Last Call For Shutdown Countdown

If Republicans really believe this Rasmussen poll is accurate, then by all means, let's see what happens when you shut down the government and take the blame for it.

Just 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe a partial shutdown of the federal government would be good for economy, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty-six percent (56%) say such a shutdown would be bad for the economy, even though payments for things like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment would continue. Sixteen percent (16%) think it would have no impact. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

But 58% favor a federal budget that cuts spending, while only 16% prefer one that increases spending. Twenty-one percent (21%) support a budget that keeps spending levels about the same. 

This helps explain why 53% would rather have a partial government shutdown until Democrats and Republicans can agree on what spending to cut. Thirty-seven percent (37%) would prefer instead that Congress avoid a shutdown by authorizing spending at existing levels as the president has proposed.

Some conservative Republicans in both the House and Senate are refusing to approve a budget unless it slows or stops funding for the health care law, but the president and most congressional Democrats are adamantly opposed to any such cuts. However, 51% of voters favor having a partial government shutdown until Democrats and Republicans agree on what spending for the health care law to cut. Forty percent (40%) would rather avoid a government shutdown by authorizing spending for the health care law at existing levels.

Go for it.  I'm sure a government shutdown will help ensure a Romney win in 2012, guys.

In Which Zandar Answers Your Burning Questions

Piers Morgan asks a question about yesterday's Navy Yard shootings:

I'm absolutely sick of these endless bloody mass shootings in America. You promised action after Sandy Hook @BarackObama - where is it?
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) September 16, 2013

Ask Congress.  You're a reporter.  Find the hell out, douchebag.

Orange Julius About To Get Pulped?

While Syria and Russia and debt ceiling and Obamacare and budget showdown were all happening, I missed this little tidbit on House Speaker John Boehner:

The Federal Election Commission is examining whether dozens of political action committees and individuals contributed more than the legally allowed amount to House Speaker John Boehner during last year's election cycle.

Letters the Federal Election Committee sent Monday to Friends of John Boehner indicated that donors including coal, energy, and gambling interests, exceeded contribution limits to Boehner's committee by more than $150,000.

Among the groups that were allegedly overgenerous to Boehner were Coalpac and Minepac, which represent the mining industry, as well as political committees representing the Exelon, Constellation and Luminant power companies, and the Ceasars and Penn National gambling enterprises.

"Although the commission may take further legal action concerning the acceptance of excessive contributions, your prompt action to refund the excessive amount will be taken into consideration," the letters say.

Coal, energy and casinos?  All three big, big business in Ohio with major coal fields and plants, new fracking digs, and new casinos now up in Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincy?  And they all donated more than was allowed to Orange Julius, you say?

Why, it's almost like the guy is up to no good.

Last year Friends of John Boehner sucked up $348,000 and Boehner used the money to buy loyalty from incumbents and Republican candidates with $4,000 checks. Last year he gave out 54 of those $4,000 checks (+ $6,000 to failed neo-fascist Jesse Kelly in Arizona). Like Kelly, dozens of the contributions Boehner made with the sleazy money were given to losing candidates, most of whom were judged too extreme by the voters. Boehner's losers included Adam Hasner (FL), Mia Love (UT), Robert Dold (IL), David Rouzer (NC), Charlie Bass (NH), Randy Altshuler (NY), Joe Coors (CO), Matt Doheny (NY), Joe Walsh (IL), Bobby Schilling (IL), Jonathan Paton (AZ), Lee Ivey Anderson (GA), Nan Hayworth (NY), Chip Cravaack (MN), Tony Strickland (CA), Richard Tisei (MA), Brian Bilbray (CA), Ann Marie Buerkle (NY), Allen West (FL), Ricky Gill (CA), Brendan Doherty (RI), Martha McSally (AZ), Steve Obsitnik (CT), Dick Snuffer (WV), and Frank Guinta (NH). But many who accepted the tainted checks are still in Congress-- and still upholding Boehner's shaky hold on the Speakership. Among the current Members of Congress who have not returned their $4,000 checks are a dozen crooked congressmen who are fighting uphill battles to stay in Congress:

• Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-Mafia)
• Jeff Denham (R-CA)
• David Valadao (R-CA)
• Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
• Joe Heck (R-NV)
• Lou Barletta (R-PA)
• Sean Duffy (R-WI)
• John Kline (R-MN)
• Patrick Meehan (R-PA)
• Tom Latham (R-IA)
• Mike Coffman (R-CO)
• Gary Miller (R-CA)

 So if you were wondering what the reason was behind the whisper campaign that Boehner may be stepping aside as Speaker at the end of 2014, it may be because he doesn't have a choice.  Boehner may have been caught red-handed shuffling dirty cash around to keep his position, and there may be a lot of fallout to go with it.

We'll keep an eye on this one.

StupidiNews!

• Some 13 dead, including suspected gunman Aaron Alexis, another 8 wounded in yesterday morning's shooting rampage at the Washington DC Naval Yard.
• New figures from the CDC estimate 23,000 Americans die each year from untreated drug-resistant infections, with another 14,000 from related infections.
• UN weapons inspectors have confirmed that sarin gas was used in last month's deadly attack outside Damascus, Syria, and "overwhelming evidence" that military surface-to-air rockets delivered it.
• Eurozone region car sales in August hit a record low, bringing yearly totals down to the smallest since records began to be kept in 1990.
• Scientists are working on squeezing electricity out of municipal wastewater with "microbial batteries" that run on bacteria.

Last Call For AmmuNation

Today, another mass shooting, this time at the Washington DC Naval Yard.  The suspect, Aaron Alexis, killed 12 before police killed him in a running gun battle.

Tomorrow, Grand Theft Auto V is out.  May be the most hotly anticipated and highly rated game in years.

The media would like you to think one has something to do with the other. I'm not blaming video games for mass shootings any more than I blame Dumas' The Three Musketeers for starting swordfights or The Guns Of Navarone for starting wars. 

America, pretty much right there.

A New Tennant In The Senate?

Looks like the Dems are going to put up a fight for Jay Rockefeller's Senate seat in West Virginia after all, as Secretary of State Natalie Tennant looks to be on board for a 2014 run against GOP Rep. Shelly Moore Capito as early as Tuesday.

Tennant, a longtime West Virginia Democrat who ran unsuccessfully in the 2011 gubernatorial primary, is highly anticipated in a race that Democrats worried may open themselves up to a key loss in the Senate. Tennant faces a tough race in a conservative state against Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), the likely Republican nominee for the seat.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has already signaled its enthusiasm, sending an email blast Friday morning highlighting Tennant’s decision to return $3 million of unused funds in her capacity as secretary of state. The email didn’t mention Tennant’s plans to run for Senate but the Democrats’ Senate campaign arm clearly wants Tennant to be on the radar of its supporters.

On Aug. 30, West Virginia’s The Charleston Daily Mail published the results of a poll showing Tennant would make the race more competitive. The poll, conducted by the Daily Mail and R.L. Repass and Partners the week of Aug. 15-22, found 45 percent of those surveyed would pick Capito in a Capito-Tennant matchup. Meanwhile, 40 percent said they would pick Tennant and 15 percent said they were undecided. The poll had a margin of error of 4.9 percent. According to local news outlet MetroNews, Tennant was encouraged by the poll.

Tennant stands to attract the backing of national Democratic groups, including Emily’s List, which previously backed her in her 2011 governor’s race. Tennant also attracted attention as West Virginia’s first female secretary of state.

A graduate of West Virgnia University and former television anchor, Tennant has previously served on the boards of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and The American Heart Association.

There are a lot of similarities between the 2014 KY and WV Senate races, but there are quite a few differences too.  Still, Tennant at least puts the race within reach, and there's a lot of time to make up ground.  Here's hoping she can make it a good fight to keep the seat blue.

Inexorable As The Tides

Here's an important piece in the Seattle Times about ocean acidification and how quickly carbon dioxide is changing Earth's oceans.  The effects are devastating, and they're already being felt in the Pacific northwest.

Imagine every person on Earth tossing a hunk of CO2 as heavy as a bowling ball into the sea. That’s what we do to the oceans every day.

Burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas, belches carbon dioxide into the air. But a quarter of that CO2 then gets absorbed by the seas — eight pounds per person per day, about 20 trillion pounds a year.

Scientists once considered that entirely good news, since it removed CO2 from the sky. Some even proposed piping more emissions to the sea.

But all that CO2 is changing the chemistry of the ocean faster than at any time in human history. Now the phenomenon known as ocean acidification — the lesser-known twin of climate change — is helping push the seas toward a great unraveling that threatens to scramble marine life on a scale almost too big to fathom, and far faster than first expected.

Here’s why: When CO2 mixes with water it takes on a corrosive power that erodes some animals’ shells or skeletons. It lowers the pH, making oceans more acidic and sour, and robs the water of ingredients animals use to grow shells in the first place.

Acidification wasn’t supposed to start doing its damage until much later this century.

Instead, changing sea chemistry already has killed billions of oysters along the Washington coast and at a hatchery that draws water from Hood Canal. It’s helping destroy mussels on some Northwest shores. It is a suspect in the softening of clam shells and in the death of baby scallops. It is dissolving a tiny plankton species eaten by many ocean creatures, from auklets and puffins to fish and whales — and that had not been expected for another 25 years.

And this is just the beginning.

Frightening stuff.  Do read the whole thing.  Now keep in mind Republicans will do nothing about it if you keep electing them.

StupidiNews!

• With support structures finally completed, the operation to tilt the wrecked Italian cruise ship Costa Concordia upright and float it off the reef it crashed into last year is underway this week.
• Five are dead and 350 remain missing as rescue and emergency crews in Colorado scour remote mountain locations looking for survivors from last week's flooding.
• Israel is cautiously optimistic about any Syrian chemical weapons deal, but remains adamant that the larger issue remains Iran's sponsorship of the Assad regime.
• Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summer has indeed withdrawn his name from nomination for Fed Chairman, calling the nomination proceeding he faced "acrimonious".
• A bipartisan bill to create a US "Science Laureate" similar to the US Poet Laureate has been scrapped by climate change denial groups furious the position would advance climate change awareness.

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.