Friday, June 22, 2012
Your everything-you-need-to-know-complete guide to Fast & Furious...
Lordy, this is gonna be a long one.
I’m getting a little tired of supposedly smart people like Jon Stewart screwing up the Fast and Furious story, so I decided to do a little research on my own. My starting point was the rather well-laid out timeline Randi Rhodes started with on her June 20, 2012 Broadcast. She used the Wikipedia listing for ATF Gun Walking which itself used a Washington Post Story from July 25, 2011 about Fast and Furious to get its facts. But even she missed some things that need to be highlighted. Lord knows, Stewart screwed this thing up in his last two appearances with an appalling Fox News level of accuracy.
So, after the jump, I’m going to open with the Wikipedia page before some NRA doucebag steps in and makes bullshit changes to it. It also happens to be the piece Randi Rhodes read pretty much word for word opening up her June 20, 2012 Broadcast.
Click here to see the whole thing.
I’m getting a little tired of supposedly smart people like Jon Stewart screwing up the Fast and Furious story, so I decided to do a little research on my own. My starting point was the rather well-laid out timeline Randi Rhodes started with on her June 20, 2012 Broadcast. She used the Wikipedia listing for ATF Gun Walking which itself used a Washington Post Story from July 25, 2011 about Fast and Furious to get its facts. But even she missed some things that need to be highlighted. Lord knows, Stewart screwed this thing up in his last two appearances with an appalling Fox News level of accuracy.
So, after the jump, I’m going to open with the Wikipedia page before some NRA doucebag steps in and makes bullshit changes to it. It also happens to be the piece Randi Rhodes read pretty much word for word opening up her June 20, 2012 Broadcast.
Click here to see the whole thing.
How Jon Stewart and the fine folks at @TheDailyShow @#$%ed up Fast and Furious (VIDEO)
It started on June 20th:
Again, Jon's version of events demands you being stupid enough to believe Darrell Issa's version of events. Up until now, I never thought Jon was that stupid, but stranger things have happened.
Here's the thing, to believe Issa's version of events, you have to believe that the Acting Head of the ATF, by his own admission, knew nothing about what the ATF Phoenix Field Office was doing, but somehow the U.S. Attorney General did.
Oh, and did I mention that the Acting Head of the ATF is Issa's Star Witness, and thought he was going to get fired by the Administration, which is why he went running to Issa in the first place? Purely a coincidence, I'm sure.
And then, Jon doubled-down the next day, June 21st:
First off, it actually began with an Operation called Wide Receiver in the Bush Administration before being killed and record as Fast and Furious, and the stated purpose actually made some sense. The ATF wanted to allow these purchases to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, in theory leading to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels.
Problem was, ATF let the purchases happen, they tracked the guns to the people who were using them, who were hired thugs, not the major players in the Cartel. Since the purchases didn't go high enough up the chain of command, ATF let the purchases keep happening, hoping they'd get someone better so they could make an arrest. In fact, indictments didn't start happening until Obama became President.
And, to be clear, we lost 1400 guns, still an appalling figure, but...c'mon, Jon, that's the kind of Bullshit Fox News engages in.
Then there's the letter. That was my major problem with the bit. Jon kinda left out the part where the Head of the Phoenix Field Office, may have...you know...lied to the Justice Department about the existence of the program. That could be because Justice told him in 2009 not to engage in Gunwalking (but didn't do it clearly enough), and he went ahead and engaged in it anyway.
I know, details, details.
I would like to know why the hell did Stephen Colbert have a better grip on the damn story than Stewart did?
A complete, unadulterated guide to my problems with what Jon Stewart said will be published in about 30 minutes.
Again, Jon's version of events demands you being stupid enough to believe Darrell Issa's version of events. Up until now, I never thought Jon was that stupid, but stranger things have happened.
Here's the thing, to believe Issa's version of events, you have to believe that the Acting Head of the ATF, by his own admission, knew nothing about what the ATF Phoenix Field Office was doing, but somehow the U.S. Attorney General did.
Oh, and did I mention that the Acting Head of the ATF is Issa's Star Witness, and thought he was going to get fired by the Administration, which is why he went running to Issa in the first place? Purely a coincidence, I'm sure.
And then, Jon doubled-down the next day, June 21st:
First off, it actually began with an Operation called Wide Receiver in the Bush Administration before being killed and record as Fast and Furious, and the stated purpose actually made some sense. The ATF wanted to allow these purchases to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, in theory leading to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels.
Problem was, ATF let the purchases happen, they tracked the guns to the people who were using them, who were hired thugs, not the major players in the Cartel. Since the purchases didn't go high enough up the chain of command, ATF let the purchases keep happening, hoping they'd get someone better so they could make an arrest. In fact, indictments didn't start happening until Obama became President.
And, to be clear, we lost 1400 guns, still an appalling figure, but...c'mon, Jon, that's the kind of Bullshit Fox News engages in.
Then there's the letter. That was my major problem with the bit. Jon kinda left out the part where the Head of the Phoenix Field Office, may have...you know...lied to the Justice Department about the existence of the program. That could be because Justice told him in 2009 not to engage in Gunwalking (but didn't do it clearly enough), and he went ahead and engaged in it anyway.
I know, details, details.
I would like to know why the hell did Stephen Colbert have a better grip on the damn story than Stewart did?
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
A complete, unadulterated guide to my problems with what Jon Stewart said will be published in about 30 minutes.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Issa gets his information from a break-your-windows paranoid blogger. (VIDEO)
Darrell Issa, once a liar, always a liar.
To be sure, Congress has a legitimate interest in investigating Operation Fast and Furious, but Chairman Issa and Republican majority on the Committee appear to be more interested in scoring political points than in getting to the bottom of what happened," argued Keegan, who added that, “The hoops the Committee is demanding the Attorney General jump through illustrate that these contempt hearings are as partisan as they are extreme. Over the course of this ‘investigation,’ the Committee has ordered the A.G. to produce documents whose confidentiality is protected by federal law, has refused to subpoena Bush Administration officials to testify about their knowledge of the operation during their time in office, has refused to allow public testimony from officials whose testimony counters Issa’s partisan narrative, and has repeatedly rejected the A.G.’s efforts to accommodate the committee, making compliance all but impossible.
People for the American Way president Michael Keegan.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Is the GOP about to spend the next couple of Election Cycles in the wilderness?
Possibly.
Let's start off with Andrew Sullivan:
So, Romney may be forced to turn to White voters in an unprecedented fashion (i.e., run a more racist-slash-racial campaign than he's used to) in order to compete. Yet, if the Senate, specifically the Republican Senate hadn't bowed down and caved to George W. Bush 43 at every possible turn:
Let's start off with Andrew Sullivan:
After Obama's end-run around Romney on deferring deportations of young native-born Americans who have broken no law apart from being born, the Latina Oprah, Cristina Saralegui, puts her invaluable imprimatur on the president. It's getting more and more necessary for Mitt to max out his percentage of the Caucasian vote:
Most polls this spring show Obama running near the 52 percent he won among those upscale white women in 2008, and also remaining very close to his 80 percent showing among all minorities. If Obama can hold that level of support from those two groups, Romney could amass a national majority only by winning nearly two-thirds of all other whites—the men with college degrees, and the men and women without them. To put that challenge in perspective, Reagan, while winning his historic landslide, carried a combined 66.5 percent of those three groups. To defeat Obama, in other words, Romney may need to equal Reagan.
So, Romney may be forced to turn to White voters in an unprecedented fashion (i.e., run a more racist-slash-racial campaign than he's used to) in order to compete. Yet, if the Senate, specifically the Republican Senate hadn't bowed down and caved to George W. Bush 43 at every possible turn:
“The importance of the Hispanic vote to President Barack Obama’s reelection chances is practically impossible to overstate,” writes Frank Wilkinson over at Bloomberg View. He’s almost certainly right.
So here’s my question: If President George W. Bush, working with Republican majorities in the House and the Senate, had passed comprehensive immigration reform in 2005, would Democrats have a chance this year? I see how they could have won in 2008, amidst a financial crisis and Bush fatigue. But it’s harder to see how they’d win in 2012 if the Hispanic vote was split.
"An impact on Latinos for generations to come..." (VIDEO)
There's a sad state of affairs in this country when this is the first I've ever heard of the "Hispanic Oprah" as Greg Sargent put it this morning. The fault's with me. I've got to get to know Latino culture more and more in the coming years.
So, this is Cristina Saralegui's endorsement of the President. And just to be fair, I'll put up the Spanish version as well.
So, this is Cristina Saralegui's endorsement of the President. And just to be fair, I'll put up the Spanish version as well.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
The part when even Frank Rich (@frankrichny) is telling you to chill...
Jeez louise, people. Me and Frank don't always agree, but we're in 100% alignment on this one:
“Is it time for Democrats to panic?” was the lead of a front-page Washington Post story Wednesday morning. Is it?
Not in June. The proximate source of this alarm is a memo written by James Carville and the pollster Stanley Greenberg, and seconded by another old Clinton hand, Douglas Schoen, a persistent Obama basher who months ago called for the president to abdicate after one term and let Hillary run in his place. The point of their angst is that Obama needs a new economic message, more like Clinton’s. Perhaps. More effective might be a stronger anti-Romney message. The Republican candidate avoids the press (Fox News aside), largely ducks the public, and offers only standard issue party boilerplate as his own “jobs” plan. The question is when and how the Obama campaign will knock this brittle opponent off his anodyne memorized talking points, out of his bubble and into interaction with the real world. The new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that among “swing-voting independents” the economic plans of both candidates are more or less equally despised, with a 38 percent favorable rating for Obama’s and 35 percent for Romney’s. That’s a serious opening for Obama.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Broken Promises: Romney's Massachusetts Record (VIDEO)
Okay, back from Vacation...such as it was...what did I miss?
Oh.
Oh.
Friday, May 18, 2012
How racist Joe Ricketts managed screwed over his own family.
No, seriously.
Okay, so the Ricketts family owns a little enterprise known as the Chicago Cubs. And they want to renovate Wrigley Field (originally built, by the way with private money) with public funds. They're asking the City of Chicago for $150 million bucks to help with a $300 million dollar renovation.
Guess...who the @#$%@ Mayor of Chicago is, and would have to approve said money?
Okay, so the Ricketts family owns a little enterprise known as the Chicago Cubs. And they want to renovate Wrigley Field (originally built, by the way with private money) with public funds. They're asking the City of Chicago for $150 million bucks to help with a $300 million dollar renovation.
Guess...who the @#$%@ Mayor of Chicago is, and would have to approve said money?
In October 2009, a trust that Joe and Marlene Ricketts established on behalf of their family acquired a 95-percent controlling interest in the Cubs and the team’s home park, Wrigley Field. Tom Ricketts, a son, is team chairman, and Pete Ricketts, Laura Ricketts, and Todd Ricketts (another son) all serve on the board. Dad’s place in the headlines this week actually comes at a bad time for the Cubs: the team is trying to work out a deal with the city “that would involve using $150 million in city amusement taxes for a $300 million renovation of Wrigley Field,” The Chicago Tribune reports. An aide to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel told The Washington Post that the former White House Chief of Staff was “livid” over the Times story.
“The Ricketts have tried to contact the mayor, but he’s said that he does not want to talk with them today, tomorrow or anytime soon,” the aide said.
In local news: Glendale settles with ex-employee who says he was fired for union stance
There goes $29,000 of my tax dollars because someone in my stinkin' city tried to pull a Scott Walker:
Right, that settlement you dropped waaaay convinces me of that.
A Glendale employee who claims he was wrongfully fired for promoting a new union has settled with the city for $29,000.
After being terminated in May 2010, Anthony Carbajal filed a wrongful termination lawsuit, claiming he was fired because of his strong support of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18, a Los Angeles group that at the time was pushing to represent Glendale Water & Power workers.
The IBEW and the city have since clashed over a new labor contract, with Glendale electrical workers and their Los Angeles counterparts protesting outside City Hall. The IBEW recently rejected a proposed city contract.
Carbajal’s attorney, David Klehm, said his client was a vocal leader in the movement as he tried to drum up support for the IBEW — making him a political target at City Hall.
But the city maintains Carbajal was terminated “based on legitimate business reasons and that there was no discrimination or retaliation,” City Atty. Mike Garcia said in an email.
Right, that settlement you dropped waaaay convinces me of that.
@NickHanauer reminds the Super Rich that it is the Middle Class who are the real Job Creators (VIDEO)
And Nick Hanauer's interview with Lawrence O'Donnell:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
C'mon, Scalito, Roberts, do it. DO IT! I dare ya...
I hope they spend more intellectual firepower on Obamacare, than they did on Citizens United:
Next month, America’s health insurance plans may lose $1 trillion in revenue.
It won’t have anything to do with a business deal gone awry, or Americans dropping health coverage during the recession. Instead, $1 trillion is the amount of revenue that health insurance plans can expect to lose if the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act. The Court is expected to issue its opinion in late June.
The figure comes from Bloomberg Government, where number crunchers have taken a look at what happens if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act and its expected expansion of health care coverage to 32 million Americans. They find that, should the Affordable Care Act be found unconstititional, insurance companies will lose $1 trillion in revenue between 2013 and 2020.
To put that in perspective, $1 trillion accounts for about 9 percent of all revenue that health insurers are expected to earn in the same period. It’s one-half of a percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Add up the annual revenues of America’s five largest banks - Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo, Wachovia and U.S. Bancorp- and you’re still about $500 billion short of what health plans can expect to lose if the Supreme Court decides against Obamacare.
“It’s the sheer size of the number that was startling,” says Bloomberg Government health care analyst Matt Barry. “I don’t know if people fully appreciate the stakes involved here. It’s not just politics - there’s a lot of money, and a lot to lose.”
Monday, May 14, 2012
ICYMI: @MichaelEDyson ripping the skin off Anti-Gay Black Preachers (VIDEO)
Metaphorically speaking, of course. But if anyone's deserved a rhetorical thrashing, it's been black preachers.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Friday, May 11, 2012
For the record, @msnbc, you're not paying @tamronhall NEARLY enough (VIDEO)
Give her a raise, now. Just for this:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)