McCain whines that Latinos turned their backs on him — after he threw them under the bus
December 28, 2010 No Comment
Click here to view this media We all saw what a vicious hypocrite John McCain really is last week when he voted against the DREAM Act — a bill he not only sponsored, but campaigned before Latinos on. Now he’s justifying his mendacious flip-flop by complaining that Latinos turned their backs on him: McCain also voted no Saturday on the Dream Act, which would have granted citizenship to thousands of foreign-born college students. He initially sponsored the legislation. Gullett said McCain constantly faced voters on the campaign trail last year asking about border security and that affected his stance. His communications director, Brooke Buchanan, explained that on immigration, McCain believes the border needs to be secured above all else, citing the increasing border violence over the last four years. “His opinion has evolved with time,” she said. “Don’t we expect our leaders to base their opinions and policies, don’t we expect them to change with the time? And that’s what Sen. McCain has been doing. It’s truly in the best interest of our country.” Woods said “it hurts” McCain to vote against legislation like the Dream Act after years of working on reform but said the senator felt betrayed when Latinos overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008. “When you carry that fight at great sacrifice year after year and then you are abandoned during the biggest fight of your life, it has to have some sort of effect on you,” he said. But as Kos observes, McCain actually threw Latinos under the bus in January 2008, during the Republican presidential debates : MS. HOOK: Senator McCain, let me just take the issue to you, because you obviously have been very involved in it. During this campaign, you, like your rivals, have been putting the first priority, heaviest emphasis, on border security. But your original immigration proposal back in 2006 was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here. What I’m wondering is, and you seem to be downplaying that part, at this point, if your original proposal came to a vote in the Senate floor, would you vote for it? SEN. MCCAIN: It won’t. It won’t. That’s why we went through the debate. MS. HOOK: I know, but what if it did? SEN. MCCAIN: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won’t. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever, that proposal. He also backed the bus back up and ran over Latinos again in May, on Bill O’Reilly’s show: Bill O’Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you’ve got to cap with a number. John McCain: In America today we’ve got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don’t need so many. [crosstalk] O’Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don’t know, I don’t know. We’ve got to cap it. McCain: We do, we do. I agree with you. A few months later, McCain held a secret meeting with Latinos in which he told Latinos, again, that he really was their friend — but just didn’t want them to tell anyone about it. Yeah, Latinos betrayed McCain. Like Jesus betrayed Judas.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Greenspan makes an admission of sorts: Waxman: Then where do you think you made a mistake? Greenspan: I made a mistake in the presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, was such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders… Waxman? Do you have any financial responsibility for the financial crisis? (On his ideology) Greenspan: …to exist you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not, and what I’m saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw… He found a flaw? What an asshole. Nothing in all of Conservative/Bircherland is as creepy as some of the unmitigated horsecrap that has been recycled from Ayn Rand. It’s the embodiment of a bloated narcissistic belief that you all suck except for us elitist few. Here’s an excerpt from Matt Taibbi’s new book called ‘Griftopia” Greenspan met Rand in the early fifties after leaving Columbia, attending meetings at Rand’s apartment with a circle of like-minded jerkoffs who called themselves by the ridiculous name of the Collective and who provided Greenspan the desired forum for social ascent. These meetings of The Collective would have an enormous impact on American culture by birthing a crackpot anti-theology dedicated to legitimizing self interest — a grotesquerie called Objectivism that hit the Upper East Side cocktail party circuit hard in the fifties and sixties. It is important to to spend some time of the seriously demented history of Objectivism, because this lunatic religion that should have choked to death in its sleep decades ago would go on, thanks in large part to Greenspan to provide the entire intellectual context for the financial disasters of of the early twenty first century. enlarge Fox News and their stable of lying liars have been hoisting this bulls–t religion on its legion of followers every da y while they helped build the Tea Party movement almost singlehandedly to undermine any type of progress we could have made, while the working people of this nation suffer from their economic policies. Digby links to a Steve Benen post about the hypocrisy of Republicans on tax cuts and finds this other crap spewed by Greenspan : Alan Greenspan, the most influential and powerful central banker of the last half century wrote this , as a young man: ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should.” In other words, anyone on unemployment is a lazy bastard and should be left to perish while the Millionaire Club should feast off of their Bush tax cuts. As you know, Greenspan was at the helm like an anti-Captain Kirk during much of the destruction of the world’s financial systems during his reign in politics. Ben Stein is one of the Capos of these freaks at Fox, where he is housed. DWT has a list of Republican douchebag quotes about the parasite class, including one of Stein’s patented quotes about the unemployed. “The people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities. I say ‘generally’ because there are exceptions. But in general as I survey the ranks of those who are unemployed, I see people who have overbearing and unpleasant personalities and/or do not know how to do a days work.” 2011 is going to be a difficult year because the John Galt worshipers will be running the House. It all ties in with Libertarian and Bircher belief systems that say the free markets are our lord and masters. Digby explains it thus: Woe be to all those ordinary Joes and Janes who are just working at jobs and raising families and trying to find some happiness in their short time on earth without feeling they need to be conquerors. Among many of the political and business elite in America they are no longer considered neighbors or even customers. They are parasites. In other words, the American Dream is nothing more than a system designed to drain all the “purpose and reason” from the legitimate owners of the world. Taxing the hell out of them will teach them a necessary moral lesson.
Continue reading …GOP’s Plan for the Economy: Force States into Bankruptcy and Default on Union Contracts and Pensions
December 28, 2010 No Comment
Click here to view this media Sam Seder filling in for Keith Olbermann on Countdown talked to former C&L contributor, FDL’s Dave Dayden about his recent article at the News Desk — In Unfolding War on Public Employees, State Lawmakers and Media Likely to Do the Work Themselves : There’s no question that Republicans have introduced a bill which would require more transparency on state public pensions, and that they hope this would provide a road map in the states for where they can cut budgets; namely, on the backs of public employees. That doesn’t mean it will happen in exactly that way, however. And the idea that the next Congress will overhaul the 30s-era law allowing states to go bankrupt seems fanciful to me. But I don’t think states or municipalities need much help from the federal government in their desire to rewrite public employee union contracts. There has been a concerted effort for years to demonize and delegitimize public employee unions, from both Republican pols and the media in general . This has left a distorted impression about greedy union contracts and well-paid government functionaries. So the new class of Republican governors would certainly want to capitalize on that by pleasing the public, who now favor things like wage freezes (which Obama just instituted at the federal level) and furloughs and bigger pension contributions, punishing those workers. And they are animated by a general hatred of unions, which have maintained their strength in the public sector while fading away in the private sector. Alongside that, there are legitimate budget problems in the states. The National Conference of State Legislatures estimates a $118 billion dollar shortfall in state and municipal budgets in 2011. And there are certainly some states and municipalities with currently unfunded pension liabilities . While federal aid could offset some of that, there’s no chance it will happen – expect the House to pass, early next year, a resolution basically forbidding “bailouts” of the states. At that point, state governments will either have to cut spending or raise taxes to balance their budgets, which almost all of them are constitutionally required to do. With public employees – or rather, cops, firefighters, nurses, teachers, the people who prepare your state tax refund, the people who get you your driver’s license, the people who get the roads and bridges fixed and basically secure your safe passage through the commons – seen in a negative light, they will in many states be lined up for cuts. There’s much more there so go read the rest. Republicans continue to prove that they’re willing to finish wrecking our economy for political gain and to get their dream fulfilled of busting every union we’ve got left in this country in the process.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media President Barack Obama found praise of his handling of national security matters from an unlikely place Sunday. The former director of national intelligence under President George W. Bush commended the Obama administration for their pursuit of terrorists. “Interesting point I would make just for the sake of the listeners here, as [ex-CIA Director General Michael Hayden] and I served in the previous administration and criticized for being aggressive and so on and there was a lot of rhetoric during the political campaign for electing new representatives,” Mike McConnell told CNN’s Candy Crowley. “My observation is the new administration has been as aggressive, if not more aggressive in pursuing these issues because they’re real,” he added. “And you commend them for that?” Crowley asked. “I do commend them for that,” McConnell. Appearing in the same interview on CNN Sunday, former Bush CIA director Michael Hayden warned that terror threats are becoming more difficult to defend against. “Our security services have actually gotten quite good against the traditional kind of threat, rather complex, slow-moving plot organized very likely from the tribal region of Pakistan,” Hayden said. “The new flavor of threat more likely to come from a franchise than from al Qaeda main in Pakistan,” he continued. “More likely than in the past to come from someone who has every reason to be in the United States, has American personhood, whether it’s a green card or as a citizen. That’s a witch’s brew and, as you suggest, it’s much more difficult for us to defend against those kinds of attacks,” he said.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media I guess it’s safe to assume that Sarah Palin is definitely going to run for president since Bill Kristol has predicted she won’t on this week’s Fox News Sunday. Kristol’s other predictions; Haley Barbour’s racist past won’t hurt him and neither will Newt Gingrich’s infidelity. Bloody Bill also thinks that Newt Gingrich and get this… Mike Pence are going to be formidable candidates. Yeah, that intellectual powerhouse Mike Pence. I guess Kristol thinks formidable means you’re really good at mindlessly reciting Republican talking points ad nauseum because Mike Pence doesn’t know how to do much else.
Continue reading …Tom Brokaw Pretends President Obama Hasn’t Spent the Last Two Years Working with Business Leaders
December 26, 2010 No Comment
Click here to view this media Tom Brokaw repeats the right wing talking point on Meet the Press this morning that somehow President Obama just hasn’t paid enough attention to business leaders in the United States. Brokaw wonders if that’s the lesson that is going to be taken from the mid-term elections and if Obama will now start paying attention to their ideas on how to change the economy. I don’t know what planet Brokaw is living on if he thinks President Obama hasn’t already shown way too much deference to big business. And those businesses are not creating jobs in America as Robert Reich pointed out this week in his column in the Huffington Post. Apparently Reich feels the same way I do, that Obama has already been more than friendly to big businesses regardless of what hacks like Brokaw would have us believe. The Year Washington Became “Business Friendly” : History will record 2010 as the year Washington became “business friendly.” Not that it was all that unfriendly before. Some would say the bailouts of Wall Street, AIG, GM, and Chrysler were about as friendly as it can get. In addition, Washington gave windfalls to drug companies and health insurers in the new health bill, subsidies to energy companies in the stimulus package, and billions to domestic and military contractors. But for corporate America it still wasn’t friendly enough. Before the midterm elections, Verizon CEO and Business Roundtable chair Ivan Seidenberg accused the president of creating a hostile environment for investment and job-creation. In the midterms, business leaders overwhelmingly threw their support to Republicans. So the White House caved in on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and is telling CEOs it will be on their side from now on. As the president recently told a group of CEOs, the choice “is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between America and our competitors around the world. We can win the competition.” There’s only one problem. America’s big businesses are less and less American. They’re going abroad for sales and employees. That’s one reason they’ve showed record-breaking profits in 2010 while creating almost no American jobs….
Continue reading …Is it “I’m not a witch” Christine O’Donnell ? Is it Andrew Breitbart ? Is it Rand Paul and his merry band of curb-stompers ? Or maybe it’s Cryin’ John Boehner? Every day, the team of C&L pours through hours of programming and news to find stories for you examples of the crooks and liars that infect the public discourse. By my estimation, we’ve done upwards of 5,000 posts this year. That’s a whole lot of crooks and liars. So, tell us, who were the standouts this year? I’m pulling clips to provide Nicole Sandler, who is substituting for Randi Rhodes this week, and we’ll be discussing it on her show Monday. Listen in to hear if your choices were used.
Continue reading …Byron York is awfully certain that filibuster reform won’t happen. Funny thing, that.
December 25, 2010 No Comment
Click here to view this media Byron York is awfully certain that there will be no filibuster reform for the Senate in the coming weeks: It’s also why you’re hearing new rumbling about what many Democrats consider the ultimate fix for the Washington-is-broken problem: eliminating the filibuster. A perennial complaint, unhappiness with the filibuster is likely to reach new heights among Democrats in the next few months. Already, the entire returning Democratic caucus has signed a letter by Sens. Carl Levin and Mark Warner calling for rules changes that will make it easier to kill filibusters. Some are also hoping to make it possible to change the Senate’s rules with a simple majority vote, rather than the two-thirds vote required now. That way, Democrats could do anything they want, even without that 60-vote majority. It won’t happen; there aren’t the votes. I t could even be that Democrats are pushing the anti-filibuster argument so loudly because they know it won’t happen. That way, they can position themselves as favoring “filibuster reform” with the comfort of knowing they’ll still have the filibuster the next time they’re in the minority, which might be soon. Nevermind, of course, that Republicans’ abuse of the filibuster has had the distinctly anti-constitutional effect of transforming the Senate from a majority-rule body to a supermajority-rule body . Conservatives, as we have seen multiple times in the past year, only make a fetish out of the Constitution — or rather, a mythologized version of it — when they think it favors them. When the actual Constitution prevents them from, say, stripping American-born Latinos of their citizenship, well, all they want to do is overturn it. But it’s interesting that York assumes the votes aren’t there. Because, as Susie pointed out the other day, every returning Democrat wants to reform the filibuster. That would mean we have 53 votes for the reform now. And, as we pointed out several weeks ago, all that is needed on January 5, the first day of Senate business, is 51 votes in order to change the rules. As Tom Udall has been pointing out for awhile now: And so what the Constitutional Option is about is doing rules reform in the Senate at the beginning of a Congress and the crucial thing is that at the beginning of Congress you can set rules with 51 Senators. You can end the debate and you can adopt new rules. Now is the time for rules reform. I have a feeling a bunch of smug Republicans are going to wake up on January 6 and realize that they just got hammered by Democrats again. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch. Meanwhile, be sure to read Ezra Klein’s interview with Jeff Merkley for more on all this.
Continue reading …
enlarge Lowell Thomas — widely respected newsman who was also prone to fits of laughter on the air. Click here to view this media Not all news in the post-War years was grim, or presented in a grim way. Take this newscast from December 19, 1946, presented by broadcast pioneer and well-respected journalist Lowell Thomas. Thomas had a long and colorful career and was something of a Walter Cronkite of his day. However, Thomas did have this one habit — he would occasionally break up while reading a piece of copy on the air. And since it was live, the laughter spilled over the air and usually caught his announcer in a fit of hysterics as well. So on this day in 1946, the news was concerned with price gouging of G.I.’s looking to buy a home. The elections in Iran the threatened civil war in Palestine. The infamous Senator Bilbo and hearings regarding his somewhat nefarious dealings. The problem of government Public Relations firms and the amount of propaganda associated with them. The immigration wave coming from Europe. But that didn’t stop Thomas from staging a complete breakup at the end. Sometimes news is just funny.
Continue reading …For this special holiday edition of “Left, Right & Center,” the show’s regulars—Robert Scheer, Matt Miller, Arianna Huffington and Tony Blankley—take their talk to the meta level to discuss what it means to own their respective political labels at this particular moment. Related Entries December 17, 2010 ‘Left, Right & Center’: Afghanistan, Health Care, Financial Commission December 16, 2010 Robert Scheer Nabs SPJ/LA’s New Media Prize
Continue reading …