What’s John McCain bitter about today? Same thing as yesterday…

Charlie Pierce explains McCain’s whole Benghazi / Susan Rice dilemma:

“This whole long con has passed now into the realm of pure McCarthyism: “We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn’t get,” said McCain, an Arizona Republican. “It is clear the information that [Rice] gave the American people was incorrect when she said it was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. It was not, and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case.”

No details. Nothing specific. Just John McCain, being troubled, as he has been since the country declined to make him its president. What happened with Rice and the talking-points, and why it happened, has been explained at length by everyone closely involved in the episode, including David Petraeus… McCain and Graham — and the hapless Ayotte, who is clearly, and pathetically, looking past Rice all the way to the 2016 Iowa caucuses — have nothing. They want to beat up on Rice simply because they can’t beat up on the president, although McCain made a run at that over the weekend. And they came out of the meeting and ran their mouths about what went on because they knew Rice wasn’t going to go into details of that meeting in public. They are a pair of cowards, with a feckless rookie in train, and they are playing dangerous games with the country’s security. They hereafter should be ignored and, if Graham goes through with his threat of putting a hold on Rice’s nomination, Harry Reid should move his desk out onto Constitution Avenue, and no Democrat should cooperate with this clown ever again.”

Senator Harry Reid calls John McCain on his Benghazi bullshit

“One of you, Senator McCain, has gone so far as to make the outrageous claim that this event was “worse than Watergate”—despite the fact that there is no evidence that any crime was committed, no evidence of any cover-up, and no evidence that the administration has characterized the incident in any way that has not been consistent with the Intelligence Community’s contemporaneous assessments.”

— Harry Reid, rejecting McCain’s request to form a Senate committee to investigate the attack on Benghazi last September. McCain had made the request in part because, per internal Senate rules, he’s term-limited out of his seat as ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the formation of a new committee would allow him another perch from which to delve into the Benghazi matter. Reid derided McCain’s request as an attempt to use the Senate as “a venue for baseless partisan attacks,” and excoriated the senator for skipping a classified briefing on the incident in order to hold a press conference. source (via shortformblog)

Related: 

True the Vote: Quasi-democracy, right-wing style

This editorial is a must read, and should be passed along far and wide before Election Day:

This is how voter intimidation worked in 1966: White teenagers in Americus, Ga., harassed black citizens in line to vote, and the police refused to intervene. Black plantation workers in Mississippi had to vote in plantation stores, overseen by their bosses. Black voters in Choctaw County, Ala., had to hand their ballots directly to white election officials for inspection.

This is how it works today: In an ostensible hunt for voter fraud, a Tea Party group, True the Vote, descends on a largely minority precinct and combs the registration records for the slightest misspelling or address error. It uses this information to challenge voters at the polls, and though almost every challenge is baseless, the arguments and delays frustrate those in line and reduce turnout.

The thing that’s different from the days of overt discrimination is the phony pretext of combating voter fraud. Voter identity fraud is all but nonexistent, but the assertion that it might exist is used as an excuse to reduce the political rights of minorities, the poor, students, older Americans and other groups that tend to vote Democratic.

… On the day of the recall election of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, the group used inaccurate lists to slow down student voting at Lawrence University in Appleton with intrusive identity checks. Three election “observers,” including one from True the Vote, were so disruptive that a clerk gave them two warnings, but the ploy was effective: many students gave up waiting in line and didn’t vote.

True the Vote, now active in 30 states, hopes to train hundreds of thousands of poll watchers to make the experience of voting like “driving and seeing the police following you,” as one of the group’s leaders put it. (Not surprisingly, the group is also active in the voter ID movement, with similar goals.) These activities “present a real danger to the fair administration of elections and to the fundamental freedom to vote,” as a recent report by Common Cause and Demos put it.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits intimidation or interference in the act of voting, but the penalties are fairly light. Many states have tougher laws, but they won’t work unless law enforcement officials use them to crack down on the illegal activities — handed down from Jim Crow days — of True the Vote and similar groups.”

From an editorial in the New York Times“Voter Harassment, Circa 2012.” (via: inothernews)

Screw True the Vote. It seems obscene that this group of losers, the tea party (aka  True the Vote) are inserting themselves into my election day — and yours! They’ve never stood for “We, the people” in the past, and this bullshit is the final nail in their coffin for me.

I think people need to plan to Occupy True the Vote on November 6th. TTV is training “hundreds of thousands of poll watchers to make the experience of voting like “driving and seeing the police following you”? As if.

Maybe a counter-protest group should train hundreds of thousands of TTV watchers to make their experience of quasi-harassment look like the Koch-funded, non-serious, unpatriotic, clown rodeo it is. Something along the lines of counter-protesting Westboro Baptist at military funerals.

I can’t imagine what other democracies in the world must think of ours this year.

Romney claims after Obama’s election, the GOP rallied behind him, hoping he’d succeed


via: team-joebama 

Mitt Romney wrapped the most important speech of his life… around an extraordinary reinvention of history — that his party rallied behind President Obama when he won in 2008, hoping that he would succeed. “That president was not the choice of our party,” he said. “We are a good and generous people who are united by so much more than divides us.”

The truth, rarely heard this week in Tampa, Fla., is that the Republicans charted a course of denial and obstruction from the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated, determined to deny him a second term by denying him any achievement, no matter the cost to the economy or American security — even if it meant holding the nation’s credit rating hostage to a narrow partisan agenda.

From NY Times Editorial: Mr. Romney Reinvents History

###

Transcript of the reinvention:

Four years ago, I know that many Americans felt a fresh excitement about the possibilities of a new president. That president was not the choice of our party but Americans always come together after elections. We are a good and generous people who are united by so much more than what divides us.

When that hard fought election was over, when the yard signs came down and the television commercials finally came off the air, Americans were eager to go back to work, to live our lives the way Americans always have – optimistic and positive and confident in the future.

That very optimism is uniquely American.

The sad reality: the night of President Obama’s inauguration, Republican leadership met over dinner and plotted how to take back the White House in 2012 — THE NIGHT HE WAS INAUGURATED! That’s an unusual way of “coming together” in a “good and generous” way to support the new president, isn’t it?

The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward: Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: ‘Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it—please?’) Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.) Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.) Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.

And of course, this: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” –- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted in National Journal, November 4, 2010

Either Mitt Romney is simple minded or he just hopes the rest of us are.

###

 
 
 
 

Source: sandandglass

“Of course Americans build their own business.”


Oh, and we still want to see Romney’s tax returns and want to know when he actually LEFT Bain Capital… because that information does matter.

Related: 

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.You built a factory out there — good for you!  But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.  You didn’t have to worry that maurading bands would come and seize everything at your factory and (have to) hire someone to protect against this because of the work the rest of us did. Now look: you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God Bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is that you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” — Elizabeth Warren, explaining how there’s nobody in this country who got rich on his own.

John Boehner currently insulting everyone’s intelligence with stupid bullshit

But how many dumbass teabaggers will buy it? All of them. When you’ve got nothing going on for your side, you lie.

This tweet from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) probably wasn’t intended to be important, but it’s an astonishing message.

Let’s back up for a moment. At issue is a 2007 law, set to expire on July 1, which keeps the interest rate for federal Direct Stafford Loans at 3.4%. If Congress fails to act, the rate will double, affecting more than 7.4 million students, who’ll face, on average, an additional $1,000 in debt. President Obama and congressional Democrats are fighting to keep the rates where they are, and Mitt Romney agrees with them.

Congressional Republicans have balked at the proposals, and today, Boehner is arguing that this is all Democrats’ fault anyway — they’re the ones who “included an expiration provision that placed the looming increase in the middle of an election year.”

Democrats wanted to lower student interest rates. Now, they want to keep the lower student interest rates. As far as Boehner is concerned, this means Dems “voted to double” interest rates.

read more

Via: abaldwin360Now, not only is John Boehner being stupid, he’s insulting everyone’s intelligence with this kind of bullshit.

Peggy?

Exactly.

Wikileaks dumps Stratfor emails

Wikileaks has exposed this so-called “global intelligence” think tank operation to be nothing more than an overpriced teabag-gossip clearinghouse. Josh Marshall comments on the email dump – Lordy Lordy Lordy:

Wikileaks tonight released a massive trove of emails from ‘Stratfor’ and TPM Reader KB has been looking through them …

Truly comical. The jokers at Startfor (people actually pay good money for their “intelligence”) have had a bunch of internal emails published by WikiLeaks. Take a look at 2008. So much anti-Dem rumor mongering. It reads like Newsmax. So many references to “my source” “my guy”.” See this one for example. Or this.

What these emails will do mostly is expose Startfor for the bogus overpriced operation is actually is.

What’s this about? In part,

WikiLeaks releases massive hoard of emails from security firm Stratfor

According to a release posted on Sunday evening, “Today WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files – more than five million emails from the Texas-headquartered ‘global intelligence’ company Stratfor. The emails date from between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defense Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment-laundering techniques and psychological methods.”

Perhaps the most shocking revelation in the release is that “Stratfor’s use of insiders for intelligence soon turned into a money-making scheme of questionable legality. The emails show that in 2009 then-Goldman Sachs Managing Director Shea Morenz and Stratfor CEO George Friedman hatched an idea to ‘utilise the intelligence’ it was pulling in from its insider network to start up a captive strategic investment fund.”

[...] It also charges, “Stratfor claims that it operates ‘without ideology, agenda or national bias’, yet the emails reveal private intelligence staff who align themselves closely with US government policies and channel tips to the Mossad – including through an information mule in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Yossi Melman, who conspired with Guardian journalist David Leigh to secretly, and in violation of WikiLeaks’ contract with the Guardian, move WikiLeaks US diplomatic cables to Israel.”

WikiLeaks will be partnering with more than 25 activists and media organizations to process the massive horde of emails. In the United States, these include McClatchy and Rolling Stone.

An official press conference is to be held in London on Monday.

Continue…

Here’s the sort of FoxNews-RWNJ-Newsmaxian-High-Teabaggery that every American taxpayer has been funding:

 Here’s Burton after the 2008 election (via):

1) The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight. The matter is not dead inside the party. It now becomes a matter of sequence now as to how and when to “out”.

2) It appears the Dems “made a donation” to Rev. Jesse (no, they would never do that!) to keep his yap shut after his diatribe about the Jews and Israel. A little bird told me it was a “nice six-figure donation”. This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.

3) The hunt is on for the sleezy Russian money into O-mans coffers. A smoking gun has already been found. Will get more on this when the time is right. My source was too giddy to continue. Can you say Clinton and ChiCom funny money? This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.

Does that sounds like “intelligence” that’s “without ideology, agenda or national bias” to you? For that matter, does that even sound like intelligence to you?

And why hasn’t this guy Burton “determined how and when to out” this valuable and double-plus sekrit intel YET after four fucking years!

No. Don’t raise the retirement age to curb entitlements.

Matthew Yglesias wonders if progressives want fiscal stimulus enough to take the advice of the Financial Times:

In broad terms, the needed elements are plain: further short-term stimulus combined with credible longer-term fiscal restraint. Cut the payroll tax, extend jobless benefits and subsidise new jobs; then curb entitlement spending by raising the retirement age.

In my view, raising the retirement age is basically the worst possible form that credible longer-term fiscal restraint could take. The way this works is that if you’re rich, the benefit cut in dollars and cents terms is very small since your life expectancy at 65 is already high. But if you’re poor, the benefit cut is much more severe. Except in real psychological terms it’s even more regressive than that, since poor people are more likely to have jobs that are physically taxing and generally unpleasant. So it sounds like a stinker of a deal to me.

We’re talking entirely different universes of work between a person in their late sixties or early seventies who sits in meetings and takes business lunches, as compared to a person standing at a cash register, waiting tables, or cleaning hotel rooms for 8 hours a day.

Not only is that idea ridiculously unfair, but exactly when is the younger generation supposed to get a chance at employment when people are working into their late sixties and early seventies if the retirement age is increased? There’s already a bunch of people without jobs — and now we’re going to tell them that the people who have the jobs are never leaving?

Seven words: Tax cuts for the wealthy — end them.

Related:

Rich people pay a lower effective rate than you. Boom. Reality.

Your bullshit study of the day: Smiling men are not attractive to women?

Another bullshit study that I completely disagree with:

JoeWo:

“While showing a happy face is considered essential to friendly social interactions, including those involving sexual attraction – few studies have actually examined whether a smile is, in fact, attractive,” says Prof. Jessica Tracy of UBC’s Dept. of Psychology. “This study finds that men and women respond very differently to displays of emotion, including smiles.”

In a series of studies, more than 1,000 adult participants rated the sexual attractiveness of hundreds of images of the opposite sex engaged in universal displays of happiness (broad smiles), pride (raised heads, puffed-up chests) and shame (lowered heads, averted eyes).

The study found that women were least attracted to smiling, happy men, preferring those who looked proud and powerful or moody and ashamed. In contrast, male participants were most sexually attracted to women who looked happy, and least attracted to women who appeared proud and confident.

Story is located here

I’d like to know exactly where these women are currently institutionalized…

http://www.parade.com/images/-v4/celebrity/2009/0426/default-robert-downey-jr.jpg

I love seeing men smile. The issue is that these kinds of photos are rare — photographers POSE men to not smile.  So now we’re conditioned to see men not smiling and that’s all we have to judge attractiveness. Google the men above and you’ll find hardly any images of them looking happy or laughing — but you will find a ton of Twilight-Emo poses to choose from.

Seriously, how could women not be attracted to a man who looks happy?