;)
The Commentariat -- March 7, 2013
David Horsey of the Los Angeles Times: "The president personally picked up the tab for [a] private dinner at the Jefferson Hotel, and the guests were all Republican senators, including John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Dan Coats (Ind.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Pat Toomey (Pa.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), John Hoeven (N.D.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). Coming out of the hotel after the two-hour meal, the senators had nothing but nice things to say about the gathering," although the meal got off to a rocky start when Toomey & Johnson proposed filibustering the appetizer course (clause after the end-quote may be inaccurate). ...
... Julie Pace of the AP: "A White House official says President Barack Obama has invited Rep. Paul Ryan for lunch at the White House Thursday.... The official requested anonymity in order to" avoid answering questions about why the President could not stomach sitting down to a full dinner with the former vice presidential candidate & ideological granny-starver, as he did with Republican Senators (part after the end-quote may be fanciful). ...
... Charles Pierce: "... there is simply nothing that the zombie-eyed granny-starver could propose that should be treated by any Democratic president any differently than a free introductory case of the mange.... He wants to demolish the social-welfare component of the government because he considers it philosophically illegitimate. He wants to establish an oligarchical system, not because it will profit him personally, although it will, but because he considers it the natural order of democracy. In every sense of the word, he is an extremist, the Louie Gohmert of economic policy. The president slapped him down to his face in an episode aboyt which Republicans have not yet stopped whining. Inviting him back into the discussion can do nothing but make you wonder how securely the fix already is in." ...
... Rosalind Helderman & Philip Rucker of the Washington Post: "The House took its first step to avert a government shutdown on Wednesday as President Obama began a series of rare meetings with Republican lawmakers, reviving chances for a long-term deal to reduce the federal deficit.... The House approved a six-month spending bill that would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. The measure passed 267 to 151, with most Republicans supporting it and most Democrats voting against it. The stopgap measure would provide $982 billion.... But it would lock in the across-the-board spending cuts known as the sequester for the rest of the fiscal year. The bill will now head to the Senate, where Democrats are likely to seek amendments that would help blunt the effects of domestic spending cuts that began last week. But there is bipartisan optimism that a final version of the measure will clear Congress by the end of the month." ...
... Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times: "House Republicans will preserve Medicare cuts that their presidential nominee loudly denounced last year and accept tax increases they sternly opposed just months ago in a new tax-and-spending blueprint that would bring the federal budget into balance by 2023, senior Republicans said Wednesday. But the politically charged proposal, which emerged as the House easily passed legislation to keep the government financed through Sept. 30, is not expected to include workers currently 55 and over in major changes recommended for Medicare, after more moderate Republicans objected." ...
... E. J. Dionne: a "significant number of Republicans in the Senate -- possibly as many 20 -- who think what's going [re: the federal budget] on is foolish and counterproductive. The White House is betting that enough GOP senators are prepared to make a deal along lines that President Obama has already put forward."
Felicia Sonmez of the Washington Post: "Senate Republicans on Tuesday filibustered the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, blocking a nominee tapped last year by President Obama to serve on one of the country's most powerful courts. Tuesday's final roll call vote on cutting off debate was 54 to 45. One Republican -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) -- joined all 53 members of the Democratic caucus in voting to move ahead with Halligan's nomination, leaving the former New York state solicitor general six votes short of the 60 votes necessary for ending debate." ...
I am deeply disappointed that despite support from a majority of the United States Senate, a minority of Senators continues to block the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Nearly two and a half years after being nominated, Ms. Halligan continues to wait for a simple up-or-down vote. In the past, filibusters of judicial nominations required 'extraordinary circumstances,' and a Republican Senator who was part of this agreement articulated that only an ethics or qualification issue -- not ideology -- would qualify. -- President Obama (read the whole statement)
Duh. I hate to suggest this, but if this is an indication of where we’re headed, we need to revisit the rules again. We need to go back to it again. I'm sorry to say it because I was hopeful that a bipartisan approach to dealing with these issues would work. -- Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Majority Whip ...
... Adam Serwer of Mother Jones: "On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) engaged in a marathon filibuster of John Brennan, Obama's nominee to head the CIA, protesting the administration's policy on the use of drones in lethal operations. Paul began speaking at noon and was still filibustering six hours later." CW: I checked at 9:15 pm ET Wednesday, & earlier. Other Senators are helping Paul. John Barrasso (RTP-Wy.) was speaking. ...
... Update. Ashley Parker of the New York Times: "A small group of Republicans, led by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, stalled the Senate on Wednesday by waging a nearly 13-hour old-school, speak-until-you-can-speak-no-more filibuster over the government's use of lethal drone strikes -- forcing the Senate to delay the expected confirmation of John O. Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency.... Mr. Paul finally wound down shortly before 1 a.m. on Thursday, surrounded by a group of Republican senators and House members who had joined him on the Senate floor in a show of solidarity.
... ** Steve Benen has a rundown of how Senate Republicans have responded to the "filibuster reform" Harry Reid & Mitch McConnell agreed on a few months ago. It's shocking, if not surprising. ...
... ** Gail Collins has some excellent commentary, contrasting Rand Paul's filibuster with Mitch McConnell's paper filibuster. ...
... Greg Sargent: "The very fact that Paul's filibuster (one built on genuine convictions surrounding real issues that were fully aired in public) was treated as so extraordinary is a reminder of the degree to which we've accepted nonstop secret filibustering (which has become nothing more than a tool for partisan across-the-board obstructionism) as entirely ordinary."
Obama 2.0. Another Fox. Same Hen House. Peter Lattman & Ben Protess of the New York Times: "Andrew J. Ceresney, who served as [S.E.C. nominee Mary Jo] White's lieutenant as both a defense lawyer and as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan, is a leading candidate to ultimately become her enforcement chief at the Securities and Exchange Commission.... A Washington outsider and relative unknown beyond legal circles, Mr. Ceresney would help set the tone for policing financial fraud, effectively making him a top cop on Wall Street.... At the S.E.C., Mr. Ceresney, 41, would have to police some of the same firms he spent a decade defending."
Ed O'Keefe & Sari Horwitz of the Washington Post: "Continued disagreements over whether to keep records of private gun sales prompted Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to move ahead Wednesday without the support of the Democrats and Republicans he's been meeting with for weeks in hopes of striking a deal to expand the national background check system, with limited exceptions. Schumer said he will reintroduce a proposal mandating background checks on all gun sales, private or commercial, on Thursday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing." ...
Silence of the Lambs. Reid Epstein of Politico: "President Barack Obama’s gun control agenda is looking more doomed by the day, but gun control advocates still haven't said a word to complain. That's no accident. The White House knew its post-Newtown effort would require bringing key gun control groups into the fold. So the White House offered a simple arrangement: the groups could have access and involvement, but they'd have to offer silence and support in exchange. The implied rules, according to conversations with many of those involved: No infighting. No second-guessing in the press. Support whatever the president and Vice President Joe Biden propose. And most of all, don't make waves or get ahead of the White House." ...
... ** Dave Gilson of Mother Jones answers the NRA's Crazy Arguments for Guns. Or, how to answer your gun-happy buddies when they spout "proofs" that guns make us all safer.
Kevin Drum of Mother Jones on dumb reporting about the federal budget, etc.
Jeb (Not His Real Name)
Is Supposed to Be the Smart Bush... as I understand it, three or four years from now, the deal is that the fed match [for Medicaid] goes from 95 back to what it is now, which is about 55 in Florida. -- Jeb (Not His Real Name) Bush, on CNN
... as everybody else understands it, "the federal government covers 100% of the cost of the expansion during the first three years and gradually reduces its contribution to 90 percent in 2020 and beyond.... In his new book, Bush offered up a different reason to oppose the expansion, calling it "welfare" for the children of illegal immigrants. -- Pema Levy of TPM
Jeb Bush was a two-term governor of a large state with a large Medicaid population. Medicaid represented the second-largest item in the state budget..., and far and away the largest federal program directly affecting Florida's budget.... I don't think Jeb Bush deserves to be cut any slack for so fundamentally misunderstanding the financial terms of the Medicaid expansion. It's like a Nepalese mountain-climber missing Mount Everest. -- Ed Kilgore
Jonathan Chait: "If you have never seen Fox News before, here is a four-minute clip that captures the essence of the network so perfectly that you need never watch anything on it again. It's all here. At the center, you have an old conservative white guy who is enraged about a fact that exists only in his addled brain. At his side, there's a blonde sidekick who nods along with him but doesn't get in the way. And ready to absorb his anger is the network's Emmanuel Goldstein figure, feebly attempting a rebuttal that quickly devolves into a sniveling plea for civility:"
"Upgrade of Die." George Packer of the New Yorker tells a tale of two countries.
Contrary to what she told Terry Gross, Sandra Day O'Connor admits to Jon Stewart that she did have a few regrets about some of her Court decisions:
Local News
Erik Eckholm of the New York Times: "Arkansas adopted what is by far the country's most restrictive ban on abortion on Wednesday -- at 12 weeks of pregnancy, when a fetal heartbeat can typically be detected by abdominal ultrasound. The law, the sharpest challenge yet to Roe v. Wade, was passed by the newly Republican-controlled legislature over the veto of Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, who called it 'blatantly unconstitutional.' The State Senate voted Tuesday to override his veto and the House followed suit on Wednesday, with several Democrats joining the Republican majority. The law contradicts the limit established by Supreme Court decisions, which give women a right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and abortion rights groups promised a quick lawsuit to block it."
News Ledes
Washington Post: "The U.N. Security Council took direct aim at North Korea's leadership Thursday with new sanctions targeting cash transfers and luxury items, punishing the reclusive regime for its latest nuclear test while evoking a fresh torrent of threats from the North Korean capital. The sanctions, drafted by the United States and China and approved unanimously, were adopted against a backdrop of apocalyptic rhetoric from Pyongyang, including a threat to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against foreign 'aggressors,' a term traditionally interpreted to include the United States."
Washington Post: "A former spokesman for al-Qaeda and son-in-law of its founder, Osama bin Laden, was captured overseas and secretly brought to New York this month to face a criminal trial for allegedly conspiring to kill Americans, U.S. officials said Thursday. Sulaiman Abu Ghaith was initially detained in Turkey last month but was taken into U.S. custody in Jordan while he was being deported to Kuwait, U.S. officials said. He is expected to appear in federal court Friday in the Southern District of New York."
Bloomberg News: "... the number of Americans who filed for unemployment benefits fell to a six- week low, showing further improvement in the labor market."
Reuters: "An Italian court sentenced ex-prime minister Silvio Berlusconi on Thursday to one year in jail over the publication by his family's newspaper of a transcript of a leaked wiretap connected to a banking scandal in 2006. Italian justice system rules mean that the 76-year-old media billionaire would not have to serve any jail time until the appeals process has been exhausted, and a higher court may still overturn the ruling."
AP: "North Korea vowed on Thursday to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States, amplifying its threatening rhetoric hours ahead of a vote by U.N. diplomats on whether to level new sanctions against Pyongyang for its recent nuclear test."
Reuters: "Safety regulators are poised to approve within days a plan to allow Boeing Co to begin flight tests of the 787 Dreamliner with a fix for its volatile batteries, a critical step towards returning the grounded aircraft to service, two sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday."
Share Article
Reader Comments (20)
The Guardian reports on Iraq and torture: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link
That O'Reilly video is incredible. I kept waiting for someone to come on camera and pour a bucket of cold water on him.
CW: I'm bringing this comment forward from yesterday's thread to respond:
"Will somebody please answer an obvious question? Since the existing US Senate rules undoubtedly include provisions for changing those rules, what provisions now in force control any immediate effort to reduce or eliminate the power of a minority of Senators to block/frustrate Senate action? Thank you. I’m astonished that nobody has provided this information yet. Best,
"Keith Howard"
Keith, there was a lot of discussion about this in November, December & early January, & it isn't true that "nobody has provided this information yet." At the time, I linked to quite a few posts that explained when & how filibuster reform can be effected.
The filibuster can be changed by a super-super-majority (67 votes) at any time. It can be changed by a simple majority only at the beginning of a new Congress; i.e., once every two years. Although the filibuster is not contemplated in the Constitution, the Senate's ability to set new rules is; ergo, the simple majority.
Harry Reid extended the "first day" of the new Congress for about three weeks, as I recall. During that time he & McConnell tinkered with the filibuster, but did nothing at all about filibustering judicial & other nominees. The full Senate voted for their tinkering by a wide majority. If the "first day" is still in effect. I don't know it.
However, Reid (or maybe Biden, as President of the Senate) could declare the filibuster -- or some application of it -- unconstitutional, & the decision can be upheld by a simple majority vote of the Senate. I'm not sure, but I think the Senate parliamentarian (a civil service guy) might object, but Democrats in the Senate could overrule him, too. The likelihood of this scenario playing out is somewhere around nil.
Whether or not the Supremes would ever stick there noses into a Senate rules argument, I don't know, but it sure would raise separation-of-powers questions.
So I don't know how Democrats could change the filibuster rules now, unless (a) Reid has extended the "first day" up through today & for some time hereafter, which I don't think is the case or (b) Democrats decide to go really nuclear & claim something or the other is unconstitutional. I'd be shocked if they did that.
There may be more discussion of this in the media over the next few days in view of Durbin's remarks. If I see anything of interest, I'll link it.
Marie
Update: political scientist Jonathan Bernstein writes, "And remember, there’s nothing special about Opening Day; a majority of Senators who really want to act can change Senate rules whenever they want to." He doesn't elaborate, so not sure what his thinking is -- maybe he's talking about the Constitutional nuclear option or maybe some other nuclear option. I did a very quick Google & didn't find anything specific he wrote about this, but I think a more thorough check might be fruitful. You can do it yourself. mmb
That Guardian article is a standout. It names a couple of Americans who are leftovers from the right wing Latin American hit squads, tosses in a bit of Patraeus, and finishes it off with Rumsfield. The fucking dead-eye torturer winds up with a medal. (His good works started off with a part in the Ollie North story.) It will make you want to vomit.
I'm bringing this comment by Waltwis forward, too, to answer it. Then that's it.
"Marie-- As a general rule, you and I share the same cranks and crochets, but we part company on the Terry Gross interview of Sandra Day O'Connor. You wrote that you hadn't heard it, so I urge you listen when you get a chance and listen also to the TB interview with Jeffrey Toobin on Thursday's show.
"I thought TB was completely out of line asking SDO to answer 'from a woman's perspective...,' 'As a woman and a mother.' And trying repeatedly to draw SDO to discuss Roe v Wade and abortion, both issues the court is working on in this session. That's what made the Justice cranky. Even Jeffrey Toobin on the Thursday show defended O'Connor despite the fact that he was there to talk about his New Yorker profile of Justice Ginsburg.
"As for HALEY S, she should have read more of the comments than just the one critical of the cranky old lady."
@Waltwis: don't know what you mean by "TB." I don't have time to listen to Terry Gross's interview of Sandra Day O'Connor, but I did read the transcript to meet you halfway, & I agree that her answers didn't read as offputting as the commenters to NPR suggested. Maybe they're just not used to listening to interviews of Supremes; sitting Supremes regularly say, "I'm not going to answer that."
However, I've heard & read both Stevens & Souter -- like O'Connor, also retired -- discuss cases they already ruled on. Souter won't discuss cases that are currently before the Supremes, but that is likely because he is still a sitting judge on the Court of Appeals. Stevens seems to let it all hang out. I think he's fabulous. And not snippy. I've heard O'Connor in other venues when she did come off as snippy. I can't address her tone-of-voice yesterday, but the fact that so many commenters found her rude suggests she was playing true to form.
I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me (it was I, not Haley S., who mentioned the NPR comments) for saying that a lot of listeners thought O'Connor was rude. That's just a fact. I read the first half-dozen comments & every one commented on her rudeness. They weren't alone.
Maybe by "TB" you mean Terry Gross as I see she interviewed Jeff Toobin Wednesday. I sure as hell don't have time to listen to that.
I'm working under tremendous time constraints right now (believe it or not, I have a life -- with obligations), so I would ask -- in general -- that readers not make demands of my time. I do what I can, but explaining filibuster reform & listening to 39 minutes of Terry Gross is just more than I can manage.
Thanks for your consideration.
Marie
Dear Marie,
Thank you for so quickly responding to my query, and for filing the exchange in a better place. I was aware of the discussion late last year, but as we are now in the middle of a Congressional session, it did seem to me that any further bleating about the wretched filibuster was self-indulgent. That was the point of my question: nothing will change now, or soon.
Most likely nothing will change ever. The US Senators have manifold perquisites and powers. They can repay their contributors and concentrate their political influence in their own states very substantially. They can block regulation, protect the greedy and defend the guilty to an almost unbelievable extent.
Despite some beguiling theories I've heard about what caused Harry Reid to punt once again (Sheldon Adelson,) I think the real reason for the continued existence of the filibuster as presently employed is that US Senators of neither party want to be called to account for taking actions that some large fraction of the people hate. If the Senate majority cannot act, no Senator can be blamed, and neither party can be properly married to the consequences of its policies. The Senators of both parties, of course, are almost perfectly satisfied with the present state of the American democracy. Remember the "ownership society"? Bush wasn't kidding. We have government on behalf of the owners, and the Senators are members of that class. It works for them.
Complaining about this state of affairs does not constitute action. Paul Krugman (bless him) states in a link I read here today, that progressives need to stop being polite. The absurd spectacle of the "GOP remaking/rebranding itself" is a transparent distraction from the fact that the Democrats are the new Republicans -- Obama first among them. I cannot delude myself that the Democrats will ever aim at the root.
We will not get anywhere incrementally. Major breaks with the past must occur if civilization is to survive. If we want a reason why little such action seems to be discussed on progressive sites, the example of Pfc. Bradley Manning will suffice. Best,
Keith Howard
Haley,
...and vomit and vomit.
The role of the United States, in joining rogue and outlaw nations who routinely torture captives can and must be laid at the feet of George W. Bush and his cadre of torture fans and enablers, Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Tenet, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and David Addington.
The special operatives mentioned in the Guardian report did the dirty work but they were let loose by Bush and his torture buddies.
Let's see what these worthies are doing today:
Bush: playing golf, relaxing, still stupid, having himself a good old fucking time.
Cheney: still an asshole, trying to stay alive to cause more harm to the world, but not undergoing therapy for trauma from repeated and horrendous torture.
Rumsfeld: still an arrogant prick, racking up awards, special appointments, and generally enjoying life.
Tenet: raking in the money as the director of an investment bank, pausing now and then to shine up his Presidential Medal of Freedom (pretty funny that a guy who locked people up to torture them is awarded a medal celebrating freedom).
Jay Bybee: a federal fucking judge. The guy who wrote the torture memos now rules on other people's crimes. How lovely.
John Yoo: still an evil bastard and another torture fan, is now a law professor. Probably specializes in teaching his students how to fuck the law.
David Addington: still an execrable piece of shit, professional prick, and big-wig poobah at the Heritage Stink Tank.
None of these scum sucking pigs are shivering in a closet trying to escape the horror of being tortured. None of them are physically disabled for life because of the strain imposed on their bodies by their finely chosen extreme interrogation methods. None of them lie awake at night thinking about someone coming through the door to beat them.
But every single one of these assholes should be behind bars.
And, I'd like to say, they should all have their fingernails torn out, be led out daily for some waterboarding and a bit of the old strappado, but then I'm a civilized person who believes in the rule of law.
It's funny how conservatives think. Recently I had a conversation with a winger who was livid about the idea of background checks for purchasers of deadly weapons. I recalled for him a similar discussion we had had several years earlier when Bush was illegally wiretapping Americans in secret, reading their e-mails, and checking what books and movies they had taken out from libraries or video stores. At the time he was livid that anyone would question the president's right to "keep Americans safe", is how he put it. Besides, he sniffed, "...if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about". This same logic, however, he can not accept when it comes to buying guns. "That's private stuff" he decided. But personal letters, conversations and phone calls are not. That is, if a right-winger decides they're not.
By the same logic, if Bush and his fellow criminal fuck torture boys have nothing to fear and believe they did nothing wrong, why all the legal trickery and trying to hide their handiwork behind mountains of red tape and classified documents? Why all the fear about being found out?
The fact is, they did have something to worry about.
But no more. The current president has decided that all that torture stuff is old news.
The United States isn't anywhere near perfect, but until Bush and Cheney, we could say that at least we don't resort to torturing human beings.
They have degraded us all.
On a lighter note, now that the president has sat down, broken bread, and traded bon mots with some of the biggest loudmouths from the other side of the aisle, will MoDo, in her grand wisdom, give him her seal of approval and the Ronald Reagan Medal for Schmoozing?
Speaking of that presidential dinner, I'll bet Aqua Buddha boy might have been there if he wasn't busy pretending to be Jimmy Stewart.
Then again, he's probably a terrible dinner companion.
Who wants to listen to monologues about John Galt all night?
@Akhilleus: good point. I think the lede to MoDo's Sunday column will be something like this -- "O'Bambi finally put on his big boy pants Wednesday night (even if they did look suspiciously like mom jeans)...."
Your conversations with the winger are enlightening if not surprising. They back up what Ezra Klein found out in a public way -- today's standard-issue Republicans can never accept what a Democratic president proposes. When common sense & logic undermine their positions, they just make up their own logic, as in "the info you put on your gun app is private but intimate phone conversations are not." I guess that's unless Obama is wiretapping the lovebirds to find out if in between the heavy breathing they're devising terrorist plots to overthrow the government.
The Crazy Nixon Rule: "If the President does it, it's legal."
The Crazy Modern GOP Rule: "If the Democratic President does it, it's illegal."
Marie
How demeaning that the serious business of running the country is reduced to a visit to Chuckie Cheese with the feral children. Obama deserves his rock face on Rushmore just for that. What a pathetic group. They are so used to the perks for votes gravy train, they are incapable of behavior that is not purely self serving. That special wrist corsage and first dance will be a page in Lindsay's treasured memory book. He has a new beau and he hopes that will make McCain jealous. Could life be any better? Sigh..... Perhaps he can direct his repressed anger at a target other than Obama for awhile.
Marie,
Not just illegal, but immoral.
Remember, the Feral Children, as Diane calls them (great name, btw) and their propeller-hatted, boorish brethren are the dispensers of morality as well. Good thing they're all so religious-like otherwise we might be in trouble.
I must say I like the strategy employed to deal with the obstructionists. Just the other day Obama was complaining that his public "name and shame" strategy wasn't working, so surely to the bat cave they went to formulate a new tactic moving forward. And what did the Brains come up with?
Take the fucking kids to Chuck-E-Cheezies! Fucking brilliant!
When dealing with clowns sometimes it's best to come down to their level, and maybe a few hours of McCain playing Whack-A-Mole could release a portion of that built-up constipation he's been hoarding. An extra large extra cheese pizza could just be the catalyst we've been waiting for to unblock the shit going on in Washington these days.
Watching the O'Reilly video is like a sitting in on a conversation with a mentally disabled or institutionalized person.
He asks to be shown A and B. He's shown A and B. He asks to be shown A and B. Again. Throwing his hands up in the air and swiveling his head around, eyes bugging out, lips flapping, he anxiously demands to know where A and B are, goddamit! Where's that A and B I asked for??? FUCK!!
So....
It makes no difference that he's clearly been shown exactly what he asked for. He lives in his own addled world. And that's being kind because the only other option is that he's a cynical, lying douchebag.
Fox News! Where the insane and the liars are paid millions to, well, act insane and lie.
And Alan Colmes needs to get him a new gig. That was just embarrassing. Christ! Put me on with O'Reilly. I promise I will not be begging for civility and mercy.
@Akhlleus: You will not be begging "for civility and mercy." Exactly why Bill O would never allow you on his clown show. I live in an assisted living facility and am surrounded by folks who hang on Bill O's every word and can't wait to buy his latest "history." The feew of us who think otherwise keep a low profile and don't discuss politics with them. As my wife says, they all share the same idea.
@Akhilleus, Diane, James
Thank you for your recommendations of journalists. I've copied the names, and will keep my eyes and ears open for them.
Barbarossa,
I think it's a form of group madness. Stay clear.
"Feral Children". Can't claim it, I made an attribution previously, but it's a Charlie Piercism.
Yes, re: Billo's unhinged moments––isn't it interesting that other pundits get ousted from their thrones for minor infractions, but Bill just keeps on erupting. Obviously his fans love it as Barbarossa, who has a front row seat to those who are beguiled, tells us. There was another segment that has not been bandied about where he and some lovely blond with brains were having a discussion––I use that last word loosely––about the AFCA. She had the facts, but he kept telling her she was wrong, didn't let her finish any of her sentences until she finally gave up, said he didn't know what he was talking about and was done. What was I doing watching his show, you might ask? During commercials if I am watching Rachel I peek over to see what is happening on Freakin Foxy and am thoroughly enthralled by the circus antics. And let's not forget Bill's foray into that sexual bath sequence with whatshername that sued the pants off of him. This man is a narcissistic, bombastic fool who fancies himself to be someone of value and to those at the Assisted Living Facility along with many others who buy his cups and books he serves a purpose. Sad to say.
Re: Obama's dinner with the duplicitous dozen: I keep hearing that song––reach out and touch someone––the refrain from SO MANY saying, "He needs to get all warm and cozy with them there Republicans––they feel neglected–-need to be petted and cajoled–– that's all it takes–-some phone calls, some licking of boots. So now he's doing it. Let's see what happens. Bets anyone?
I love Kirsten Powers. She stood up to the raving, ranting and totally wrong Bill O, but somehow made her point known. Poor Alan Colmes said the same thing as she, but as usual, tried to wait for a break in Bill O's rant before talking. Damn Fox News for reducing debate to a shouting match.