Bernie Sanders Won't Save You

By Nicole Belle

Making change takes a lot of work, and it takes constant work, even in off-election/midterm years. 

One of my frustrations with Ralph Nader was his absolute refusal to do anything about party building between presidential elections. He shows up as a spoiler vote every four years, but isn't really interested in the work required to make a structural change.

Sadly, I see parallels with my fellow liberals and the Nader campaign. Effecting change takes a lot of work, and it takes constant work, even in off-election/midterm years. You can't pin your hope on some magical progressive pony like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders and think that suddenly everything will be rosy and liberal.

IT. DOESN'T. WORK. THAT. WAY.

Do you want to see liberals get more traction? YOU HAVE TO DO THE WORK. You have to show up to every election, so that politicians don't write you off as a negligible vote. You have to contact your elected officials and tell them you want progressive stances. You have to do this often and in large numbers to drown out the messages they're getting from the right. You have to contact media sources and demand that your side gets airtime. You have to complain when they do the bullshit "Both sides do it..."

You have to get involved in campaigns.

Look, that may sound like a lot of work--because it is--but that's EXACTLY what the right has been doing consistently for the last forty years. Liberals seem to think that the correctness of their beliefs (as proven over time) should give them gravitas, but facts are secondary to politics and media coverage. You need to be visible.

Until you're willing to do that, there's no way for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or any other magical progressive pony to actually win an election.

Tommy Chong Tells Fox Hosts Gruber-Gate 'Sounds Like Benghazi All Over Again'

By Heather

Tommy Chong was this Wednesday's #OneLuckyGuy on Fox’s Outnumbered, and the hosts got a little more than they bargained for when they continued their attacks on the Affordable Health Care Act and Jonathan Gruber.



I'm not sure why the producers over at Faux "news" thought it was a good idea to book Tommy Chong as the #OneLuckyGuy on this Wednesday's Outnumbered, or why Chong has any desire to appear on Fox... ever.

Whatever the reasons, I have a feeling they may not want him back on there any time soon after what happened when they continued the Fox freakout over Jonathan Gruber's remarks that they've been running in a continuous loop over there for the last week or two.

Here's more from our friend Ellen at News Hounds: Watch Tommy Chong Smack Down Fox’s Attacks On ObamaCare: ‘Sounds Like Benghazi All Over Again’:

First, the four Fox hosts tried to get Chong to knock the glitches in the HealthCare.gov rollout. He replied, “My thing about the whole ObamaCare is that it’s better than Bush’s ObamaCare.”

One of the hosts asked, “What was Bush’s ObamaCare?”

Chong said, “He never had one.”

There was a nervous titter from one host and silence from the rest.

Tantaros brought up Gruber and his claim that “stupid Americans” were misled in order to pass the Affordable Care Act.

Chong’s reply: “To me, it’s just another attack on ObamaCare from another angle. Sounds like Benghazi all over again.”

Later, Tantaros tried to argue that Gruber’s old comments represent “an attack on the American people for how quote stupid we are.”

Chong said, “You have to define what stupidity means, you know. If you are opposing universal health care based on rumors of lies then that it is a stupid way to be.”

That shut them up.

Well, almost. Tantaros finished up by saying she's really looking forward to Republicans dragging Gruber in front of one of their committees and making him testify under oath, so this crap isn't going away for months to come.

And as Dave Edwards at Raw Story pointed out:

A PunditFact analysis published on Tuesday found that Fox News had mentioned Gruber at least 779 times since the story broke on Nov. 10. MSNBC had mentioned him 79 times, and he was referenced on CNN just 27 times.

We'll be seeing those numbers change as the Fox-effect takes place and they push this into the rest of the corporate media, and when the hearings start.

Is Rick Perry just Bill Clinton, version 2.0?

In the Rewrite, Lawrence looks at Rick Perry’s frank assessment of his failed 2012 bid, his comparison to Clinton, and his chance of being the 2016 comeback kid.

The immigration divide

A new poll shows 48% are against the president acting alone on immigration, but 74% support a pathway to citizenship. Rev. Al Sharpton talks to Angela Rye, Jimmy Williams and Seema Iyer to discuss.

10 Ways Police in Ferguson, MO May Be About to Break the Law

By Bill Quigley

When the Michael Brown verdict is announced, people can expect the police to take at least ten different illegal actions to prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights.  The Ferguson police have been on TV more than others so people can see how awful they have been acting.  But their illegal police tactics are unfortunately quite commonly used by other law enforcement in big protests across the US.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution promises the government will not abridge freedom of speech or to prevent the right of the people to peaceably assemble or to petition to the government for the redress of grievances.

Here is what they are going to do, watch for each of these illegal actions when the crowds start to grow.

1) Try to stop people from protesting. 

The police all say they know they have to let people protest. So they usually will allow protests for a while.  Then the police will get tired and impatient and try to stop people from continuing to protest.  The government will say people can only protest until a certain time, or on a certain street, or only if they keep moving, or not there, not here, not now, no longer.  Such police action is not authorized by the US Constitution.   People have a right to protest, the government should leave them alone.

2) Provocateurs. 

Police have likely already planted dozens of officers, black and white, male and female, inside the various protests groups.  These officers will illegally spy on peaceful protesters and often take illegal actions themselves and encourage other people to take illegal action.  They will even be arrested with others but magically not end up in jail.   Others inside the groups will be paid to inform on the group to the government.  Comically, when undercover police are uncovered they often claim they have a constitutional right to be there and try to use the constitution they are violating as a shield!

3) Snatch Squads. 

Police will decide who they do not like or who they think are leaders.  Then they will use small heavily armed groups to knife into peaceful crowds and grab people, pull them out and arrest them.

4) False Arrests. 

The police will arrest whoever they choose whenever they choose and will make up stories to justify the arrests.  If people are breaking glass or hurting others, those arrests are legal.  However, the police will arrest first and sort out who they arrested later.  Police in Ferguson have already wrongfully arrested legal observers, a law professor, and church leaders.

5) Intimidation. 

As they have shown many times in Ferguson and all over the country, once the protests heat up, police will show up in full riot gear, dressed like ninja turtles (big flashy guns, plastic shields, big batons, shin guards, gas masks, flex cuffs) and act like they are military warriors protecting people from an ISIS invasion.

6) Kettling or Encircling. 

The police will surround a group and pen them in and not let them move.  They will either arrest all or force them to leave in one direction.  This, as the police know fully well, always sweeps up innocent bystanders as well as protestors.  NYPD did this with hundreds on Brooklyn Bridge and at many other protests.  Sometimes they deploy orange plastic nets or snow fencing, sometimes just lots of police.

7) Raids on supportive churches, organizations or homes. 

Often the police make illegal pre-emptive raids on places where volunteers are sleeping, cooking or parking their cars.  They lie to locals and accuse the protesters of links to violent organizations.

8) Pain Noise Trucks. 

Police will also use LRAD noise trucks (Long Range Acoustic Device).  First used in Iraq now used against peaceful protesters in the US.  The trucks blast bursts of sound powerful enough to cause pain.   Never approved by any court, this intentional infliction of pain is another sign of the militarization of the police.   Police also use MRAPs Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles – heavily armored trucks which look like tanks but roll on wheels not treads.   This is part of the intimidation.

9) Arresting reporters. 

When the police are feeling the heat of public view, they will force journalists away from the protesters.  Those who insist on engaging in constitutionally protected activity and returning to the scene will be arrested.

10) Chemical and other weapons. 

When the police get really desperate and afraid, they will try to disperse the entire crowd with pepper spray, tear gas, and other chemical weapons, rubber or wooden bullets.  If this happens the police have just about lost control and are at their most dangerous.

Dozens and dozens of different police forces which will be surrounding the protesters in Ferguson when the Michael Brown verdict is announced.  There will be federal FBI agents, Homeland Security, US Marshals, State Police troopers, County Sheriffs, and local city cops from the dozens of little towns in and around St. Louis.  Perhaps this will be the time when the peoples’ constitutional rights to protest are actually protected.  We can only hope.  But in the meantime, look for these common police tactics.

Bill Quigley is a human rights lawyer and professor at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. He is also a member of the legal collective of School of Americas Watch, and can be reached at quigley77@gmail.com.

Confrontation over slick Senate vote

Sticking to Sen. Rob Portman’s promise of swift action on the Keystone XL pipeline, the Senate votes on the controversial bill after it passed in the House. Ed Schultz, Cyril Scott, Aldo Seoane and Adam Green discuss the implications.

Mitt Romney’s Epic Irony On Losing An Election Will Make You Spit Your Coffee

On Sunday, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney sat down with CBS Face the Nation to criticize the president’s handling of the battle against ISIS forces, as well as his potential executive action on immigration.

Romney reiterated his belief that the president has been “inept” on Middle East policy, asserting that it was a mistake to declare “no boots on the ground” in the region. “It is not acceptable for ISIS to present the kind of threat it does to the world,” the former governor said after suggesting the “no boots” remark will necessarily prove contradictory.

“If it takes our own troops” to destroy ISIS, Romney said, then “you don’t take that off the table.”

As for the possibility of Obama taking executive action to overhaul policy and protect millions of undocumented immigrants currently in the states, Romney said: “The president has got to learn that he lost this last election round. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

Drug Warrior Mitch McConnell Tied To Millions In Cocaine

By DeSwiss

  The Young Turks * Published on Nov 17, 2014

"Before the Ping May, a rusty cargo vessel, could disembark from the port of Santa Marta en route to the Netherlands in late August, Colombian inspectors boarded the boat and made a discovery. Hidden in the ship’s chain locker, amidst its load of coal bound for Europe, were approximately 40 kilograms, or about ninety pounds, of cocaine. A Colombian Coast Guard official told The Nation that there is an ongoing investigation.

The seizure of the narcotics shipment in the Caribbean port occurred far away from Kentucky, the state in which Senator Mitch McConnell is now facing a career-defining election. But the Republican Senate minority leader has the closest of ties to the owner of the Ping May, the vessel containing the illicit materials: the Foremost Maritime Corporation, a firm founded and owned by McConnell’s in-laws, the Chao family.

Though Foremost has played a pivotal role in McConnell’s life, bestowing the senator with most of his personal wealth and generating thousands in donations to his campaign committees, the drug bust went unnoticed in Kentucky, where every bit of McConnell-related news has generated fodder for the campaign trail."* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
 


*Read more here: http://www.thenation.com/article/186689/mitch-mcconnells-freighted-ties-shadowy-shipping-company

- And now we know why his double-chins always seemed so large for a turtle of his age and species.....

If Presidential Action on Immigration Is Impeachable, Reagan and Bush Should Have Been Axed

By Tana Ganeva

14 times Republican presidents were "soft" on immigrants.

As Republicans in Congress and right-wing columnists bellow that President Obama should be impeached if he issues an executive order to overhaul the nation’s immigration policies, it’s important to note that a long line of Republican presidents have done exactly the same thing for decades.

In fact, more undocumented immigrants have been granted reprieves from prosecution and deportation protection by Republican presidents than Democrats, according to an American Immigration Council summary of dozens of White House-ordered reforms since 1956.

Today’s right-wingers don’t want to mention that their Republican hero, President Ronald Reagan, signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which gave up to 3 million unauthorized immigrants a path to legalization if they continuously had been in the U.S. since January 1982. The Reagan White House also issued executive orders that deferred deportation of children of non-citizens in more than 100,000 families, and also told immigration authorities not to deport up to 200,000 Nicaraguan war refugees.

In contrast, President Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative (DACA), which provided a two-year renewable reprieve from deportation and granted work permits, affected up to 1.8 million immigrants, according to the American Immigration Council.

Another Republican president whose immigration policies could be an “impeachable” offense, according to Republican congressmen like Texas’ Joe Barton or Washington Post  columnist Charles Krauthammer, would be President George Herbert Walker Bush, who in 1990 announced a blanket deferral of deportations for 1.5 million spouses and children of unauthorized people, which accounted for 40 percent of the nation’s undocumented population. That step was very similar to President Obama’s DACA executive order in 2012. Both presidents, a Republican and a Democrat, acted when Congress did not.

What fuming right-wingers fear is that the Obama White House might go big—ordering federal immigration authorities to refocus their activities and allowing several million undocumented households to breathe easy and lead more normal lives. The New York Times reported that there are as many as 3.3 million undocumented parents of children who are American citizens who have been in the U.S. for at least five years. The 1986 immigration reform law signed by President Reagan did not try to keep similar families together. It was slammed as inhumane then—and is still sharply criticized.

If Obama also includes children who were undocumented when they came to the U.S. in his expected executive orders, that could add another million or more people, the Times said. If the White House includes undocumented farm workers who have been here for years, that could add hundreds of thousands more.

While it is possible that Obama’s executive orders could be the largest-ever immigration reforms by any White House administration since World War Two, it is important to note that previous presidents issued large-scale immigration executive orders as part of a push to get Congress to act. President Bush’s 1990 reforms were based on a Senate-passed bill that was rejected by the House. However, after Bush issued those orders affecting 1.5 million spouses and children, the House then passed the legislation.

What you will probably not hear as Republicans complain loudly about Obama’s next steps, is that Republicans presidents—more so than Democrats—have granted amnesty to undocumented people.
What follows are 14 executive orders granting immigration relief by Republican presidents, starting in 1956, as compiled by the American Immigration Council. Before Obama, the Democratic president who used his office to allow the most immigrants to stay was Jimmy Carter, whose policies allowed more than 676,000 people to stay—not counting the 360,000 Vietnamese refugees who came during his and the presidency of his predecessor, Republican Gerald Ford.

Here are the 14 executive orders on immigration policy by Republican presidents:

• 1956. President Dwight Eisenhower allows 923 orphans to settle in the U.S.

• 1956-58. Eisenhower allows 31,915 Hungarian refugees to stay after Soviet invasion.

• 1959-72. Presidents Eisenhower through Richard Nixon let 621,403 Cuban exiles stay.

• 1977-82. Presidents Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and Reagan, let 15,000 Ethiopians stay.

• 1981-87. President Reagan allow 7,000 Polish refugees stay after Soviet-led crackdown.

• 1987. President Reagan stops deportations for 200,000 Nicaraguan war refugees.

• 1987. President Reagan allows 100,000 children of non-citizens to stay who were not affected by the 1986 law he signed granting amnesty to 3 million immigrants.

• 1989. President Bush allows 80,000 Chinese students stay after Tianenmen Square, which he formalized a year later suspending deportations and granting work permits.

• 1989. President Bush allows 2,225 Indochinese and 5,000 Soviet refugees to stay.

• 1990. President Bush defers deportation of 1.5 million unauthorized spouses and children of people legalized under 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.

• 1991. President Bush allows 2,227 Kuwaiti refugees to stay after invasion by Iraq.

• 1992. Presidents Bush and Bill Clinton, a Democrat, allow 190,000 Salvadorans stay.

• 2006. President George W. Bush allows 1,574 Cuban doctors into the country.

• 2006. President George W. Bush allows 3,600 Liberians stay in the country.

Exposing the secret corporate coup of our democratic elections

Posted by Jim Hightower

Listen to this Commentary

A big surprise in this year's elections is that American politics has become dominated by the least likely of participants: Shy people. That's strange, since running for office is an ego game, attracting those at ease with self-promotion. But the hot new trend is to campaign anonymously, not even whispering your name to voters.

Of course, these are not the campaigns of actual candidates, nor are the campaigners even people. Rather, they are corporations, empowered by the Frankensteins on our Supreme Court to possess the political rights of us real human-type people. Using their shareholders' money, corporate entities are spending hundreds-of-millions of dollars to elect or defeat whomever they choose.

You would know these corporations, for they are major brand-names from Big Oil, Big Food, Big Pharma, etc. Normally, they are not at all bashful about promoting their corporate brands, but – shhhh – they want to be totally secretive about their massive spending to decide who holds office in America. They realize that their self-serving campaigns would alienate their customers, employees, and shareholders, so they're keeping their involvement hush-hush.

One agency could compel them to reveal their spending on what amounts to a corporate coup of our democratic elections: The Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC is supposed to guard the right of investors to know how corporate executives are spending their money. But this watchdog isn't barking, much less biting, thus allowing CEOs to take unlimited amounts of other people's money, without their permission, and secretly pour it down the darkest hole in American politics.

SEC's inaction is gutless, making it complicit in the corporate corruption of our governing system. To help make it do its duty, link up with Public Citizen: www.citizen.org.

"The S.E.C. and Political Spending," The New York Times, October 29, 2014.

Time to Get Even or Time to Get Over It?

By Taegan Goddard

Gerald Seib: “Republicans, of course, have taken control of the Senate after eight years of Democratic rule, and lawmakers from both parties are nursing serious grievances over how the other side behaved during that stretch.”

“Democrats endured a blizzard of Republican filibusters, shattering previous records and helping gum up the works. That’s the burden new Majority Leader Mitch McConnell carries when he says, as he did the day after the election, ‘This gridlock and dysfunction can be ended.'”

“Republicans chafed under the iron-fisted rule of Democratic leader Harry Reid , who regularly limited debate, blocked amendments and prevented votes. That’s the burden Mr. Reid now faces when he says, as he did last week, ‘This is not get-even time.'”

Mentally Ill Cleveland Woman Was Killed by Police In Front of Her Family, Brother Says

By Brandon Blackwell

CLEVELAND, Ohio – A 37 year old bipolar and schizophrenic woman died after police slammed her to the pavement outside her family's home, her brother said.

Tanesha Anderson was pronounced dead at Cleveland Clinic early Thursday after an altercation with officers nearly two hours earlier on the 1300 block of Ansel Road.

"They killed my sister," her 40-year-old brother Joell Anderson said with welling eyes in his living room Thursday night. "I watched it."

Officers were called to the home after a family member reported that Anderson was disturbing the peace.

Patrolmen had lengthy discussions with Tanesha Anderson and members of her family. Everyone agreed she should undergo an evaluation at St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, police said.

The official police account of what happened next is at odds with what several members of Tanesha Anderson's family said they witnessed.

"As the officers escorted Anderson to the police vehicle, she began actively resisting the officers," police spokesman Sgt. Ali Pillow said in a press release.

Officers placed her in handcuffs and she began to resist officers' attempts to put her in a squad car, Pillow said.

"The woman began to kick at officers," he said. "A short time later the woman stopped struggling and appeared to go limp. Officers found a faint pulse on the victim and immediately called EMS."

Joell Anderson gave a different account.

"She was more of a danger to herself than others," he said.

Two male officers escorted Tanesha Anderson, who was prescribed medication for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, to the police cruiser. She sat herself in the backseat but became nervous about the confined space and tried to get out, Anderson said.

Police struggled to keep her in the car and an officer eventually drew a Taser. Joell Anderson said he begged the officer not to use the weapon on his sister.

Tanesha Anderson called out for her brother and mother while an officer repeatedly pressed down on her head to get her into the backseat. After several attempts, the officer used a takedown move to force her to the pavement, Joell Anderson said.

The officer placed his knee on Tanesha Anderson's back and handcuffed her. She never opened her eyes or spoke another word, her brother said.

Joell Anderson asked officers to help his unconscious sister. They refused to touch the East High School graduate until a female officer called to the scene arrived, Joell Anderson said.

His sister's sundress was lifted above her waist when the officer took her down. Joell Anderson used his jacket to cover her naked lower body.

The Anderson family watched Tanesha Anderson lie on the ground for about 20 minutes until an ambulance arrived, Joell Anderson said. The medical examiner has not determined what killed the woman.

"She was outgoing, silly, always joking," Joell Anderson said. "She just wasn't doing very well that day."

The Cleveland Division of Police Use of Deadly Force Investigation Team is examining the case.

Every Treasured Progressive Reform Since the Abolition of Slavery Has Been Called 'Socialism'

But there is evidence that the American public is warming up to the term. 

By Zaid Jilani

 Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Congress's longest-serving independent, is reportedly seriously considering running for the White House. This is significant because Sanders openly declares himself to be a democratic socialist – a label which has been a taboo in U.S. political culture for decades.

But while Sanders will likely be attacked for identifying with socialism, it has a long history of being used by the reactionary right as a smear. In fact, that history pre-dates the Civil War. History blogger Matt Karp searched the Congressional record and found the very first instance that the word “socialism” was uttered in Congress. He found that the first time anyone used the phrase was when a North Carolinian congressman used it to attack opponents of slavery:

As far as I can make out, the first reference to “socialism” on the floor of Congress came  from North Carolina representative Abraham Venable in July 1848. During a debate over the Wilmot Proviso, Venable indulged himself in a familiar litany of destructive Northern manias, which ranged from “the wicked schemes of Garrison” to “the wild excesses of  Millerism, and of Latter-Day Saints, the abominations of Socialism, and of Fourieriesm …  and all the numerous fanaticisms which spring up and flourish in their  free soil…” […] This kind of pro-slavery, anti-Northern rant was the context for most mentions of “socialism” in Congress during the next several years.

As Karp notes, the “socialism” smear continued to rear its head during the next year leading up to the Emancipation Proclamation, as pro-slavery advocates warned that if abolitionists succeeded in ending the South's ownership of human beings, they may soon also end private ownership of massive industries like banking.

After the end of slavery, conservatives continued to invoke socialism to oppose all kinds of progressive reforms. In the early 20th century, the Congress, prodded by what was indeed an independent socialist movement and various other labor forces, banned child labor. But after the Supreme Court struck down the ban, arguing it violated state's rights, Congress debated a constitutional amendment to ban the practice instead (which required a larger threshold of votes to pass). One senator who opposed to the ban claimed that the child labor amendment was really about placing socialism “into the flesh and blood of Americans.”

When Franklin Roosevelt (under whom the previously mentioned ban on child labor finally went through and was not struck down by a conservative Supreme Court) advocated for the Social Security system, the American Medical Association (AMA) opposed his push, saying that he was trying to enact a “compulsory socialistic tax.”

One of the most prominent uses of the socialism smear was when Lyndon Johnson was pushing for the enactment of Medicare, the single-payer health insurance system for the elderly. Ronald Reagan, then a prominent actor and not a politician, appeared in audio recordings for the AMA Operation Coffee Cup – which organized Americans to oppose the health care push. “One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people is by way of medicine,” warned Reagan in the advertisement.

All of this begs the question: if all of these major reforms that are today virtually uncontroversial – few ever call for the total abolition of Medicare and Social Security, or for re-instating child labor or slavery – were decried as socialism, maybe socialism isn't so bad after all?

There is evidence that American public opinion is starting to warm up to the term. In 2011, Pew conducted polling finding that, among Americans age 18-29, 49 percent of them had a positive view of socialism, whereas 43 percent had a negative view. Meanwhile, among the same age bracket, 46 percent had a positive view of capitalism, while 47 percent had a negative view of it. While the overall views of Americans remained decidedly negative – with 60 percent holding a negative view of socialism and just 30 percent holding a positive view – this generational difference may point to shifting attitudes among future generations.

It may be just that shift in perspective that Sanders can tap into if he decides to seek the presidency – and a legacy of “socialism” that gave America some of its most treasured social policy reforms.

Landrieu v Cassidy - How Liberals and Working Class Are Fooled By The Media Narrative

By TomCADem

The corporate media has repeatedly pushed the narratives:

1. That the President is unpopular and politically toxic.
2. That Democrats are running away from President Obama and his policies.

Only stories that fit in this narrative are portrayed. Stories that are inconsistent with this narrative are ignored. This narrative fulls the public, including liberals, into apathy with the meme that Democrats' only platform is that they are not President Obama. In the meantime, as Bernie Sanders explained issues of relevance to the people are ignored. This is why voters could manage to vote for Republicans who are against the minimum wage while also supporting propositions raising the minimum wage,

If you look at the Landrieu race, you see thread after thread on this Board calling Senator Landrieu a DINO based entirely on her position on the Keystone pipeline, which should not be surprising since LA is one of the States that would likely benefit from the pipeline even though most other states would not benefit.

However, there are issues beyond the pipeline, and it is clear that there is a world of difference between Landrieu and Cassidy. Many of folks have insisted, even on Democratic Underground, that it would not make a difference if Cassidy beats Landrieu. The ignorance of this line of argument is exposed by the summary below of the candidate's stated positions on the issues. Some will argue why haven't we hard this? Perhaps it is because it just does not fit the media narrative that (1) Democrats are running away from President Obama and Democratic priorities and (2) that there just isn't that much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Look at how the mainstream media largely ignored the extreme positions states by Joni Erst in the Iowa race.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/campus-election-engagement-project/mary-landrieu-vs-bill-cas_b_6014592.html

Budget: Did you support raising the Federal debt ceiling with no strings attached?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Campaign Finance: Do you support the DISCLOSE Act, which would require key funders of political ads to put their names on those ads?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Campaign Finance: Do you support the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations and unions?
Landrieu: No
Cassidy: Unknown

Economy: Do you support raising the minimum wage?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Economy: Do you support extending unemployment benefits beyond 26 weeks?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Economy: Do you support the Dodd-Frank Act, which established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and sought to increase regulation of Wall Street corporations and other financial institutions?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Economy: Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: Yes

Education: Do you support refinancing of student loans at lower rates, paid for by increasing taxes on income over a million dollars?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: Unknown

Environment: Do you believe that human activity is a major factor contributing to climate change?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Environment: Do you support government action to limit the levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Environment: Do you support government mandates and/or subsidies for renewable energy?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: Yes

Gay Marriage: Do you support gay marriage?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Gun Control: Do you support enacting more restrictive gun control legislation?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Healthcare: Do you support repealing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare?
Landrieu: No
Cassidy: Yes. Also authored bill permitting people to keep insurance policies that didn't meet the coverage standards of the law.

Healthcare: Did you support shutting down the federal government in order to defund Obamacare in 2013?
Landrieu: No
Cassidy: Yes

Immigration: Do you support the D.R.E.A.M. Act, which would allow children brought into the country illegally to achieve legal status if they've graduated from high school, have a clean legal record, and attend college or serve in the military?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Immigration: Do you support the comprehensive immigration plan passed by the Senate in 2013, which includes a pathway to citizenship and increased funding for border security?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Social Issues: Should abortion be highly restricted?
Landrieu: No, although supports ban on late-term abortions
Cassidy: Yes

Social Issues: Should employers be able to withhold contraceptive coverage from employees if they disagree with it morally?
Landrieu: No
Cassidy: Yes

Social Issues: Should Planned Parenthood receive public funds for non-abortion health services?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No

Social Security: Do you support partial privatization of Social Security?
Landrieu: No
Cassidy: Unknown

Taxes: Have you signed the Americans for Tax Reform Pledge to oppose any tax increases to raise revenue? (The answer to this question is taken from the database of signatories of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, created by Americans for Tax Reform. Signers to the pledge promise to oppose "any and all tax increases" meant to generate additional revenue.)
Landrieu: No
Cassidy: Yes

Taxes: Would you increase taxes on corporations and/or high-income individuals to pay for public services?
Landrieu: Yes
Cassidy: No. See above

Shut the Fuck Up, George W. Bush

HEY, GEORGE W. BUSH!

Posted By Rude One

Fuck you, George W. Bush. Go suck on some hairy rhino balls so that your mouth is so full of sack that you can't breathe, let alone talk. And fuck you to all the media outlets treating Bush like a long-lost beloved uncle who has finally come back from exploring the Congo with his Hottentot manservants.

Any interview with the former president should begin with "Shut the fuck up, you fucking America-wrecking imbecile" and end with "Why won't you shut the fuck up, you fucking torturing, murdering, war criminal motherfucker?"

Bush has been just about everywhere promoting his book on his fucking asshole father who everyone loves now because he's old and jumps out of planes and shit, but who was a shitty president who bobbed on Reagan's knob until he lost his own personality.

Here's W. on NPR when asked if his mission in Iraq was as clear as his father's during the Persian Gulf War: "Yes. I think in many ways it was. It was more complex because this decision was made in a post-9/11 world. In other words, the removal of Saddam from Kuwait was definitely in our national interest. But it didn't necessarily mean that the United States's homeland would be threatened or not threatened depending upon his actions. In our case, the 9/11 attacks changed the strategic equation for the United States, and we had to deal with threats before they fully materialized."

Wait. Yes, it was as clear as Dad's but it wasn't because it was more "complex"? Ah, there's that old logic. And, motherfucker, you are the fucking godfather of the post-9/11 world. And, motherfucker, are you still tying Saddam Hussein to 9/11? In less than 5 minutes, Bush mentions 9/11 four times. It's all he's got. So shut the fuck up already.

And then there's the softballs, like on Face Bob Schieffer's Face, Nation, when Schieffer's face asked Bush if politics has gotten "meaner." Bush actually said, "People were held to account for what they said. In other words, there was a pushback. Now there's just so much stuff out there--flotsam out there that people say what they feel like saying without any consequences." And Schieffer did not arthritically rise out of his chair and bitch slap Bush, screaming, "Motherfucker, that cocksucker Karl Rove ran your campaigns. You fucking made it meaner. Rove was never held accountable, even for outing a fucking CIA agent whose husband pissed him off. He should be skull fucked by bears. Shut the fuck up."

Let's not even talk about his Today show appearance, which should cause the set to be burned and the ground salted.

Why are we doing this? Why is Bush allowed to go anywhere without crowds pelting his car with shit and rotten tomatoes and eggs? Why aren't there riots at his book signings, demanding his arrest for crimes against humanity? Why hasn't he been run so far out of any town that he has to live in an underground bunker so that the angry masses don't tear him limb from limb? Are we that brain-damaged a nation that we've forgotten? Are we that delusional that we can't just say, endlessly, "Shut the fuck up," and mean that we never want to hear from him again until we all jubilantly join hands and do a crazy jig on his grave?

Oh, and, fuck you, W., you didn't write a fuckin' book.

Bernie Sanders Wants To Make Election Day A National Holiday

WASHINGTON - Frustrated with the historic number of voters who chose not to participate in this year's midterm elections, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Friday announced his intention to introduce legislation that would make Election Day a national holiday to give Americans more opportunity to vote.

"In America, we should be celebrating our democracy and doing everything possible to make it easier for people to participate in the political process. Election Day should be a national holiday so that everyone has the time and opportunity to vote. While this would not be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment to create a more vibrant democracy," the progressive senator said in a statement.

Turnout in Tuesday's elections clocked in at a paltry 37 percent, compared to about 41 percent in 2010, according to data from the United States Elections Project. If that projection holds, it would be the lowest voter turnout since 1942.

The voters who did show up to vote largely skewed older, whiter and more male compared with other election cycles, and the results were obvious. Republicans picked up control of the Senate, gained seats in the House, won key gubernatorial posts and greatly expanded their hold on state legislatures.

Younger and minority voters, on the other hand, largely stayed at home. Voters in the 18-29 age range made up only 13 percent of the electorate, compared with nearly a quarter that were seniors, who tend to support Republicans.

President Barack Obama acknowledged the matter in a press conference on Wednesday, saying, "To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too."

But the number of people who vote in midterm elections isn't the only problem according to Sanders.

The Vermont independent also called typical levels of turnout in presidential elections "an international embarrassment." The number is higher in presidential years, but the U.S. still ranks behind 120 other countries in average turnout.

"We should not be satisfied with a 'democracy' in which more than 60 percent of our people don't vote and some 80 percent of young people and low-income Americans fail to vote," he added. "We can and must do better than that. While we must also focus on campaign finance reform and public funding of elections, establishing an Election Day holiday would be an important step forward."

Sanders said he would file the bill, titled ''Democracy Day Act of 2014," once Congress reconvenes next week.

Website Peeps Into 73,000 Unsecured Security Cameras Via Default Passwords

Posted by Soulskill

colinneagle writes:  

 

After coming across a Russian website that streams video from unsecured video cameras that employ default usernames and passwords (the site claims it's doing it to raise awareness of privacy risks), a blogger used the information available to try to contact the people who were unwittingly streamed on the site. It didn't go well. The owner of a pizza restaurant, for example, cursed her out over the phone and accused her of "hacking" the cameras herself. And whoever (finally) answered the phone at a military building whose cameras were streaming on the site told her to "call the Pentagon."

The most common location of the cameras was the U.S., but many others were accessed from South Korea, China, Mexico, the UK, Italy, and France, among others. Some are from businesses, and some are from personal residences. Particularly alarming was the number of camera feeds of sleeping babies, which people often set up to protect them, but, being unaware of the risks, don't change the username or password from the default options that came with the cameras.

It's not the first time this kind of issue has come to light. In September 2013, the FTC cracked down on TRENDnet after its unsecured cameras were found to be accessible online. But the Russian site accesses cameras from several manufacturers, raising some new questions — why are strong passwords not required for these cameras? And, once this becomes mandatory, what can be done about the millions of unsecured cameras that remain live in peoples' homes?

Progressives voting for GOP?

The results from midterms have people scratching their heads. Voters in four states chose to raise the minimum wage, but three of those states voted for GOP senators. Al Sharpton gets to the bottom of it all.

Obama seems numb to this latest ‘shellacking’ of Democrats

By Dana Milbank


US President Barack Obama speaks during a press conference in the East Room of the White House on November 5, 2014 in Washington, DC. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

“I hear you,” President Obama said to the voters who gave Democrats an electoral drubbing in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

But their message went in one presidential ear and out the other.

The Republican victory was a political earthquake, giving the opposition party control of the Senate, expanding its House majority to a level not seen in generations and burying Democratic gubernatorial candidates.

Yet when Obama fielded questions for an hour Wednesday afternoon, he spoke as if Tuesday had been but a minor irritation. He announced no changes in staff or policy, acknowledged no fault or error and expressed no contrition or regret. Though he had called Democrats’ 2010 losses a “shellacking,” he declined even to label Tuesday’s results.

Obama declared that he would continue with plans for executive orders to expand legal status to undocumented immigrants — even though, minutes before Obama’s news conference, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said that would be “like waving a red flag in front of a bull.”

Obama repeated a familiar list of priorities — a minimum-wage hike, infrastructure and education spending, climate-change action — and brushed off various Republican proposals.

About the closest Obama got to a concession was offering to have some Kentucky bourbon with McConnell (he had once joked about how unpleasant a drink with McConnell would be) and “letting John Boehner beat me again at golf.”

President George W. Bush was rarely one to admit error, but on the day after the midterm “thumpin’ ” Republicans received eight years ago, he responded dramatically. Bush announced the ouster of defense chief Donald Rumsfeld and set in motion a new Iraq policy. He also offered a frank acknowledgment that everything had changed: “The election’s over and the Democrats won, and now we’re going to work together for two years to accomplish big objectives for the country.”

Obama was blase by comparison. “Obviously, Republicans had a good night,” he said, but “beyond that, I’ll leave it to all of you and the professional pundits to pick through yesterday’s results.” The message that Obama took from the election, he said, was that Americans “want us to get the job done. All of us in both parties have a responsibility to address that sentiment.”

It’s true that voters are disgusted with both parties, but they were particularly unhappy with Obama.

In exit polls, 33 percent said their votes were to show disapproval of him (19 percent said they were showing support). In The Post, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid’s chief of staff all but blamed Obama for the loss.

But Obama wasn’t about to acknowledge fault, or the need for change. He allowed that, as president, he has “a unique responsibility to try and make this town work.” But his solution was to defer responsibility: “I look forward to Republicans putting forward their governing agenda.”

Indeed, Tuesday’s returns did not trouble him greatly, he said. “There are times when you’re a politician and you’re disappointed with election results,” he said. “But maybe I’m just getting older. I don’t know. It doesn’t make me mopey.”

Reporters tried, with little success, to elicit any hint of a new direction from Obama.

“Do you feel any responsibility to recalibrate your agenda?” asked Julie Pace of the Associated Press.
Obama leaned casually on the lectern, left toe touching right heel. “A minimum-wage increase, for example,” he said, is “something I talked about a lot during the campaign.”

But any changes? “Every single day, I’m looking for, ‘How can we do what we need to do better?’ ” was the vague reply.

ABC News’s Jon Karl asked whether it was “a mistake for you to do so little to develop relationships with Republicans in Congress.”

“Every day I’m asking myself, ‘Are there some things I can do better?’ ” Obama demurred.

Fox News’s Ed Henry pointed out the obvious: “I haven’t heard you say a specific thing during this news conference that you would do differently.”

Obama restated his passive stance, saying it would be “premature” to talk about changing personnel or policies. “What I’d like to do is to hear from the Republicans.”

NPR’s Scott Horsley gave a last try, asking Obama whether he saw “some shortcoming on your part” because Democratic policies fared better than Democratic candidates. (Minimum-wage increases passed in five states, and exit polls found support for Democratic views on climate change, immigration, abortion, same-sex marriage and health care.)

Obama replied in the conditional: “If the way we are talking about issues isn’t working, then I’m going to try some different things.”

But after Tuesday, it’s no longer a question of “if.”
 
Twitter: @Milbank
 
Read more from Dana Milbank’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

That'll Teach That Negro to Be President

I am getting ready to take this blog down.  I am not going to waste my time trying to inform you zit nibbling, coupon clipping, Copenhagen snuff dipping, corn cob pipe smoking, biscuit and gravy sopping numbskulls who are repeatedly voting against your best interests. 

 

If you know that nothing has been done in the last 6 years, and the main reason that nothing has been done is because the trickster Republicans have said no to everything, then why do you keep electing these cocksuckers?  KICK THEIR ASSES OUT!  dlevere.

 

Posted by Rude One

1. Here's everything you need to know about the 2014 midterms in a single anecdote: Last week, as he's mentioned, the Rude Pundit convinced the Rude Brother to vote for the Democrat, Mary Landrieu, in the Louisiana Senate race. The Rude Brother has long been Republican, but he is also for raising taxes on the wealthy, doesn't care about gay marriage, thinks abortion should be safe and legal, and agrees that humans contribute to climate change, among other beliefs. By just about any measure of politics, the Rude Brother is moderate-left, a Democrat. When the conversation ended, RB had said he would vote for Landrieu.

Cut to Election Day morning. The Rude Pundit received a text from RB: "And, in the end, the kid couldn't pull the trigger for Mary." A little later, he got another message: "It felt dirty voting for Landrieu." RB went with Bill Cassidy, the Republican, who believes the opposite of everything RB believes in. In fact, Bill Cassidy will try to take health insurance away from our Rude Sister and her family. RB had said he has no problems with Obamacare. Well, he does now.

There you have election 2014. A voter goes into the booth believing the world should be a certain way and then pushes the buttons for the candidates who will do everything they can to stop the world from being that way.

2. And that was the pattern just about everywhere for the night. Citizens in Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota all hiked their state's minimum wage by huge margins while still voting in the Republican for Senate and/or governor. In Alaska, the minimum wage hike passed and Republican Dan Sullivan is leading incumbent Mark Begich. In Colorado, the voters defeated a personhood amendment while voting in for Senator a goddamn guy who sponsored a federal version of the thing.  
Fucking Kentucky fuckers are happy pigs in the Obamacare mud, but, fuck you, Alison Grimes. Kentuckians want the cockknob who wanted them to stay sick and toothless.

And this isn't just in what you consider red or reddish states. In fucking Illinois, voters said "yes" to raising the minimum wage, a constitutional amendment for the right to vote, a higher tax on millionaires to fund schools, and a birth control mandate for insurance plans. They elected the Republican for governor, and he opposes at least two of those measures - the tax and the minimum wage (Bruce Rauner has said he wasn't going to get involved in "social issues" like birth control).

It's not just inconsistency. It's fucking insanity and impossible to reconcile, except to say, as Michael Tomasky did, that it's easier to support progressive goals at the local level because the White House nigger doesn't support them. If the nigger wants it, you gotta be against it. 

Nobody wants that nigger around. How dare that nigger be our president? How the fuck did that happen? (Yeah, racism is to blame for the way the electorate has so virulently turned against President Obama. But we've been saying this since at least 2010. Mary Landrieu is right, but you get raked over the coals for speaking it aloud.)

3. Shut the fuck up if you're writing some think piece about how Republicans will work with President Obama now. Shut the fuck up if you're writing about how Republicans will have to govern now. Shut the fuck up if you're writing blindly optimistic fantasy fiction about all the amazing things Obama will do now that he's unshackled completely from Congress. Just shut the fuck up.

Here's what's gonna happen, as sure as you're reading this. Republicans ran on one simple message: We will do nothing. Oh, sure, they made a big deal about repealing the Affordable Care Act or whatever, but that ain't happening until Obama is gone. So they will do nothing. It's the easiest fucking goal to reach, almost beautiful in its sinister simplicity. Republicans in the Senate are going to block any nominee for anything. Legislation was never going to pass, even if they lost the Senate. So they will vote for an agenda that has no way of getting past Obama's veto. They will vote to overturn the vetoes and fail. They will hold useless hearings on useless topics like Benghazi and, oh, fuck, why not, Ebola. They will subpoena the White House endlessly, which will slow the work of the Executive Branch. There will be talk of impeachment, but that won't go anywhere because it would be doing something, which is not part of the GOP ethos now.

And people will praise them for being brave because courage comes cheap in this decadent age, wallowing in the slippery afterbirth of what the nation did last night. People will praise them, as they already are, for "moderating," when moderation is just a mask made of flesh that they put on to disguise the true horror heaving breath underneath.

4. The bottom line is this: People like Democratic ideas. They don't like Democrats. That's all. You can blame many things: useless consultants, failure to defend Obama's policies, failure by Obama to demonstrate how he has done good things for the vast majority of Americans, shitty DNC leadership, the Republicans ginning up fear in the last couple of weeks, failure to inspire young people and non-whites to get to the polls, on and on. But the Rude Pundit just gets back to what the Rude Brother said, that "it felt dirty" to vote for a Democrat. How do you overcome that?

You want this to end happily and hopefully. You need someone to tell you it's not that bad. You are desperate for columns and blog posts that relieve what ails you, whether its nausea, rage, or, most likely, disgusted exhaustion. This isn't going to do it. There needs to be some big time soul-searching. Hillary Clinton and 2016 ain't the cure for what ails you because, well, shit, after that is 2018 (and Clinton is problematic, but that's another riff for another time). We have to accept the obvious ignorance of the voting public. Mostly, people are stupid yahoos, hunched naked in ditches, picking at nits, looking for a shiny object they can worship. 

Democrats have to make that object. We have create a new narrative. Not a counter-narrative as a response to Republicans, but a narrative that Republicans must respond to. And we have to be willing to stick with that narrative, not abandon it like a hot boyfriend after one fuck, as happened after the 2008 election.

The Rude Pundit has said before, and he'll say again and again: We have to stop acting like the visiting team in our own country.