Re: Stairway to heaven (and a green card) The GOP (Get Out Party) has a great plan for "The Path". Part pathetic, part pathos, all mystery so far. Mow my yard, get a green card. Feed me a meal, immigration deal. Wash my car, you're gonna' go far.
I'm thinking the real GOP plan is indentured servitude.
Think how great it would be; No more labor for you; the swinging hammock for me. Forget "honey-do lists" or washing the dishes; we got a family of four to carry out our wishes.
The labor laws will soon be forgotten; who cares, as long as someone's pickin' the cotton.
So thanks GOP I think your path is swell; check out the map it's a roadway to hell.
Written for JJG by his indentured servant, Ricardo Cabeza.
P.S.(Jump through hoops; Fuck. I swam a river, climbed a fence and walked fifty miles of desert to get work. I already walked the path. Now I have to do is write for this pendejo. Mi vida is tranquilo.)
Some years ago I read an article in the Atlantic that purported to lay out the differences, social, economic, tribal, moral, historical, between blue and red America. Red America was true to their heritage as loyal Americans, church going, NASCAR watching, hard working and highly moral. Blue America was painted as a dilettantish, foppish, inauthentic world of sushi eating, sandal wearing, upper class amoral hippies.
Did you catch it? The two words that provide instantaneous proof of authorship of this particular species of reportorial garbage?
Here's a hint:
What writer has worked obsessively for the last 20 years, at least, to draw the same tiresome distinction between “morals” and “hippies” the inevitable conclusion of which is "conservatives good; liberals bad"?
Ahh…there you go. You got it.
I remember at the time thinking about what a simplistic and smarmy work up that article, “One Nation, Slightly Divisible” was. I also wondered how much of it, if any, was true and, just recently, I came across another article written by a reporter (a real reporter, not a make it up as I go along to fit my preconceived notions kind of reporter, like David Brooks), Sasha Issenberg, who dissected and re-covered the ground David Brooks pretended to report on in his glorious expansion of that article, the book (if you can call it that) “Bobos in Paradise”, a snarky look at Blue and Red America that snagged Our Miss Brooks his lofty perch at the NY Times.
I’ll let you read it yourself because it’s a devastating take down. The upshot? Brooks simply made it all up. He draws distinctions between two counties the Red (highly moral, grounded, god-fearing, real Americans) and the Blue (liberal, America hating hippies) but hardly any of the “facts” he calls upon to support his thesis can be verified by an actual reporter. In fact, Issenberg discovers that much of Brooks’ “reporting” could not have involved any field investigation at all.
When called upon to explain the slew of discrepancies in his reporting Brooks insulted Issenberg and called him unethical for daring to try to verify his claims. He stated that all he was trying to do was to see if he could present a picture that would “ring true”. Well, shit. "Ring true" sounds good enough for serious sociological research, don't it?
The really dangerous thing about this sort of writing is that many readers take Brooks at his word. His work is and has been used as the basis of much discussion about the differences between the red and the blue and is given an air of authenticity it neither earns nor deserves.
Read it yourself because this is the article that pretty much gave us the David Brooks who today stalks the airwaves, pages, and websites and provides conservatives with a "reasonable intellectual", of which Brooks is, in fact, neither.
He just makes it up
Oh yeah, and I'm with MAG on the Fraud, Ryan.
Shamless and flim-flammy, but no man.
These guys love posturing as macho men (the weight lifting, hat on backwards, "look at me, I'm such a hot gym rat" crap, shooting arrows into woodland animals just for show, the phony washing of pots and pans, the dressed down, shirtsleeves rolled up on the campaign trail to look "regular") but real men and women don't need the photo ops. They stand up and do the right thing when there are no cameras present.
They don't lie, they don't point fingers and blame others for their mistakes, and they don't talk out of both sides of their mouth at the same time. And they don't stick it to other less fortunate people after they themselves have taken their share from everyone else.
That's right, I said "taken".
Because people like this are self-righteous, lying, slimy takers.
Like Paul Ryan.
Pernicious little punk.
Marie,
Hey, I just noticed in your Infotainment department the link to the ousting of the alpha Grizzly Mom herself and I had to make note of it because I think it must be the only sentence ever written--in any language--that includes the names "Palin" and "Diderot".
Wowzah.
Denis, no doubt, would have been fascinated by the Palin Moment. Peut etre he would have included her in his encyclopedia.
Under Bizarre.
Re: Red and Blue; purple when swollen; Thanks Ak, for the link to the true Mr. Brooks. Turns out he's not an asswipe; asswipes have some use. Mr. Brooks is a dick. I don't mind he made shit up for a good read. I do mind when he gets defensive about making shit up for a good read. Timmy is right, the world is not black or white; red or blue, it's a mix. Mr. Brooks hasn't gotten over the fact he wasn't popular in high school with the cool, hippie types yet.
@Akhilleus. Right you are. I alluded to Brooks' problem with Issenberg when I manufactured Brooks' Yale course syllabus in my NYTX column "Boola, Boola, Professor Brooks."
Brooks is a scam artist & he knows it. If there is a difference between Brooks & Paul Ryan, it is that I think it's entirely possible that Ryan is flat-out insane & doesn't understand that you can't say "X" today and "Not X" tomorrow (unless you also say tomorrow "I was wrong about X"). They're both sociopaths; of that I am sure.
Marie
I expect that many of the regulars here on RC, either active or passive, are compulsive and voracious readers and, as such, I wonder how you all take to the hypertext version of Pride and Prejudice currently on offer by our hostess, MB (as she might be referred to in Victorian novels).
My initial response is to deem such hypertexts a kind of post modern embolism that obfuscates the natural ebb and flow of the narrative. And this from someone who is an occasional fan of post modern mischief.
Imagine, if you will, the confoundedness of navigating this Beatrice and Benedick-like back and forth while clicking, clicking, clicking in hopes of consulting the ghostly web gods. The mise en scene in question is the Netherfield Ball, a scene involving a speculative pas de deux between the contentious (but eternally intriguing) Miss Bennet and the haughty Mr. Darcy.
Miss Bennet goes first:
``Sometimes. One must speak a little, you know. It would look odd to be entirely silent for half an hour together, and yet for the advantage of some, conversation ought to be so arranged as that they may have the trouble of saying as little as as possible.''
``Are you consulting your own feelings in the present case, or do you imagine that you are gratifying mine?''
``Both,'' replied Elizabeth archly; ``for I have always seen a great similarity in the turn of our minds. -- We are each of an unsocial, taciturn disposition, unwilling to speak, unless we expect to say something that will amaze the whole room, and be handed down to posterity with all the eclat of a proverb.''
Elizabeth of the arch replies evokes a combination jab in the ribs with a lightbulb over the head with such exchanges, except that in the world of hypertext links, we are less likely to appreciate the viccissitudes of the Bennet/Darcy gyres and gimbles either in the wabes or anywhere else when hyperlinks are apt to dissipate our attention.
That being said, I think the importance and usefulness of such a hyper reading comes upon a second or third or fourth reading.
Just imagine the value of being able to read and re-read the founding documents of America with hyperlinks that reference actual historical documents rather than things like what Ayn Rand and Aqua Buddha might think of the American Experiment.
New media innovations are often most useful as secondary events. I mean, does anyone believe that any Fox personage has actually read the entirety of the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, or the D of I without recourse to the direction of hard right editorial asides?
The point is that hypertextuality can be immensely useful once one has had an opportunity to thoroughly digest the primary source text. But without that premiere entree, one might be inclined to agree with Ms. Bennet's conclusion of those whose opinions are easily swayed:
"Men are either eaten up with arrogance or stupidity. If they are amiable, they are so easily led they have no minds of their own whatsoever."
Hey...sounds like Fox viewers!