National editor for The Cook Political Report Amy Walter says the bottom line on immigration reform for Republicans is, where’s the incentive?
“For these House Republicans there is very little incentive to vote for something,” said Walter. Republicans up for re-election will face primary challenges if they sit in Republican districts, and almost all of them do, added Walter.
The thing about no longer being the stupid party is you actually have to do it. That means grappling with the world as it is; not as it was in 1980. It means grappling with your opponents as they are; not as Fox News imagines them. And it particularly means grappling with how to reapply conservative principles to these new realities; not how to reframe the same-old policies as something new.
Jindal is no more economically literate when it comes to the budget. He thinks it’s laughable that liberals say the government never has to pay back its debt … but it’s true! We don’t. We haven’t. The government isn’t a household. It can roll over its debt forever — and grow out of it. Here’s a true story: we still haven’t paid back the money we borrowed to fight World War II. But, as you can see below, we still brought our debt-to-GDP ratio down from a high of 122 percent in 1946 to a low of 32 percent in 1974, despite only running seven surpluses over that period, because the total size of the economy grew faster than the debt did.
Americans still rate the Republican Party less favorably than the Democratic Party, 39% vs. 46%. But both parties’ ratings are down from November 2012. The Democrats’ rating dropped more, from 51% just after President Barack Obama won re-election. Americans’ ratings of the Democratic Party are now more on par with readings earlier in 2012, while their ratings of the GOP are the lowest since May 2010.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would win Florida against both Sen. Marco Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush in the 2016 presidential election, a new poll finds.
If the election were held today, Clinton would top Bush 50 percent to 43 percent, and she would best Rubio 53 percent to 41 percent, according to Wednesday’s survey from Quinnipiac.
Vice President Joe Biden would trail both of Florida’s Republican favorites. If he were the Democratic candidate, Bush would win 47 percent to 43 percent, and Rubio would narrowly defeat Biden 45 percent to 43 percent.
0:01 “Sprinkler Rainbow Conspiracy”
(mirrored from “HAARP’s Rainbow Aerosol’s” (sic))
1:20 — HAARP details from Wired magazine
1:46 — Jesse Ventura’s “Conspiracy”
2:38 “On the onset of HF-induced airglow at HAARP” — Mishin et.al., Journal of Geophysical Research, 2004
2:44 “Magnetic Zenith enhancement of HF-induced airglow production at HAARP” — Pederson et al., Journal of Geophysical Research, 2003
4:57 — Department of Natural Resources, Ohio Seismic Network
5:03 - Ultra-long period seismic moment of the great December 26 2004 Sumatra earthquake and implications for the slip process” — Stein and Okal, Northwestern University
See also “Seismology: Speed and size of the Sumatra earthquake” — S Stein, EA Okal - Nature, 2005
5:06 — “Multiple CMT source analysis of the 2004 Sumatra earthquake” — Tsai et al., GPL 2005
5:08 - “The great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of 26 december 2004”
T Lay et al., Science, 2005
5:37 — 1960 Chile earthquake earthquake.usgs.gov
8:10 - “Chemtrails - The ultimate proof - Leaked inside cockpit view”
9:08 — CORRECTION — zzyzx0788, who posted the Watergate comment, writes: I noticed you used one of my old comments where I mentioned Watergate, and I feel you may have used it out of context (though that may not have been immediately clear from that post alone). I went back and looked at the comment tree and from what I gathered my point wasn’t “Watergate happened therefore that validates all conspiracies” but rather in context of the discussion (which was about 9/11 conspiracy theories) was that Watergate was just a simple break in and yet didnt take long at all to be completely exposed (thus the “that didn’t take long” part of my comment) and that claiming that the Bush Administration plus several others have all managed to be tight-lipped about the most elaborate, convoluted plan in the history of mankind, and how ridiculous that is.
I just have a little gripe with that. I spent alot of time calling BS on conspiracy theorists, though it may not have been clear from that comment alone
9:30 - planet.infowars.com
10:09 — The ambulance route was explained at an inquest in November 2007 (guardian.co.uk The ambulance driver, Michel Massebeuf, said that the ambulance was driven slowly under doctors’ orders, in order not to aggravate Diana’s injuries. The Pitie-Salpetriere hospital was chosen as the destination because it was best equipped to deal with her injuries. Of course, conspiracy theorists can choose not to believe this testimony, and they may be right, but that makes the conspiracy a matter of belief rather than evidence.
10:36 — An explanation of the well-publicized “Hide the decline” e-mail can be found in my video “Climate Change — Those hacked e-mails.”
14:55 — From the movie “911 In Plane Sight”
11:47 - online.wsj.com
13:45 — “Dr. Kent Hovind’s Christian Answer for the NWO Part 1” on YouTube
16:23 — Gary Webb, who broke the story of the link between the CIA and Nicaraguan drug traffickers in the San Jose Mercury
16:43 — thevoicemagazine.com
17:35 — Congressional draft bill HR 3200, 2009, p. 1193
17:48 - ‘Mandatory Microchip Implant For all Americans by March 23rd 2013”
18:04 — “Boston bombings conspiracy - what you are not being told!” on YouTube
It’s not really news that America’s economics departments, particularly at elite institutions, are stuffed with people whose careers are founded on protecting monied interests. But it’s pretty rare when someone just comes straight out and announces the fact.
Meet Greg Mankiw, chairman and professor of economics at Harvard, one of the most influential economists in the country. As chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, he guided the economic blundering of George W. Bush. Then in 2006, he became an adviser to Mitt Romney and steered Romney’s economic positions in 2012, which included some of the most shocking expressions of classism yet heard from a presidential candidate.
Mankiw’s name might not be a household word, but the tentacles of his power and influence extend into Washington, the blogosphere and the classroom, where he molds young minds through his ubiquitous textbooks and lectures (that is, when students are not walking out to protest his conservative bias and harmful agenda).
Above all, Mankiw is the self-appointed Defender in Chief of the 1 percent. How do we know this? Well, because he just published a 23-page paper called “Defending the One Percent.” It’s helpful to understand the official propaganda line in the class war, and Mankiw has laid it out in a paper that purports to determine whether income inequality requires any intervention.
Professor Mankiw begins by asking the reader to imagine a perfectly egalitarian society where the economy is totally efficient and everybody has the same amount of money. What happens, he asks, when a Steve Jobs pops up? Somebody smarter, more creative than everybody else? Suddenly Mr. Entrepreneur makes amazing things that everybody wants to buy, and now economic inequality has entered the egalitarian utopia. Is it fair to intervene and restore equality by penalizing Mr. Entrepreneur?
It must be said that this opening sally, with its clumsily constructed straw man, would not pass muster with a high school debating coach. Most of Mankiw’s opponents do not ask for perfect income equality or imagine perfect efficiency, but rather envision a playing field in which everyone has a chance to succeed and Mr. Entrepreneur has incentives to conduct his business fairly and to share some of the rewards of his efforts with the community that made them possible. Instead of forming a cartel to hold down the wages of his young engineers, as Steve Jobs did. Or colluding to fix prices, as Steve Jobs is also accused of having done. Or backdating stock options to be sure he comes out in the money. And so on.
“It’s striking how preoccupied Harris and VandeHei are with the perception that Politico is too ‘insidery,’” Silver wrote. “My personal critique of their work cuts a little deeper than that, however. It’s not that they are too ‘insidery’ per se, but that the perceptions of Beltway insiders, which Politico echoes and embraces, are not always very insightful or accurate. In other words, the conventional wisdom is often wrong, especially in Washington.”
He added later in the email: “Furthermore, Harris and VandeHei seem to lack very much curiosity for the world outside of the bubble.”
Silver also took issue with VandeHei’s assertion that he’s using numbers to “prove stuff,” contending that he is instead “providing a critical perspective, and scrutinizing claims on the basis of evidence (statistical or otherwise).” That only works, he said, if you believe “that there is some sort of truth outside the bubble — what would be called the “objective” world in a scientific or philosophical context.”
“Politico, by contrast, sometimes seems to operate within a ‘post-truth’ worldview,” Silver wrote. “Some people think that is the very essence of savvy, modern journalism, but my bet is that journalism is headed in another direction - toward being more critical and empirical.”
As a reformed wingnut, I recall those times. There’s a whole fringe camp out there full of folks just like Bill Ayers who are upset with our President for not being the far left revolutionary that they really want him to be. These hard bitten partisans are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the hard right right whenever the opportunity presents to fling poo at the prez because it’s the only way they can have any influence at all.
The symptom they suffer from is the same as many of Digby’s villagers: it’s much easier to focus on the executive branch and palace intrigue than to persistently focus on daily congressional malfeasance as our social safety nets slowly fray apart from intentional congressional neglect. That’s just boring stuff, not as sexy as the village gossip about who’s spying on whom and how, or exactly how much of a [ tyrant, warmonger, socialist, antichrist, war criminal, foreigner, ] the president is.
If the left doesn’t like what the NSA is doing, or how Obama is executing the directives then the remedy lies in Congress not the media - congress is the only place where these extraordinary powers can get taken away.
So much for that Bill Ayres-Barack Obama friendship.
Ayres, the 1960s radical from Chicago whom Republicans have often tried to link to Obama, says the president should be tried for “war crimes,” and that his use of drones and other counter-terrorism activities amount to “acts of terror.”
To be fair, the former member of the Weather Underground says he has given all recent presidents failing grades, including some “F-minuses.”
“Every president in this century should be put on trial … for war crimes,” Ayers says in a brief interview with Real Clear Politics.
President Barack Obama is expected to use his speech at the iconic Brandenburg Gate on Wednesday to renew calls for a reduction in nuclear weapons.
It is not the first time the president has called for a reduction in stockpiles, but by addressing the issue in a major foreign speech, Obama is hoping to rekindle the issue, which was at the center of his early first-term agenda.
Obama will address a crowd of 5,000 invited guests at the historic landmark in the center of Berlin almost 50 years after John F. Kennedy made his famous speech at what was then West Berlin at the Rathaus Schoeneberg (town hall). Obama made a speech as a presidential candidate in the city in 2008.
But Berliners say they are less excited about this visit and have been disappointed that he has not delivered on promises he made previously.
“He’s still better than George W. Bush in terms of being open to the rest of the world and cooperation, but this vast change of the mindset in America, I don’t think we’ve seen,” said Elizabeth Osterloh, an American living in Berlin and doing an MBA in transatlantic management.
Within hours of opening an office for peace talks in the Gulf emirate of Qatar, Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan launched a deadly ambush on an American convoy, and the Afghan government separately broke off talks on military cooperation with the United States.
It was at best a rocky prelude to peace talks with the Taliban, which have collapsed repeatedly in the past. American officials have long pushed for such talks, believing them crucial to stabilizing Afghanistan after the withdrawal of Western forces next year.
Earlier on Tuesday, the American military had formally handed over control of security in all of Afghanistan to Afghan forces, a development that was followed hours later with the three sides announcing that peace talks would begin at the new Taliban offices in Doha, Qatar.