Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
November 28, 2012
Major unions, environmental advocates and other progressive groups are reconvening an advocacy coalition to build public support for reforming the Senate filibuster rules and pressure members to follow suit at the beginning of the 113th Congress, TPM has learned.
“Facing unparalleled challenges—a languid economic recovery, crushing debt, and threats at home and abroad—the country cannot afford another two years of inaction fostered by outmoded and broken legislative institutions,” reads a statement from the newly reconvened Fix the Senate Now coalition, provided to TPM. “In recent decades, Senate conventions have devolved to remove incentives for bipartisan comity, collegiality, and compromise. Whereas Senators once resorted to filibustering only in rare and exceptional instances of intense opposition, rampant obstruction has now transformed standard operating procedure.”
The Fix the Senate coalition includes the Alliance for Justice, the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, the Communications Workers of America, the Sierra Club, and the United Auto Workers. Their renewed efforts come as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and a newly re-elected Senate Democratic majority have announced their intention to change Senate rules to make the GOP’s obstruction efforts more transparent, and speed up the pace of legislative business in the upper chamber.
The same coalition advocated similar reforms in 2010 and 2011 when a group of new Democratic senators led an earlier effort to change the Senate’s filibuster rules. But that push came just as Democrats had been dealt a crushing defeat in midterm elections and lacked the support of Democratic leaders, who have since changed heart about the need to adjust the rules. The prospects of successfully weakening the minority’s power in the Senate is much brighter now.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/exclusive-major-unions-and-progressive-groups-create-filibuster-reform-coalition.php?ref=fpblg
Exclusive: Major Unions And Progressive Groups Create Filibuster Reform Coalition
Major unions, environmental advocates and other progressive groups are reconvening an advocacy coalition to build public support for reforming the Senate filibuster rules and pressure members to follow suit at the beginning of the 113th Congress, TPM has learned.
“Facing unparalleled challenges—a languid economic recovery, crushing debt, and threats at home and abroad—the country cannot afford another two years of inaction fostered by outmoded and broken legislative institutions,” reads a statement from the newly reconvened Fix the Senate Now coalition, provided to TPM. “In recent decades, Senate conventions have devolved to remove incentives for bipartisan comity, collegiality, and compromise. Whereas Senators once resorted to filibustering only in rare and exceptional instances of intense opposition, rampant obstruction has now transformed standard operating procedure.”
The Fix the Senate coalition includes the Alliance for Justice, the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, the Communications Workers of America, the Sierra Club, and the United Auto Workers. Their renewed efforts come as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and a newly re-elected Senate Democratic majority have announced their intention to change Senate rules to make the GOP’s obstruction efforts more transparent, and speed up the pace of legislative business in the upper chamber.
The same coalition advocated similar reforms in 2010 and 2011 when a group of new Democratic senators led an earlier effort to change the Senate’s filibuster rules. But that push came just as Democrats had been dealt a crushing defeat in midterm elections and lacked the support of Democratic leaders, who have since changed heart about the need to adjust the rules. The prospects of successfully weakening the minority’s power in the Senate is much brighter now.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/exclusive-major-unions-and-progressive-groups-create-filibuster-reform-coalition.php?ref=fpblg
November 27, 2012
Well, the John McCain–Lindsey Graham–Kelly Ayotte powwow with Susan Rice shockingly—shockingly—did not go so well. The New York Times reports:
Trouble! Concern! Troubling concerns! McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are exceptionally perceptive to have both sensed and identified such troubles and concerns. What the hell happened during the meeting? Rice was supposed to remind the Three Hawketeers that what she said about the Libyan embassy attack was based on information she had at the time, and that learning new information is not a moral failing. The meeting was sadly closed-door, but VF Daily, ranked top foreign-policy blog by VF Daily’s parents, managed to obtain an exclusive transcript of this morning’s proceedings. It goes as follows:
MCCAIN: MY CHAIR IS WOBBLY.
RICE: I’M SORRY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWITCH CHAIRS?
MCCAIN: ONE OF THE LEGS IS SHORTER THAN THE OTHER.
RICE: I’M GOING TO REQUEST A NEW CHAIR FOR YOU, SENATOR.
MCCAIN: OR MAYBE TWO OF THE LEGS ARE SHORT, AND TWO ARE LONG. OR MAYBE THE CHAIR IS PERFECTLY STILL AND THE DAMN TABLE IS WOBBLY.
RICE: WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE ROOMS, SIR?
MCCAIN: LOOK AT ME, TREMBLING LIKE A HARLOT IN CHURCH. I’M GOING TO FALL OVER, FOR CHRIST’S SAKE. THE HELL KIND OF—
RICE: I’M GOING TO SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER ROOMS AVAIL—
MCCAIN: HOW MANY LEGS ARE CHAIRS SUPPOSED TO HAVE? FOUR? SINCE WHEN DO CHAIRS HAVE FOUR LEGS? WHAT, THREE LEGS ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH, ANYMORE? THE DAMN PROBLEM STARTED WHENEVER EVERYONE DECIDED THE CHAIR NEEDS FOU—
And then the transcript mysteriously ends. Very troubling and concerning.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/11/John-McCain-Dislikes-Susan-Rice-Now-More-Than-Ever-If-You-Can-Believe-It
VANITY FAIR: John McCain DISLIKES Susan Rice Now More Than Ever, If You Can Believe It!
Well, the John McCain–Lindsey Graham–Kelly Ayotte powwow with Susan Rice shockingly—shockingly—did not go so well. The New York Times reports:
Speaking to reporters after the meeting, the three senators, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, expressed their dissatisfaction with what they had heard.
“We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got, and some that we didn’t get,” Mr. McCain said.
“Bottom line,” Mr. Graham said, “I’m more concerned than I was before.”
Added Ms. Ayotte, “I’m more troubled today.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/us/politics/after-benghazi-meeting-3-republicans-say-concerns-grow-over-rice.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus
“We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got, and some that we didn’t get,” Mr. McCain said.
“Bottom line,” Mr. Graham said, “I’m more concerned than I was before.”
Added Ms. Ayotte, “I’m more troubled today.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/us/politics/after-benghazi-meeting-3-republicans-say-concerns-grow-over-rice.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus
Trouble! Concern! Troubling concerns! McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are exceptionally perceptive to have both sensed and identified such troubles and concerns. What the hell happened during the meeting? Rice was supposed to remind the Three Hawketeers that what she said about the Libyan embassy attack was based on information she had at the time, and that learning new information is not a moral failing. The meeting was sadly closed-door, but VF Daily, ranked top foreign-policy blog by VF Daily’s parents, managed to obtain an exclusive transcript of this morning’s proceedings. It goes as follows:
MCCAIN: MY CHAIR IS WOBBLY.
RICE: I’M SORRY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWITCH CHAIRS?
MCCAIN: ONE OF THE LEGS IS SHORTER THAN THE OTHER.
RICE: I’M GOING TO REQUEST A NEW CHAIR FOR YOU, SENATOR.
MCCAIN: OR MAYBE TWO OF THE LEGS ARE SHORT, AND TWO ARE LONG. OR MAYBE THE CHAIR IS PERFECTLY STILL AND THE DAMN TABLE IS WOBBLY.
RICE: WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE ROOMS, SIR?
MCCAIN: LOOK AT ME, TREMBLING LIKE A HARLOT IN CHURCH. I’M GOING TO FALL OVER, FOR CHRIST’S SAKE. THE HELL KIND OF—
RICE: I’M GOING TO SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER ROOMS AVAIL—
MCCAIN: HOW MANY LEGS ARE CHAIRS SUPPOSED TO HAVE? FOUR? SINCE WHEN DO CHAIRS HAVE FOUR LEGS? WHAT, THREE LEGS ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH, ANYMORE? THE DAMN PROBLEM STARTED WHENEVER EVERYONE DECIDED THE CHAIR NEEDS FOU—
And then the transcript mysteriously ends. Very troubling and concerning.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/11/John-McCain-Dislikes-Susan-Rice-Now-More-Than-Ever-If-You-Can-Believe-It
November 24, 2012
DECEMBER 7th, 2012 - YOUTUBE
BREAKING THE TABOO: The War On Drugs
DECEMBER 7th, 2012 - YOUTUBE
Narrated by Morgan Freeman:
This groundbreaking new documentary uncovers the UN sanctioned war on drugs, charting its origins and its devastating impact on countries like the USA, Colombia and Russia. Featuring prominent statesmen including Presidents Clinton and Carter, the film follows The Global Commission on Drug Policy on a mission to break the political taboo and expose the biggest failure of global policy in the last 50 years.
This groundbreaking new documentary uncovers the UN sanctioned war on drugs, charting its origins and its devastating impact on countries like the USA, Colombia and Russia. Featuring prominent statesmen including Presidents Clinton and Carter, the film follows The Global Commission on Drug Policy on a mission to break the political taboo and expose the biggest failure of global policy in the last 50 years.
November 22, 2012
The Irony of Mitt Romney's 47% Tape-- Star Trek Style!
November 22, 2012
US Ambassador Rice Defends Benghazi Remarks
HuffingtonPost:
UNITED NATIONS -- U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said Wednesday that her early account of the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans in Benghazi was based on the initial intelligence community assessments and was always subject to review and updates.
She said she respects Republican Sen. John McCain, who has been critical of her, but says "some of the statements he's made about me have been unfounded, but I look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this with him."
Her comments attributing the attacks to a mob enraged over an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube were widely denounced by Republicans during the U.S. presidential campaign. The attack came on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States, and her critics said it was clearly a terrorist attack aimed at the anniversary. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.
The focus has fallen on Rice because she is a longtime White House insider and is believed to be President Barack Obama's first choice to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is not expected to stay on during his second term.
Rice told reporters outside the U.N. Security Council: "As a senior U.S. diplomat, I agreed to a White House request to appear on the Sunday shows to talk about the full range of national security issues of the day, which at that time were primarily and particularly the protests that were enveloping and threatening many diplomatic facilities, American diplomatic facilities around the world, and Iran's nuclear program."
"The attack on our facilities in Benghazi was obviously a significant piece of this," Rice said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/susan-rice-benghazi-mccain_n_2174223.html
UNITED NATIONS -- U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said Wednesday that her early account of the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans in Benghazi was based on the initial intelligence community assessments and was always subject to review and updates.
She said she respects Republican Sen. John McCain, who has been critical of her, but says "some of the statements he's made about me have been unfounded, but I look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this with him."
Her comments attributing the attacks to a mob enraged over an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube were widely denounced by Republicans during the U.S. presidential campaign. The attack came on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States, and her critics said it was clearly a terrorist attack aimed at the anniversary. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.
The focus has fallen on Rice because she is a longtime White House insider and is believed to be President Barack Obama's first choice to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is not expected to stay on during his second term.
Rice told reporters outside the U.N. Security Council: "As a senior U.S. diplomat, I agreed to a White House request to appear on the Sunday shows to talk about the full range of national security issues of the day, which at that time were primarily and particularly the protests that were enveloping and threatening many diplomatic facilities, American diplomatic facilities around the world, and Iran's nuclear program."
"The attack on our facilities in Benghazi was obviously a significant piece of this," Rice said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/susan-rice-benghazi-mccain_n_2174223.html
November 22, 2012
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) appeared on CNN Wednesday morning to press his case against U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the target of Republican criticism for initially claiming that the Sept. 11 attacks on Benghazi were inspired by spontaneous protests to an anti-Islamic video. Burgess joined 97 House Republicans in opposing Rice’s potential nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, even though her public statements about the incident originated from unclassified talking points provided by the intelligence community.
Host Soledad O’Brien challenged Burgess’ opposition to Susan Rice, noting that Republicans had supported Condoleezza Rice’s nomination as Secretary of State in 2005, despite the Bush administration’s role in the massive intelligence failures that led to the Iraq war. Burgess struggled to explain the contradiction. He initially claimed that the media was far more critical of Bush’s intelligence failures than Obama, but when O’Brien laughed away that claim, he told her to take up the question with Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom supported Condoleezza but now oppose Susan:
O’BRIEN: I have asked others before how this does not compare, the Susan Rice issue, to the Condoleezza Rice issue on weapons of mass destruction. She was also wrong when she was the national security adviser, right? … Fast forward three years in 2005 when she was up to be secretary of state, it was Lindsey Graham who was furious that the Democrats were pushing back. It was Sen John mccain who were furious that the Democrats were pushing back on Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. She was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. How is this different?
BURGESS: The difference is the scrutiny provided by our free press in this country. Condoleezza Rice was exposed to withering criticism by the press. I don’t see that happening now. Maybe I’ve missed something in the talking points, but I don’t see that happening. ….
O’BRIEN: So you’re confusing me there for a moment. When you say the scrutiny on the press — are you saying five days after comments of weapons of mass destruction, you feel like the media was picking apart Condoleezza Rice? I don’t think that’s true, Sir. Most people say that’s not the case. It took a long time. …. Hey, I’m all about scrutiny. I guess I like consistency, too. You were not calling for more scrutiny and you weren’t saying that the fact that Condoleezza Rice was wrong on weapons of mass destruction was going to damage her credibility as secretary of state. Again, McCain and Lindsey Graham were supporting that. It seems contradictory to me.
BURGESS: You’ll have to take that up with Senator McCain and Senator Graham
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/21/1226711/cnn-host-exposes-gops-hypocrisy-on-benghazi/
Soledad Challenges Burgess: CNN Host EXPOSES GOP’s Hypocrisy On Benghazi
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) appeared on CNN Wednesday morning to press his case against U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the target of Republican criticism for initially claiming that the Sept. 11 attacks on Benghazi were inspired by spontaneous protests to an anti-Islamic video. Burgess joined 97 House Republicans in opposing Rice’s potential nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, even though her public statements about the incident originated from unclassified talking points provided by the intelligence community.
Host Soledad O’Brien challenged Burgess’ opposition to Susan Rice, noting that Republicans had supported Condoleezza Rice’s nomination as Secretary of State in 2005, despite the Bush administration’s role in the massive intelligence failures that led to the Iraq war. Burgess struggled to explain the contradiction. He initially claimed that the media was far more critical of Bush’s intelligence failures than Obama, but when O’Brien laughed away that claim, he told her to take up the question with Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom supported Condoleezza but now oppose Susan:
O’BRIEN: I have asked others before how this does not compare, the Susan Rice issue, to the Condoleezza Rice issue on weapons of mass destruction. She was also wrong when she was the national security adviser, right? … Fast forward three years in 2005 when she was up to be secretary of state, it was Lindsey Graham who was furious that the Democrats were pushing back. It was Sen John mccain who were furious that the Democrats were pushing back on Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. She was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. How is this different?
BURGESS: The difference is the scrutiny provided by our free press in this country. Condoleezza Rice was exposed to withering criticism by the press. I don’t see that happening now. Maybe I’ve missed something in the talking points, but I don’t see that happening. ….
O’BRIEN: So you’re confusing me there for a moment. When you say the scrutiny on the press — are you saying five days after comments of weapons of mass destruction, you feel like the media was picking apart Condoleezza Rice? I don’t think that’s true, Sir. Most people say that’s not the case. It took a long time. …. Hey, I’m all about scrutiny. I guess I like consistency, too. You were not calling for more scrutiny and you weren’t saying that the fact that Condoleezza Rice was wrong on weapons of mass destruction was going to damage her credibility as secretary of state. Again, McCain and Lindsey Graham were supporting that. It seems contradictory to me.
BURGESS: You’ll have to take that up with Senator McCain and Senator Graham
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/21/1226711/cnn-host-exposes-gops-hypocrisy-on-benghazi/
November 22, 2012
In 10:53 minutes of pure political theater, master provocateur and “cheeky” Brit comic, Russell Brand, took on two of the Westboro Baptist Church with a mix of crass and comedy on his new show, Brand X.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/21/russell-fag-pimp-brand-takes-on-westboro-thugs-video/
.
Russell Brand Interviews Two Members Of The Westboro Baptist Church
In 10:53 minutes of pure political theater, master provocateur and “cheeky” Brit comic, Russell Brand, took on two of the Westboro Baptist Church with a mix of crass and comedy on his new show, Brand X.
From Queerty.com:
Known for advocating that “God Hates Fags,” picketing the funerals of LGBT veterans and praising natural disasters as God’s punishment for those eternally-damned homosexuals, the WBC was bound to make for a great sit-down with a man they’ve branded as a “Fag Pimp.”
Steve Drain (the one wearing the charming PriestsRapeBoys.com T-shirt) and Timothy Phelps (most likely of the notorious Phelps klan) gifted Brand with a large placard bearing that endearing title and then the three got to talking about the Church’s favorite topic: gay sex.
http://www.queerty.com/watch-russell-brand-anti-gay-westboro-baptist-church-20121120/
Known for advocating that “God Hates Fags,” picketing the funerals of LGBT veterans and praising natural disasters as God’s punishment for those eternally-damned homosexuals, the WBC was bound to make for a great sit-down with a man they’ve branded as a “Fag Pimp.”
Steve Drain (the one wearing the charming PriestsRapeBoys.com T-shirt) and Timothy Phelps (most likely of the notorious Phelps klan) gifted Brand with a large placard bearing that endearing title and then the three got to talking about the Church’s favorite topic: gay sex.
http://www.queerty.com/watch-russell-brand-anti-gay-westboro-baptist-church-20121120/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/21/russell-fag-pimp-brand-takes-on-westboro-thugs-video/
.
November 21, 2012
As we suggested way back when this started, the prosecutor in the John Doe case is clearly working his way up to bigger fish and on Monday, revealed documents indicating Governor Scott Walker’s participation in campaigning activity going on in his county office at the taxpayers’ expense.
Here is the bombshell you knew was coming if you read PoliticusUSA:
Kelly Rindfleisch, Walker’s Deputy Chief of Staff in his Milwaukee County Executive office, was found guilty of one count of felony misconduct and sentenced to six months in jail with three years probation. She’s the fourth person to be convicted under the John Doe investigation so far. The judge presiding over the John Doe investigation granted the prosecutor the right to use the Walker documents in court way back on January 25.
Walker was supposed to testify for the defense, but several days later the defense made a plea bargain. You can read between the lines that Mr. Walker did not want to appear in court and offer sworn testimony on behalf of his former staffer, and thus she was forced to make a deal with the prosecution. That probably wasn’t the best idea for Walker either, but he certainly can’t afford to appear on court under oath on this matter.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/giving-john-doe-investigation-implicats-scott-walker.html
Giving Thanks for the Recent JOHN DOE BOMBSHELL That IMPLICATES Scott Walker
As we suggested way back when this started, the prosecutor in the John Doe case is clearly working his way up to bigger fish and on Monday, revealed documents indicating Governor Scott Walker’s participation in campaigning activity going on in his county office at the taxpayers’ expense.
Here is the bombshell you knew was coming if you read PoliticusUSA:
Gov. Scott Walker and his top campaign and Milwaukee County aides were named Monday as part of a team that routinely commingled political and official county business.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/walker-key-aides-implicated-during-doe-sentencing-fn7n3s3-180021891.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/walker-key-aides-implicated-during-doe-sentencing-fn7n3s3-180021891.html
Kelly Rindfleisch, Walker’s Deputy Chief of Staff in his Milwaukee County Executive office, was found guilty of one count of felony misconduct and sentenced to six months in jail with three years probation. She’s the fourth person to be convicted under the John Doe investigation so far. The judge presiding over the John Doe investigation granted the prosecutor the right to use the Walker documents in court way back on January 25.
Walker was supposed to testify for the defense, but several days later the defense made a plea bargain. You can read between the lines that Mr. Walker did not want to appear in court and offer sworn testimony on behalf of his former staffer, and thus she was forced to make a deal with the prosecution. That probably wasn’t the best idea for Walker either, but he certainly can’t afford to appear on court under oath on this matter.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/giving-john-doe-investigation-implicats-scott-walker.html
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 02:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923