Full-sized original at Hysterical Raisins
National Journal: Bachmann, Palin Coverage Playing Out Like a Bad 'Bridesmaids' Scene
By Elspeth Reeve
May 27, 2011 | 1:51 p.m.
Updated: May 30, 2011 | 10:37 p.m.
Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are both Republicans. They both have the support of Tea Partiers. They both have a gift for starting political flame wars. They both have large families. They both are female. They both have shiny brown hair. They both might run for president. Since they both have so much in common, they obviously hate each other. Right?
Did you see Bridesmaids? There's a scene where the maid of honor (Kristen Wiig) and the wannabe maid of honor (Rose Byrne) battle to give a better toast to the bride-to-be. It's catty and pathetic and sort of makes you hate humanity--it's, you know, funny. A "well-placed observer" tells Politico's Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman that this is happening out on the campaign trail this very moment: "Every time Bachmann gets some press, Palin will get herself out there a little more," in reference to Palin's announcement of a multi-state bus tour Thursday being "not unconnected" to Bachmann's moves toward a 2012 candidacy. That very night, Bachmann pre-announced she would announce whether she's running for president in a speakerphone conference with reporters in Iowa.
( Bachmann and Palin may be political rivals. And they may even be concerned that the other poses a threat to their own political standing. (Obsessing over one's status is the defining characteristic of all politicans, male and female.) But reading through the coverage, this Bachmann-Palin narrative has a very familiar ring to it. )
The Politico article from which the above article quotes is here. It's three screens long, but well worth reading. Also, putting the "Oh no they didn't" into ontd_political.
WASHINGTON -- After years of fierce lobbying and debate, Congress approved a bill on Wednesday to cover the cost of medical care for rescue workers and others who became sick from toxic fumes, dust and smoke after the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.
The $4.3 billion bill cleared its biggest hurdle early in the afternoon when the Senate unexpectedly approved it just 12 days after Republican senators had blocked a more expensive House version from coming to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
In recent days, Republican senators had been under fire for their opposition to the legislation.
( Click for the full story. )
WELL, IT'S ABOUT TIME. This is an awesome follow-up to a previous post on this community regarding the matter. Anthony Weiner, I hope you're not angry anymore. :)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the upper chamber, said in a joint statement that they will work with House leaders and the administration to ensure that the bill, which would carve out a path to legalization for hundreds of thousands of foreign-born youngsters brought to this country illegally, will be law by the end of the lame-duck session.
( Read more... )
You can tell this was written for Fox News by the number of times the word "illegal" is used. The language in the last couple of paragraphs rubs me the wrong way as well. And I just noticed the original headline, in the URL: "Senate Punts DREAM Act Vote House Passes Different Version"
In my eyes, there's not much "controversial" about this bill. Human decency aside, we would entice people who have a *college education* to stay in America.
Carl Paladino told Orthodox rabbis earlier this week that he would "seek ways to protect everyone from obscenity on the internet." How inconvenient for a fresh round of porn forwards to surface. Including girl-on-girl action. But that's not gay, right?
Buffalo website WNYMedia.net got a new batch of emails Paladino forwarded. There's no bestiality or racism, but there is one woman performing oral sex on another, a woman squirting breast milk, and what appears to be footage of a woman getting a Brazilian bikini wax, labeled, "I found my retirement job!" (Now that's kinky.) Paladino's contribution to these missives was usually "Awesome."
As a blogger there pointed out, "Perhaps this is the proof his campaign needed to establish that he is all for gay people being gay. Nevertheless, based on his speeches in Brooklyn, he doesn't think that these young ladies' relationship is a 'valid and successful option.' But he's happy to watch."
The Paladino campaign's response:
"We've gotten past this. We're not going to take the time to confirm these miscreants' new attempt to revive their dying website."
Miscreants! Haven't seen that one in awhile.
Speaking of sexual politics, The New York Post published photos of Paladino consultant Roger Stone at a pride parade. This is not actually shocking — Stone is famously a sexual libertarian — but it shows that The New York Post, which traditionally would be all about Paladino and his pseudo-populism, still hates his guts after Paladino threatened to "take out" their top political reporter. Paladino's campaign replied that "Roger Stone did not take young children to the parade, and he is welcome to live his life as he pleases. And, by the way, if this is the worst you have on Roger Stone, you aren't trying very hard."
And further on the note that (perhaps thankfully) Paladino's politics don't extend to his business interests, the anti-choice candidate leases space to Planned Parenthood. (His company took over an existing lease with them). This is in addition to having once leased space to his son's gay bar. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just the hypocrisy.
Putting the Carl Paladino tag to good use. Thank you for the laughs, Mr. Paladino, now please go away forever.
Republicans add another layer of absurdity to this as they say that tax cuts always lead to more revenue for the federal government because of supply-side economics. The economy expands, people make more money and the government collects more in taxes even though it takes a smaller percentage. Great theory -- how about if we cut taxes down to 1 percent? Would the government still get more revenue?
The question isn't whether tax cuts or tax increases are always the right answer. The question is at what level of taxes do we stimulate the economy, collect enough revenue to run a functioning government and let people keep as much of their income as we can. No one, not even the world's biggest liberal, wants to pay more in taxes personally. We just want to find the right balance so that everyone wins.
( Click for the full story. It's worth it. )
This isn't news to anyone who took AP Macroeconomics in high school or Introduction to Macroeconomics and got a passing grade. But for some reason, Americans fall for the "lower taxes = good" bullshit all the time. Even the smart ones, sometimes!
It isn't about low taxes or high taxes: it's about finding the right balance so that the government is able to maintain programs that everyone agrees are beneficial (like fire departments -- if you don't like getting taxed so that the fire department in your township can function, you can read about what happened to the Cranicks), and investment -- both public and private -- happens, while still making sure that private individuals and their families have enough to live reasonably comfortable lifestyles.
The fact is, tax cuts don't encourage us to spend, and our GDP lives and dies by how much spending happens. At least when we're taxed, we're forced to spend and do our part to keep our economy afloat. It may not be very pleasant, but those are the facts, unless you decide to renounce civilized society and become a hermit in the woods or try your hand at living in Somalia.
With Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee all making moves indicating they may run for president, their common employer is facing a question that hasn’t been asked before: How does a news organization cover White House hopefuls when so many are on the payroll?
The answer is a complicated one for Fox News.
As Fox’s popularity grows among conservatives, the presence of four potentially serious Republican candidates as paid contributors is beginning to frustrate competitors of the network, figures within its own news division and rivals of what some GOP insiders have begun calling “the Fox candidates.”
With the exception of Mitt Romney, Fox now has deals with every major potential Republican presidential candidate not currently in elected office.
( Click for the full article. )
In an appearance on Fox News last night, Karl Rove questioned the governing ability and "checkered" past of Tea Party-backed candidate Christine O'Donnell, who pulled off a stunning win for Delaware's Republican Senate nomination on Tuesday, and voiced his doubt that O'Donnell was a viable candidate in the general election.
"We were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate," Rove said in an interview with Fox's Sean Hannity. "Now we're looking at seven to eight, in my opinion. This is not a race we're going to be able to win."
Rove pointed to unresolved questions about O'Donnell's financial practices, potentially dubious campaign tactics, and generally "nutty things" she'd been saying. "It does conservatives little good to support candidates who, at the end of the day, while they may be conservative in their public statements, do not evince the characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for," Rove said. "One thing that O'Donnell is now going to have to answer in the general election that she didn't in the primary is her own checkered background."
Rove also emphasized his belief that O'Donnell's victory was less a reflection on her suitability for the position than of party discontent with Mike Castle, a nine-term Delaware congressman who hadn't lost a political race since his election to the state House in 1966. "This was about Mike Castle's bad votes," Rove said.
"It does conservatives little good to support candidates who, at the end of the day, while they may be conservative in their public statements, do not evince the characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for," Rove said.
O'Donnell, a marketing consultant who has twice led unsuccessful Senate campaigns, fired back at Rove this morning on ABC's Good Morning America, condemning what she called "political cannibalism" and calling Rove's accusations "unfactual."
"Everything he is saying is unfactual," O'Donnell said. "And it's a shame, because he's the same so-called political guru that predicted I wasn't going to win. And we won and we won big... He's eating some humble pie and he's just trying to restore his reputation," she said.
O'Donnell also took a shot at Rove's personal wealth when responding to his question about why she had taken "nearly two decades" to pay off her student bills.
"I'm not a trust fund baby," she said. "Most Delawarians can relate to having to work hard to pay for their college education. I was never dishonest about that."
When the initial buzz over Christine O'Donnell blew over, I didn't comment on it because I didn't want to contribute to the tremendous public beating she received shortly after her ascendancy to candidate status. Everyone says stupid shit when they're younger, and with the advent of the internet, it's easier than ever for youthful dumbassery to haunt you forever. Now, I can't think of any major candidate who had a worse track record in the past fifteen years, but I have to wonder if the backlash would have been so strong if O'Donnell were male.
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, on Tuesday evening predicted that Congressional Democrats would emerge victorious in the midterm elections because voters would decide that they do not want Republicans to restore the policies of President George W. Bush.
( Click for the full story. )
Well, I'm certainly glad that the Democrats haven't lost all their spine! I wish that the tax cuts would just die, because they don't really help anyone who actually needs them and they comprise most of the deficit. I don't give a damn about the deficit (nations accrue debt, it's the way it works, it's economically viable, take an Economics 101 course if you're still worried), but surely the money being funneled into tax cuts could be better used elsewhere? Tax cuts don't jumpstart the economy, since they don't encourage spending as much as creating jobs by funding existing programs does (and the American economy pretty much runs on
(Appropriate icon is appropriate because I haven't slept all night.)
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Arizona Voters shows Democratic Attorney General Terry Goddard with 38% support. One percent (1%) like some other candidate in the race, and another one percent (1%) are undecided.
The race remains Solid Republican in the Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 Gubernatorial Scorecard.
Anna Holmes and Rebecca Traister think so. As they argued in their New York Times op-ed yesterday, "If Sarah Palin and her acolytes successfully redefine what it means to be a groundbreaking political woman, it will be because progressives let it happen." By not doing enough to nurture their own women leaders, Holmes and Traister say, it was Dems who cleared the way for Palin and her raging pack of grizzlies to maul our politics. Progressives "have done nothing to stop an anti-choice, pro-abstinence, socialist-bashing Tea Party enthusiast from becoming the 21st century symbol of American women in politics."
( Read more... )
But, after being sidelined by the male-dominated McCain campaign, vilified by the left and ridiculed by the media, Palin found a warm embrace among conservative women, who were thrilled to see one of their own enjoy a taste of power for a change. "My experience with Palin's supporters left me alert to the fact that she was building an army of followers—not just scared and angry xenophobes…but women (and men) who felt that their support for this candidate was about an expansion of opportunities for women," Traister writes.
So who's to blame for Palin? Of course, there's no simple, single answer. Perhaps we're all a bit guilty. I'd lay much of the responsibility on the media, for casting her as the Republican starlet and then treating her to a spectacular tabloid meltdown, for celebrating her beauty and earthy charm and then glorying in her every humiliation, and now blasting her every inane tweet into a vast and thought-killing echo chamber. But it's we media consumers who can't stop looking and listening.
In spite of myself, I clicked on this video by New Left Media, associated with the Huffington Post and it was pretty entertaining. One has to remember that the interviewer speaks to about 15 of the thousands who shambled to the Lincoln Memorial and is probably edited to get the most ignorant, and thus the most entertaining, responses. I've already said too much on this subject.
In a similar vein, let's talk about the old figurehead of ignorant conservatism in our country, former President George W. Bush. Filmed in the greatest city in America, Secret Pants Sketch Comedy asks us the most important question our miserable human cortexes could ever hope to compute: Bush or Batman?
The Bush administration gave us this and Stephen Colbert.
The Obama administration has given us Glenn Beck.
Former US presidential candidate John McCain has comfortably won the Republican Senate nomination in Arizona after a closely-watched primary race.
Analysts say Mr McCain was forced to the political right as he battled JD Hayworth, who is backed by the conservative Tea Party movement.
( Read more... )
Just a follow up to bartlebyslament's post, which can be found here. Also, if anyone needed proof of the rose-tainted glasses applied to political history, it is that the Quayle name can be used positively (though I suspect that the Quayle fortune, rather than the Quayle brand was the true advantage in this case). There really is hope for George W. Bush's (or Vice President Biden) political legacy when we as voters can forget the numerous crimes committed against the English language by former Vice President Dan Quayle, who taught America the value of the potatoe.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."
Inglis found that ideological extremism is not only the realm of the tea party; it also has infected the official circles of his Republican Party. In early 2009, he attended a meeting of the GOP's Greenville County executive committee. At the time, Republicans were feeling discouraged. Obama was in the White House; the Democrats had enlarged their majorities in the House and Senate. The GOP seemed to be in tatters. But Inglis had what he considered good news. He put up a slide he had first seen at a GOP retreat. It was based on exit polling conducted during the November 2008 election. The slide, according to Inglis, showed that when American voters were asked to place themselves on an ideological spectrum—1 being liberal, 10 being conservative—the average ended up at about 5.6. The voters placed House Republicans at about 6.5 and House Democrats at about 4.3. Inglis told his fellow Republicans, "This is great news," explaining it meant that the GOP was still closer to the American public than the Democrats. The key, he said, was for the party to keep to the right, without driving off the road.Inglis was met, he says with "stony" faces: "There's a short story by Shirley Jackson, 'The Lottery.'" The tale describes a town where the residents stone a neighbor who is chosen randomly. "That's what the crowd looked like. I got home that night and said to my wife, 'You can't believe how they looked back at me.' It was really frightening." The next speaker, he recalls, said, "'On Bob's ideological spectrum up there, I'm a 10,' and the crowd went wild.
Though, to be more accurate, the modern day Republican party has become less the tail that wags the dog than the tail that turns into a boa constrictor and has currently coiled itself around the dog, slowly squeezing the life out of it.
Rep Bob Inglis is one of the early casualties of the Tea Party movement, losing to Trey Gowdy in the republican run-offs. In the late 1990s he pursued Bill Clinton's impeachment with all the zeal a Republican could muster. He recalls
This has not made him many friends. I don't know if it's because he's now out of a job and free to speak his mind, or if he would've done this despite Republican leadership, but this is a fascinating interview with Rep Bob Inglis, who recalls his last few months in a system that has slowly begun to devour itself.
Last week I got angry on the floor of the House. In this age of cable and YouTube, millions of people evidently saw the one-minute-plus clip. But there has been relatively little focus on why the substantive debate that sparked it matters.
( Republicans are douchebags, no one is surprised. )
Anthony Weiner is a member of the House of Representatives from Queens and Brooklyn.
I thought that I had already plumbed the depths to which conservatives in the United States could sink, but apparently I was wrong! 9/11 -- the tragic attack that brought everyone together as a nation, the event which every Republican politician paid lip service to in order to send us overseas to a war that is exponentially increasing our national deficit with each passing day -- is apparently no longer a legitimate concern for the Republican Party. The people who died at the hands of hostile enemies and the people who are dying of the toxic exposure and stress injuries they suffered while tirelessly working to aid the rescue effort are apparently no worthier of regard than a speck of lint on the suits of Republicans.
Yes, people die everyday of unsafe work conditions, inadequate healthcare, not being able to afford the cost of living, and gross neglect. But they shouldn't. Not Americans, anyway, and definitely not -- especially not -- American heroes. If we don't take care of the brave and selfless people who saved our country when they're in need now, then we shouldn't expect anyone to come running when it comes time to face our next great crisis.
I applaud Representative Weiner for standing up to this bullshit and not being afraid to be angry about it.
On Sunday, Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) became the highest-ranking Republican to suggest support for the repeal of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Appearing on CBS' Face the Nation, Kyl said that he opposes allowing children of undocumented immigrants to be granted U.S. citizenship and wants Congress to hold hearings on the matter.
In doing so, the Senate's no. 2 Republican didn't place himself on the extreme wing of his party's stance on immigration policy. Rather, he joined what is a growing movement that could very well shape the official policy planks of the GOP.
(A Kyl spokesperson told CBS News on Monday that he supports hearings into the issue, "he did not call for the 'repeal' of the 14th Amendment.")
There are already a number of Republican officials who have preceded Kyl in calling for a reworking of the country's citizenship laws. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has proposed the piece of legislation that would repeal the 14th Amendment.
An aide to Graham said that there had been no formal dates set for hearings or the bill's introduction. "Senator Graham threw this out there on Fox News and it is something that he has been talking about in South Carolina as well," the aide said. But there was growing talk and legislative activity around the concept.
In the House, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) has introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009, which would attempt to deny children of illegal immigrants U.S. citizenship through statute rather than a constitutional amendment (thereby lowering the vote threshold). He has 93 co-sponsors for that effort including Rep. Nathan Deal, the Georgia Republican who is in a runoff to be the party's candidate for governor.
Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-Ky.) caused a stir shortly after winning his primary by saying he supported stripping citizenship from children of the undocumented. Former congressman and potential Colorado gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo -- one of the staunchest anti-illegal immigration voices in national politics -- has made repeal of the 14th Amendment a major cause.---
This is so terrible. If this passes, then I guess we have to wait for the repeal of the repeal. If not, I'd love to sit in on a high school social studies class years from now:
"And then, in 2012, Congress passed the 30th Amendment, which repealed the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and reinstated Chester A. Arthur's Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882..."
When a student timidly asks about the civil rights movement they learned about the day before, I imagine the teacher giving a slight chuckle, and maybe gives the student a wistful pat on the shoulder.
( Click here for the related article, which basically says the same thing as the video. )
Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International. His e-mail address is email@example.com.
For all his thought-out opinions, approval of many of Obama's platforms, and mild disapproval of Republicans, it comes as a surprise that Fareed Zakaria is a) a conservative and b) not running for public office.
I agree with everything that he just said and wrote here. I also like how he very subtly called Bush out for not being a real conservative but mostly just someone really incompetent.
Brittany Novotny, a Democrat and Oklahoma's first known transgender candidate, is running for a seat in the State House against Sally Kern, the Republican incumbent who gained national attention in 2008 for saying that "the homosexual agenda is just destroying this nation" and that homosexuality was a bigger threat than terrorism.
( Click for the full story. )
Well, I guess it's nice that both candidates are veering away from ad hominem and sticking to real issues. Um. I hope their supporters will do the same.
The video doesn't touch on the immigration issue, but it does feature a series of Latinos listing reasons why they are Republican. A belief in "the right to liberty and freedom," "equality," and the "American Dream" are among the justifications presented. The video even features immigration attorney Ivan Andarza, a Rick Perry supporter whose Twitter feed might suggest that he is opposed to the Arizona law. And while most Latinos believe in the ideals mentioned in the Texas GOP video, the majority also think that police crackdowns on undocumented immigrants pose a direct threat to those liberties and that the Arizona law goes too far.
Republicans: an endless source of hilarity!