Last Call For Verbal Fisticuffs

I do believe President Obama has had quite enough of the Village.

In an interview that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Obama downplayed the controversy over Vladimir Putin's opinion piece in The New York Times last week, saying "this is not a Cold War" and that he welcomes the Russian president's involvement in the issue.

As for the public perception of his own management of the U.S. response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, Obama said, "Folks here in Washington like to grade on style."

"And so had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear - they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy," he continued. "We know that, 'cause that's exactly how they graded the Iraq War - until it ended up… blowing up in our face."

That's not a jab, that's a roundhouse followed by a super combo.  The Villagers who pushed the Iraq War and who still inexplicably have jobs as reliable pundits will make the President pay for that, if it takes them the rest of history trying.

More from Jason Easley at PoliticusUSA:

The president confirmed again that he discussed this with Putin a year ago. He talked to Putin about this at the G20. The notion that Putin saved Obama is political spin by his critics who are trying to tarnish his diplomatic victory in any way that they can. It is a display of how deeply Republicans hate this president that they are so willing to label Putin a hero, not even a year after their presidential nominee called Russia our biggest rival.

Republicans are out to score cheap political points, and they can’t fathom that they were again routed by a president who has spent his presidency ten steps ahead of them. This Putin saved Obama story line is fiction that created to further the Republican agenda of making the president look weak at every turn.

And please take note of the liberals who are going along with that agenda.  Ask yourself why that is.

Is Larry Summers Done For? UPDATE: Yep, He's Gone

Sure is looking like Larry Summers may not even make it past the Senate Banking committee, much less get 60 votes in the Senate for Fed Chairman.

Lawrence H. Summers’s prospects of becoming chairman of the Federal Reserve have become murkier since three key Democratic senators signaled in recent days that they would oppose his nomination.

Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana and a member of the Banking Committee, said on Friday that he would vote against sending Mr. Summers’s nomination to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. Two of Mr. Tester’s fellow Democrats on the committee, Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, have also signaled through their aides that they would vote no.

Such resistance complicates matters for Mr. Summers because without the votes of those three Democrats, he would need Republican support on the Banking Committee, where Democrats have a three-vote majority. The panel holds the first vote on any nominee to lead the Fed.


It is not clear how the rest of the committee might vote. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, is believed to be reluctant to support Mr. Summers but has not said publicly how she would vote.

I can't imagine that Warren would be a yes either under any circumstances.  That means Summers may be sunk before he even gets a vote in the full Senate.  If that's true, the message to President Obama is "don't bother to nominate him at all."

That's a message I happen to agree with.

[UPDATE]  WSJ is now reporting that Summers has withdrawn his name from consideration.

WSJ: Larry Summers withdraws name for Fed chair pic.twitter.com/u0HVsUwPBb
— E McMorris-Santoro (@EvanMcSan) September 15, 2013

Story here.

No, President Obama Does Not Want War

As BooMan points out, the notion of "President Obama, Warmonger-in-Chief" is simply just not true.  His actions in Syria speak otherwise, with force always the last resort.

As the civil war grew worse, Obama refused to send weapons. But, in August 2012, he grew worried enough about the potential use of chemical weapons that he issued his now-famous "red line" warning against their use. By February 2013, we were sending medical kits and MRE's, but still no weapons, and Obama refused to create a no-fly zone despite considerable pressure to do so.

Then, in June, our intelligence community concluded that the regime had probably used some chemical weapons in a few scattered attacks. Again, he was pressured to create a no-fly zone, but he settled on the lesser alternative of finally acceding to sending lethal aid to the rebels. But none of it was sent.

The lesson on the eve of the 8/21 attacks was clear. Despite inheriting a policy that saw the Middle East as a battle between Sunnis and Shiites, the president was using every stalling tactic he could think of to avoid joining the fight on the Sunni's side. First, he tried diplomacy. Then he tried sanctions. Then he issued a warning. Then he allowed non-lethal aid. Then he offered lethal aid. At every point, he did less than what he was being asked to by the neo-cons, the Israelis, and the Sunni powers. In many cases, he was doing less than his own cabinet advised.

Then, when the 8/21 attacks occurred, he threatened to use a limited amount of force and sandbagged even that effort by giving up his right to act unilaterally and throwing the rotting mess to Congress. Finally, he struck an agreement with Russia that will take the pressure off to use military strikes so long as Syria is complying with the terms of disarmament.

His policy has been to reject the view that American interests are tied up in a regional sectarian war in which we want to see the Sunnis prevail. His policy has been to resist constant and powerful forces that keep insisting that we accept the paradigm the neo-cons set in motion back in 2006-7. His policy has been to keep us out of Syria, no matter the political cost to himself, his reelection efforts, or his posterity. 

Once again, Obama is not Bush.  At every turn in Syria, President Obama has looked for another path besides the actual use of force.  Yes, this has included the threat of use of force, but not force itself.  There's a difference between the two, and in the real world I would expect people to know there's a difference.

BooMan is absolutely right here.  Bush, McCain, Romney would have plunged into a shooting match with Syria months ago as a prelude to Iran.  Obama is choosing not to go that route, and he's getting ripped in the press for it, as "weak" or "lucky" or somehow denigrating the fact that we're not in another shooting war.

He's doing what the vast majority of Americans have told him he must do -- continue to avoid a war with Syria -- and yet it's just not good enough.

Ask yourself why that is.

Sad Pundits Are Sad

This is what happens to our liberal media when President Obama does something cool:

You mad, bro?

What's The Big Deal On Syria? This Deal!

Well now, will you look at that.

Russia and the United States announced Saturday that they have reached a groundbreaking deal on a framework to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, after talks in Switzerland.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stood side-by-side as they set out a series of steps the Syria government must follow.

Syria must submit within one week a comprehensive list of its chemical weapons stockpile, Kerry said, and international inspectors must be on the ground no later than November.

Senior U.S. State Department officials said the timeline for action is to finalize initial inspections of declared chemical weapons sites by November; the complete destruction of production and mixing and filling equipment by November; and the complete elimination of all chemical weapons material in first half of 2014.

Well, that was pretty cool.  I'm sure the Village and the newly anti-war GOP is thril...OH WAIT.

Congressional leaders in both parties made clear there is no clear path forward in avoiding a government shutdown in just over 18 days.

Lawmakers appear as far apart as ever on reaching an agreement to fund the government past the end of September, after which all but the most essential government services would cease for lack of money. Though Congress has been aware for months of the need to reach an agreement to sustain funding past Sept. 30, consensus has been as elusive as ever.

“Shutting down the government, obviously, is what a majority of the Republican caucus wants to do in the House,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday.

That comment came after House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, admitted Thursday that he wasn’t sure how the GOP would proceed after the Republican leadership shelved legislation to continue government spending after facing defections in their own ranks.

And remember, President Obama just got a big win.  Clearly it's going to be time to trash the deal as meaningless, and then shut down the government to put "that one" in his place.  And we move on.

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

It doesn't matter how awful of a human being you are, it doesn't matter what despicable acts you do, Republicans will publicly back you as long as you say you don't like Barack Obama.  Steve M on Nooners, El Rushbo, and Vlad The Dudesplainer:

But even if Limbaugh and Noonan think that the disdain for the notion of U.S. exceptionalism is shared equally by Putin and Obama, they've decided the two are identical in this and yet have essentially chosen to side with the Russian authoritarian rather than the head of our own country. (Noonan: "Still, in general, Mr. Putin made a better case in the piece against a U.S. military strike than the American president has for it." Limbaugh: "My God, we have the communist leader of Russia more proudly quoting the Declaration of Independence than our own president does!") And, well, that's no surprise, because hating Obama, all other Democrats, and all liberals is what conservatism means now. It's all that conservatism is about now. 

Republicans in 2013 exist to oppose Barack Obama.  That's that they have, that's all they care about, and that's all they need.

Last Call For Gun Control

Molly Ball at The Atlantic looks over the repeated failure of gun control and comes up with some explanations:

When it comes to gun control, politicians have feared the NRA for decades. They've seen Democrats lose at every level, from president on down, in part because of the gun issue, and they saw their party make a comeback, particularly out west, when it started embracing gun rights instead.

The supposedly new-and-improved gun-control lobby was convinced that conventional wisdom was out of date. It set out to convince politicians that the landscape had changed. It had a less inflammatory message and more modest goals than the would-be gun-prohibitionists of the 1980s and '90s. It had a public that seemed galvanized by the shootings in Tucson and Aurora and Newtown, and polling data that seemed to show voters overwhelmingly supportive of its aims. The NRA's message and tactics, by contrast, seemed laughably antique and tone deaf. A vote for gun control, advocates claimed, wasn't just a safe vote; it was the only safe vote. Senators who voted against the federal gun-control bill were punished with ad campaigns and saw their approval ratings dip. For the first time, the terrible calculus of politics seemed to be on gun-control advocates' side.

But there was still one thing they needed to prove. They needed to prove that they could protect the lawmakers whom they coaxed out on a limb. On Tuesday, they failed that test. Future lawmakers facing similar votes aren't going to care about the particulars; they're going to look at John Morse and Angela Giron and think, That's going to be me. No thanks.

In the end, Americans just don't care about gun control.  That would require courage, courage to actually back politicians who want to pass it.  Courage to get involved.  Courage to do more than just buy pretty green nail polish because it's the same green as the Sandy Hook Elementary.

Instead we see what happens to the people who try to stand up to the gun lobby.  They have guns.  They're not shy about demonstrating they know exactly how to use them.  They have people who have the conviction to say "If necessary I will take your life to protect my own or my family and I will not hesitate."

How do you fight conviction like that with the politics and politicians we have now?

If you find out, let me know.  Because gun control is dead in this country, it has been since 2000, and may always be.

Remember Immigration Reform?

JM Ashby does over at Bob Cesca's place, and reminds us that it will still be 100% the GOP's fault when immigration reform fails to pass this year.

I can’t fault you for being optimistic, but if you really believed the Flying Monkey Caucus was going to allow comprehensive immigration to pass through the House, you’re sorely mistaken.

Congress is running out of time to pass immigration reform before the end of the year, and what few Republicans there are that favor reform are getting worried.

But the plan is to make you hate Obamacare more than bigot Republicans, so that Democratic voters stay home again and let the GOP win. It's all they have left.  They are counting on you refusing to punish them.

You can do something about that.  Remember, the House GOP has no time for immigration reform, but can make 41 votes to defund Obamacare.

The All-Alone Star State

Texas GOP Attorney General candidate Barry Smitherman:  Texas is not going to secede from the United States, but should the government in Washington collapse, we'll be increasingly ready to go it alone.  You know, just in case that happens.  Nudge nudge.

“Generally speaking, we have made great progress in becoming an independent nation, an ‘island nation’ if you will, and I think we want to continue down that path so that if the rest of the country falls apart, Texas can operate as a stand-alone entity with energy, food, water and roads as if we were a closed-loop system.”

Sounds like a theory we should test.  Kent Jones sums it up brilliantly:

So, to put this in terms of a romantic relationship: No, sweetheart, we're not breaking up, and I'm not talking about breaking up. However, I am going to put all my stuff in boxes and wait by the door because I'm expecting you to fail me any day now. Actually, I'm counting on it and will do everything I can to make that happen. And when it does, it'll be all your fault. But if there's one thing we are not talking about, it's breaking up.

Like I keep saying, methinks Texas doth protest too much about secession.  They sure seem to have a plan for it for a bunch of folks who have no intention of doing it.  Which, apparently, if you ask them about it, they will tell you.  At length.  About the plan they'll never use.  Nope.  Ever.

StupidiNews!

• Three Afghan security personnel are dead as US and Afghan forces repelled a Taliban attack on the US consulate in Herat, Afghanistan on Thursday.
• Washington DC Mayor Vincent Gray has vetoed a bill that would have forced large retailers like Wal-Mart to pay a $12.50 an hour minimum "living" wage.
• A libertarian think tank says Congress needs to change the law to allow the entire Interstate Highway System to be transformed into toll roads.
• Geologists say there could be $1.5 trillion in oil under the Gulf of Mexico as more deep water rigs are being built each year.
• New measurements confirm that the Voyager 1 space probe has indeed left the solar system and is in interstellar space.

Last Call For Putin's Russian Reversal

I'll take "Vlad The Dudesplainer" in the NY Times for $1600, Alex.

RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again. 

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades. 

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization. 

This coming from the guy who, you know, actually murders opposing journalists and politicians, kills his own people in Chechnya, and criminalizes LGBTQ advocacy.  It continues on like this at some length, but the bottom line is that same anti-Obama coalition of libertarian dudebros and Worse Than Bush liberals have a new hero in a mass-murdering quasi fascist jackass, who basically really is actually guilty of all the things they accuse Obama of on a regular basis.  Still, you have to "admire" the guy if you hate yourself some Obama...

2) Putin's awful, the op-ed is trolling, but also a little taste of what it feels like to other country's citizens to be lectured at by US
— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) September 12, 2013

He still didn't call the President "Barry" enough times, so it means Dowd is still a better troll. 

What's A Quarter Of A Billion Among Friends?

Meanwhile, the Koch Brothers secretly raised and spent $250 million to influence the 2012 elections, and we're only now just finding this out a year or so after the fact.

The group, Freedom Partners, and its president, Marc Short, serve as an outlet for the ideas and funds of the mysterious Koch brothers, cutting checks as large as $63 million to groups promoting conservative causes, according to an IRS document to be filed shortly.

The 38-page IRS filing amounts to the Rosetta Stone of the vast web of conservative groups — some prominent, some obscure — that spend time, money and resources to influence public debate, especially over Obamacare.

The group has about 200 donors, each paying at least $100,000 in annual dues. It raised $256 million in the year after its creation in November 2011, the document shows. And it made grants of $236 million — meaning a totally unknown group was the largest sugar daddy for conservative groups in the last election, second in total spending only to Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, which together spent about $300 million.

Short, a soft-spoken but ferociously conservative 43-year-old operative, provided us a draft of a forthcoming IRS filing that will soon be available to the public. Short, like most in the Koch empire, feels wealthy conservative activists such as Charles and David Koch get a bum rap from the media. So, Short wants to ease his groups and their cause out of the shadows.

“There’s a mystery around us that makes an interesting story,” Short said in an interview in his conference room. “There’s also a vilification that happens that gets exaggerated when your opposition thinks you’re secretive. Our members are proud to be part of [the organization].”

And thanks to Citizens United, they can buy as much of our political process as they want.  When $250 million isn't enough, they'll simply spend more in 2014 and 2016 until the entire country is under Tea Party control.  If you're wondering why nearly half of Americans think Obamacare has been repealed or overturned already and is no longer law, well, you might want to start with the kind of media coverage that $250 million can buy.

Woot Woot! It's The Sound Of The GOP Food Police!

The GOP loves to trash Michelle Obama over her advocacy of healthy food choices and exercise to get kids active and practicing good habits.  Republicans call it "food fascism" of course, that government has no business telling people what to eat. 

Unless you're on SNAP benefits, in which case your forfeit your rights as an American citizen and Republicans are happy to pass laws telling you what you should eat.

Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) on Tuesday proposed legislation that would require people using federal food stamps to buy only healthy food.

The Healthy Food Choices Act, H.R. 3073, reflects a long-standing criticism that the government's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) allows people to buy billions of dollars worth of junk food.

A 2012 study found that food stamps enable about $2 billion worth of junk food purchases each year, and that more than half of all SNAP benefits are used to buy sugary drinks.

Efforts to curb these purchases have been opposed by anti-hunger groups. But Roe said some states are already exploring ways to curb junk food purchases through the SNAP program, and argued that the federal government needs to take steps as well.

"Already, states like Wisconsin and South Carolina have shown interest in improving the healthfulness of choices in their SNAP programs," he said. "By giving SNAP recipients more nutritious choices, we can take a meaningful step towards ending hunger in America."

So no, Republicans have zero problem with actual government control of what you can buy to eat if they can use that power on those people.

Can't wait to see what big agra and the fast food giants do to this bill, too.  You know they're not going to sit buy and let Congress take $2 billion in yearly sales away from them.

StupidiNews!

• Heavy flooding in Colorado's Boulder County has claimed at least one life as flash floods wiped out several homes and structures near Jamestown.
• Some House Republicans are pushing for a UN Security Council resolution that brings up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on an international war crimes tribunal.
• Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are continuing talks in Geneva over international control of Syria's chemical weapons.
• BlackBerry is pushing Ottawa over rules governing foreign acquisition of the Canadian tech firm.
• Cybersecurity experts are worried that Java will never fix major exploits in version 6 of the software, still widely used and unsupported by Oracle.

Last Call For The Colorado Shuffle

Tom Jensen over at Public Policy Polling is taking massive heat for this decision, and rightfully so:

We did a poll last weekend in Colorado Senate District 3 and found that voters intended to recall Angela Giron by a 12 point margin, 54/42. In a district that Barack Obama won by almost 20 points I figured there was no way that could be right and made a rare decision not to release the poll. It turns out we should have had more faith in our numbers because she was indeed recalled by 12 points.

Granted, the NRA had a best case scenario in the recall vote, but it's a vote they won by double digits.  Both Giron and Colorado State Senate President John Morse were sent packing.

The National Rifle Association, which donated about $360,000 to support the recalls, hailed Morse's loss, telling The Denver Post it "is proud to have stood with the men and women in Colorado who sent a clear message that their Second Amendment rights are not for sale."

But it wasn't just the NRA that warned Democrats about messing with gun rights.

Sen. Lois Tochtrop, an Adams County Democrat and longtime Second Amendment activist, opposed five of the seven gun bills initially introduced in the session, including a lightning-rod proposal by Morse.

That proposal would have assigned liability for assault-style weapon damages to manufacturers and sellers, but Morse killed it at the 11th-hour because he didn't have the votes to pass it through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

"I feel like all these gun bills have done — to quote the last words in the movie 'Tora! Tora! Tora!' — is to awaken a sleeping giant," Tochtrop said during the debate.  

And that's true.  All across the country, the NRA has crushed gun control laws and limited victories to Pyrrhic ones.  It's one thing to defeat somebody in an election, but to knock them off in a recall over legislation, well, Democrats were told that was un-American in Wisconsin.  Guess it's okay now.