About 10 House Republicans went to the microphones to share their memories of the Mel Gibson film, Republican sources told my Post colleagues Paul Kane and Rosalind Helderman.
i can’t get past this sentence.
*creams pants*
Wow, looks amazing. Here’s a scene from later in the film, when everything starts to fall apart (no embedding):
Anyone read Conor Friedersforf’s long, measured consideration of Ron Paul, specifically those newsletters?
In the U.S., the War on Drugs arguably does the most grave damage to poor communities, especially in black and Latino neighborhoods, where the majority of arrests take place, though whites use drugs more often. The greatest threat to an ethnic minority in the United States isn’t that doctrinaire libertarians are going to reverse the Civil Rights Act — it’s that Muslim Americans or immigrants are going to be held without trial in the aftermath of a future terrorist attack because we’ve allowed our and their civil liberties to erode.
Were it 1964, I’d never vote for Paul, precisely because my desire to protect and expand liberty would’ve placed the highest priority on the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Paul once said in a speech that “the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty,” despite the fact that it clearly enhanced the individual liberty of blacks, the group the state was most implicated in transgressing against.
But it is not 1964. Other injustices better define our times. In 2012, when accused terrorists are held indefinitely without charges or trial, and folks accused of drug possession have their doors broken down by flash-grenade wielding SWAT teams in no-knock raids, Paul would arguably protect the rights of racial, religious or ethnic minority groups better than Obama, regardless of whether Paul is now or ever was a racist, and irrespective of the fact that Obama, as the first black president, has in some ways transformed Americans’ thinking on race. (LBJ, who signed the Civil Rights Act, was not know for his personal progressivism on race or women’s rights, but he nonetheless backed policies that had powerful consequences for women and minorities)
weigl also argued today that whatever else the issues with the newsletter story, what it definitely shows is a ~management problem~: people brought these up in 2008 and he still hasn’t come up with a better answer for the cameras than “this is old news”?
Ron Paul walks off of CNN interview when pressed about newsletters. FEELIN’ THE HEAT.
thanks for that article, soto
my pleasure!
Woody Harrelson as Steve Schmidt? I’m there.
For example: What American policy most hurts people who’d be a minority group in this country?
I am clearly not as liberal as I like to think I am because I think this is an irrelevant question. I’m not voting for a person to implement policies to protect citizens of the entire world; I am voting for a person to implement policies to protect citizens of the United States. Asking that question implies that it is America’s responsibility to run and protect the world; I do not believe that to be the case. I think it is the United Nations’ responsibility to run and protect the world and I wish that organization had more power to exert influence over its stronger, more affluent members (like us).
Woody Harrelson as Steve Schmidt? I’m there.
― C.K. Dexter Holland, Thursday, 22 December 2011 17:25 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Permalink
lol
also the first time i saw harris as mccain it seemed a good fit but even over the course of the trailer he seems to try progressively less and less. i wonder if he has that kinda static, stiff thing mccain has.
JM looks good, idk if she is gonna bring her 30 rock boston accent to the role or no
oh i see were discussing that friedersdorf article in two threads
kind of dont get why this is an issue that requires lengthy exegesis
the guy will never be president? hes also a dick? like if you are a libertarian i dont see what the upside is to continued support for ron paul
we need something to distract us from gift buying.
hey guys guess what, boehner’s caving
NRO’s genius says the Dems lost this one in the long term. I don’t understand his a-ha glee. Most people know the payroll tax...is a tax (Frances Perkins among other libs in the FDR administration hated it for this reason).
Yeah that guy!
Dems win? Dems lose? Won’t somebody think of the children?
children of dem
children of nebb: say what up to u mans the dems
children of nebb!
i had a display name on old ilx that was “say what up to u bam and dems”
*pats self on back*
haha holy fuck
The transit fight is not Mayor Daniels’s first brush with controversy. Earlier this month, it was revealed that she posted a message to her Facebook page last June, after New York State approved same-sex marriage, stating, “I think I am going to throw away my I Love New York carrying bag now that queers can get married there.”
omg
omg
― suggest biffa (henrietta lacks), Friday, December 23, 2011 1:29 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Permalink
he called a tax cut a bribe!
Ultra-rich voters cannot be bribed. They are above all that. Their tax cuts are merely the reward for being such magnificent job creators, which they graciously accept and then put to work for the glory of America.
they can’t seem to be bothered with that either these days.
shhh! someone will hear you.
children of nebb!
nebbioli?
Obama issuing signing statements along side signed bills like Bush did
When President Obama signed a budget bill on Friday, he issued a signing statement claiming a right to bypass dozens of provisions that placed requirements or restrictions on the executive branch, saying he had “well-founded constitutional objections” to the new statutes.
Among them, he singled out two sections barring the use of money to transfer prisoners from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States and limiting the ability of the government to transfer them to the custody or control of foreign countries. Mr. Obama said he would apply them in a way that avoided infringing on his powers, without any specific explanation of what that meant.
He also singled out 14 provisions that he said infringed upon his power to conduct foreign affairs…. “I have advised the Congress that I will not treat these provisions as limiting my constitutional authorities in the area of foreign relations,” Mr. Obama wrote.
disgusting & disgraceful
not sure where to post this, but this thread seems a sensible place: taxpayer-funded ‘crisis-pregnancy’ centers in north carolnia pressure jewish women to convert to christianity.
really shameful. knock it off, taxpayer-funded crisis-pregnancy centers in north carolina.
Ben Nelson retiring—good riddance
I certainly don’t like the guy much, but he’s just making a centrist (“”) vote more right wing.
Hooray!
dude has undermined a more progressive Dem agenda with his bullshit, he’s never done the party any favors that I’ve appreciated
No, generally Democrats who represent strongly Republican jurisdictions are not at the forefront of their parties. It is not uncommon for them to retard progressive change, but their impact is progressive at the margin. His resignation will have an at least marginally regressive impact for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps you missed when Nelson was the 60th vote for universal healthcare? He may have sacrificed his career for that result.
Wasn’t he also one of the reasons the original legislation was gutted and barely recognizable by the time it passed too?
as a parting gift, nelson’s retirement means it will be much harder for democrats to hold onto the senate in 2012.
but i guess, with friends like bill nelson, democrats don’t need any enemies.
Perhaps you missed when Nelson was the 60th vote for universal healthcare?
yeah just loved his demanding pro-life concession, such a fucktard.
you really are gabbneb aren’t you
with friends like bill nelson, democrats don’t need any enemies.
^^^
I mean we’ve all seen what a roaring success this Dem majority in the Senate has been amirite
mattyglesias @mattyglesias — Ben Nelson has to be the least-loved Senator in Washington. He somehow never managed to snag the gushing coverage of other “centrists.”
lol
you really are gabbneb aren’t you
also lol.
btw “I am womansplainer hear me roar” is an oddly compelling screen name. and i don’t even know what a “womansplainer” is!
are you familiar with this little ditty
Had drinks last night with a friend who works on the Hill, has worked on a campaign or two since 2008. He was pretty confident about the Dems losing the Senate but regaining the House — says a bunch of criminal investigations will start coming sometime in the spring and summer over money.
A novel theory, and I told him that he would owe me quite a bit of $$ in November should this fever dream come to pass.
Nelson voted for the bill, which grants Americans universal healthcare
His GOP successor would never do so
You can quibble about the marginal provisions, but these are simple facts, whether you like them (or Nelson; I don’t either) or not.
i do know that song! other songs i know: don’t go breakin’ my heart; muscrat love; afternoon delight.
i didn’t know the word “womansplainer” is in that song, tho.
to “mansplain” is a thing now, so shakey mo is just being clever.
ah. “womansplaining,” as operationally defined in the context of defining ‘mansplaining’.
Anyway, good for Nelson for voting to pass heathcare (despite his strongest attempts to weaken it). I don’t see this administration ever being so bold again and I don’t see a Dem senate majority mattering at all in the short term. So his retirement is mostly inconsequential.
i think you’re wrong about that part (admin. never being that bold again).
I do, too.
Administrations are rarely bold in a second term.
a second-term obama can aim high, since he doesn’t have to worry about re-election. i’m not saying he will, but it’s certainly possible (e.g., bush’s effort to radically change social-security at the beginning of his second-term).
well, alfred might be right. i’d have to research it some, but you can see why — in theory — a second-term president might feel more empowered to push for his or her agenda.
Reagan and FDR’s second terms are the only exceptions that come to mind.
There really is no good basis to generalize about the Presidency based on history. There just isn’t much data out there.
historically all the big shit happens in the first term, with some very rare exceptions
xp
well, alfred might be right. i’d have to research it some, but you can see why — in theory — a second-term president might feel more empowered to push for his or her agenda
It never happens, and it’s usually the stick with which political parties beat voters (“Don’t worry — he’ll take care of X in the second term”).
i’ll concede the point. but it makes no sense to me; why not swing for the fences in the second term?
it’s more that their parties aren’t going to support sweeping agendas in the second term since the President isn’t going around to help them get re-elected
Because the president is a lame duck for the next four years?
going TO BE around
There really is no good basis to generalize about the Presidency based on history. There just isn’t much data out there.
rmde
it’s more that their parties aren’t going to support sweeping agendas in the second term since the President isn’t going around to help them get re-elected
It’s fairly well known that Obama hasn’t done anything to help Congressional Democrats get re-elected. They’re pretty pissed about it.
Because the president is a lame duck for the next four years?
okay, that makes sense, i guess. gutless, but rational, behavior.
There really is no good basis to generalize about the Presidency based on history. There just isn’t much data out there.
You’re right — we’ll overlook 220+ years of American history
we need at least 300 years for an adequate sample-size!
we’ll overlook 220+ years of American history
There are 220+ years of second Presidential terms (in the modern political environment)?
You seem to have found two rather notable exceptions to the “rule” (out of how many in the same period) without going back very far.
Of twentieth century presidents who’ve won a second full term on their own we’ve got:
McKinley
Wilson
FDR
Eisenhower
Nixon
Reagan
Clinton
Bush II
Of the successful ones, FDR’s second term was certainly the worst: after the court-packing loss, the failed midterm party purge, and the economy tanking again, he didn’t get on with the second New Deal until war was breathing down his neck. Then he set the New Deal aside altogether.
As for Reagan, I give him credit for negotiations with Gorby. The rest of his second term was Bitburg and Iran-Contra.
and I really shouldn’t count McKinley because he lived for only three months of that term.
why bother running for a second term?
protect the gains you’ve made in the first term
P — A — R — T — Y
Presidents think that history judges second-term presidents more successfully, although Bush II will certainly give them pause.
You forgot:
P—O—W—E—R
SECOND TERM INITIATIVES (RECENT HISTORY)
bush II: social security reform; energy policy act of 2005
clinton: state children’s health insurance program; adoption and safe families act; foster care independence act
reagan: war-on-drugs; negotiations with gorbachev; immigration reform and control act of 1985 (not sure if reagan promoted this, or merely signed it)
nixon: not sure
social security reform
this didn’t pass btw
Nixon’s: destroy everyone. (Before he stumbled over the great revelation that then you destroy yourself.)
Nixon: getting himself in deeper shit
i know. the point isn’t what passed, but what was promoted.
reagan: war-on-drug
a marvelous achievement this is
I was thinking Nixon created the EPA in his second term, but it was his first.