March 13, 2015

Will The 47 DIPLOMACY SABOTEURS Have Democratic Enablers?

~snip~

Democrats have been outraged by 47 Senate Republicans ostentatiously trying to blow up negotiations with Iran with their "open letter" to Iranian leaders - essentially begging Iranian hardliners to blow up the talks on the Republicans' behalf. Senate historians could find no precedent for the party opposed to the president in Congress trying to blow up an international negotiation involving the United States in this way. But in terms of practical outcomes, the main drama still lies ahead. The main drama in terms of practical consequences is still all about Senate Democrats, not about Senate Republicans. Without at least six Senate Democrats supporting them, Republicans cannot pass anti-diplomacy legislation in the Senate. Without at least 13 Senate Democrats supporting them, Republicans cannot override a presidential veto of anti-diplomacy legislation. Without the support of a substantial group of Senate Democrats, Republicans cannot blow up the talks. The key question in the wake of the unprecedented controversy around the Netanyahu anti-diplomacy speech to Congress and the Republicans' open letter to Iran is: Which Senate Democrats will reward the Republicans who did these things by helping them try to blow up diplomacy?


~snip~

There are three things that the US government can do to lift US sanctions on Iran in the context of an agreement: 1.) President Obama can lift sanctions on Iran that he imposed by executive action, 2.) President Obama can waive sanctions on Iran imposed on Congress for which he has waiver authority, and 3.) Congress can repeal sanctions legislatively. US participation in multilateral negotiations with Iran has long assumed that in the context of an agreement, President Obama would do 1 and 2 on his own and leave pursuit of 3 until later - just as President Obama moved on his own to reform immigration policy, just as President Obama moved on own to ease the Cuba embargo, knowing that congressional action would have to wait.


~snip~

So the undermining of diplomacy that will finally matter - if it happens - will be that of certain Senate Democrats. The antics of the 47 Republicans will largely matter in the long run to the extent that they backfire relative to their stated purpose - to the extent that they help force a subgroup of Senate Democrats to stop threatening to enable Republicans and instead close ranks behind the president. Since January 1, 15 Senate Democrats (counting Angus King of Maine as a Democrat) have done at least one of three things that signaled that in certain circumstances, they might make common cause with Republicans to blow up diplomacy, although they would not necessarily do so. Ten signed the January Menendez letter promising that they would not vote yes on new sanctions before March 24, but threatening to do so afterwards; eight co-sponsored the Kirk-Menendez bill imposing new sanctions on Iran in violation of the interim deal, and seven have co-sponsored the Corker-Menendez "congressional delay and review" bill, currently considered the main Senate vehicle for trying blow up the talks. (Fifty pro-diplomacy organizations, including MoveOn and Americans for Peace Now, just sent a letter to the Senate urging opposition to the Corker-Menendez bill.) Michael Bennet of Colorado officially co-sponsored the Corker-Menendez bill on Tuesday, the day after the 47 Republicans sent their anti-diplomacy letter.



Here are the 15 Democrats who have signaled since January 1 that they might help Republicans undermine the president and blow up diplomacy:







cont'

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29628-will-the-47-diplomacy-saboteurs-have-democratic-enablers

March 12, 2015

The Problem ISN'T Hillary, It's The DEMOCRATS

by: DICK MEYER

A variant applies to Hillary Clinton and her e-mails. The scandal is not that she may have broken rules, it’s that the Democratic Party is allowing her to march unopposed to a coronation. Okay, “scandal” is not exactly the right word. Travesty or outrage are more fitting words. Producing presidential candidates is a central function of the modern political party. If one party in the semi-official duopoly of power we have in this country fails to produce a slate of credible candidates in an open election year (no incumbent running for reelection), voters are poorly served. A pollster friend of mine who knows that I am a hopeless fan of the Chicago Bears reminded me of what Arizona Cardinal’s coach Dennis Green said after losing to the Bears in 2006: “The Bears are what we thought they were.” The Clintons are what we thought they were. Exactly.



There cannot be a single voter in America that is surprised Hillary is already boiling in a scandal, or pseudo-scandal, depending on your perspective. Love them or hate them, this is what they do and this is what happens to them. Fair or unfair, this is their mythic cycle, their dramatic fate. Perhaps this is the act that ends Hillary’s performance, but probably not. And perhaps, if she stays in the race, there will be no more scandal dramas before November 2016, but probably not. The very simple point is that Democratic Party is insane to have put itself in this position – this entirely predictable situation. After all, Hillary did lose to an unlikely newcomer in 2008, Barack Obama. She’ll obviously be beatable in a general election. Some blame the Clintons, which is wrongheaded. It’s not their fault that they scared off all credible opposition and ran the most effective pre-primary of any modern campaign (thus far). That is exactly what they are supposed to do. It is the job of the party to create competition and breed national candidates of stature. Mock the Republican field if you want, at least it is a field and not just a pitcher’s mound.



I have argued before that the Democrats have become the conservative party in America, the Establishment Party more protective of the status quo and big business than the Republicans. This is yet another sign. The Democrats are arguably more invested in the Political-Industrial Complex. Their legions aren’t true believers but consultants, lobbyists, vendors, hacks, ambassadors-in-waiting and aspiring political appointees. Not backing Team Clinton is a bad career move. But now they have a problem. I’ve also made a wacky prediction that Virginia Senator Tim Kaine will be the Democratic nominee, not Clinton. In that depleted party, he looks like the best Plan B out there.




cont'


http://www.abcactionnews.com/decodedc/the-problem-isnt-hillary-its-the-democrats

March 12, 2015

Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, And The Ill-Fated Wars They Supported

?nl3v6a





When the U.S. helped to oust Libya's dictator from power, supporters of the intervention included Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Nancy Pelosi, Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mark Kirk, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol. In advance of Election 2016, when some of these people try to influence public debate and others vie to become president of the United States, let us continue to monitor the outcome of the war that they supported.




Especially since Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio also supported the Iraq War, another conflict that harmed U.S. interests by creating a power vacuum that terrorists filled, their support for intervening in Libya ought to disqualify them from the presidency. Savvy political observers will scoff at that judgement. Yet their notion of who is qualified to shape foreign policy is disconnected from past performance. What ought to be scoffed at are the resumés of these hawks. Nothing in Clinton's or Rubio's record suggests that either has the judgment to step back from future wars that would weaken the United States–or that they have learned the right lessons from past interventions gone wrong. And neither can offer the excuse that no one anticipated Libya becoming a safe haven for terrorists.


As Time magazine reported in March 2011:



Opponents of intervention within the Obama Administration were ultimately defeated by a faction that included Clinton. Neoconservatives like Rubio cheered the outcome. There were vocal opponents of intervention too. They included Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, and Rand Paul, among many others. On matters as varied as the wisdom of the Iraq War, the way the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force would be interpreted, and the prudence of intervening in Libya, the figures I mentioned proved more prescient than the foreign policy establishment, which continues to regard them as unserious. If so, what does that say about Clinton and Rubio, whose track records compare unfavorably?







cont'

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillary-clinton-marco-rubio-and-the-ill-fated-wars-they-supported/387535/

March 12, 2015

Jon Stewart: Hillary Clinton Email Controversy

March 12, 2015

YES! Netanyahu Is Suddenly In REAL TROUBLE

Thats what you get when you jump into bed with dirty, republican dogs......fleas!..........Bon Voyage!.......




"...As it happens, another twenty-four hours has only increased the signs that, with less than a week to go before the Israeli elections, Netanyahu is slipping and perhaps in real danger of being ousted as Prime Minister. As we noted last week, the initial polls after the Prime Minister's speech to Congress painted an equivocal picture: perhaps a very small bump of support but one that seemed to subside quickly and still leave the Zionist Camp/Labor Party with the slenderest of leads. But over the weekend something changed. Over the last three days a new raft of polls has been published which show ZC/Labor with a lead of between two and four seats over Likud. That is at the very outer range of the leads ZC/Labor has had. But the trend has not been this pronounced in the past or with a group of polls all seeming to agree on the same movement. What's more, Likud's numbers clearly seem to be dropping in absolute terms. There have also been press reports — supported by my own reporting — that internal polls from the two major parties show a bigger gap than the public polls.



There are also signs of erosion, though still limited, for the entire center-right bloc — not just Likud, but the allied parties from which it would build a natural coalition. So what happened? It may simply be the heightened and not uncommon volatility that comes in the last days of an election when the mass of voters begun to really focus on the decision. Or it may be a rapid string of events coming at once undermining Netanyahu's credibility on his signature issue: security. J.J. Goldberg runs through three of them here. In short, a smashing critique of his rule by a former chief of the Israeli foreign intelligence service, Mossad; a botched commercial which some core Likud supporters believed was comparing them to Hamas; and then a leaked document about negotiations with the Palestinians.



The last is the most interesting. A document surfaced purporting to show that Netanyahu had discussed a far-reaching settlement with the Palestinians which would approach the kind of deal real two-staters endorse — something far more than he has ever suggested a willingness to consider publicly. First his campaign denied its authenticity, then it denied its implications. Then his campaign took back his original endorsement (albeit an extremely hedged one) of the two-state principle. Then it un-took it back. Kind of. The whole drama allowed core supporters on the right to think he might have been willing to contemplate or even suggest what it is his party's raison d'etre to oppose and then centrist voters to see (conclusively) that in fact he is closing off any future possibility of a settlement with Palestinians on any terms. The whole flurry looked panicked and desperate, and in recent days he and his campaign and top supporters have moved on to an escalating series of claims about how unknown forces in America or worldwide are banding together with the press in Israel to topple him. Netanyahu is now openly saying that if things continue as they are, Herzog will be the next Prime Minister.



Of course, that is in large part to scare right-wing voters into showing up at the polls and not just voting, but voting for his party and not the smaller right-wing parties. He needs those votes for himself and not ideological allies so that he can jump back in front of Herzog. But a mix of polling, reporting from within Likud and the currently frantic nature of Netanyahu's campaign leave little doubt that they are generally afraid Netanyahu is about to be ousted as Prime Minister.







cont'


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/yes-netanyahu-is-suddenly-in-real-trouble

March 11, 2015

DINO's: Maybe The Florida Democratic Establishment Is BARKING UP The Wrong Tree-- AGAIN!

A new Mason-Dixon poll indicates that if Rubio seeks reelection, even the strong showing expected from Hillary Clinton in Florida probably won't help Democrats take his Senate seat-- or at least not New Dem "Democrats." Rubio is leading Debbie Wasserman Schultz 53-36% and Patrick Murphy 50-38%. Rubio isn't just ahead with Republicans; he also leads with independents, the very group the pro-business New Dems bend over backwards to try to cultivate by throwing working families under the bus ay every opportunity. State CFO Jeff Atwater, the presumed GOP nominee if Rubio sticks to his bid to become President or vice-president and forgoes a Senate reelection campaign, is also significantly ahead of both Wasserman Schultz and Murphy, according to the same poll.



A few days ago the Palm Beach Post asked if Murphy's appeal to Republicans would be a liability in a Senate run. Murphy, a Republican himself, who opportunistically reinvented himself as a conservative Democrat to take on Allen West, has one of the most Republican voting records of any Democrat in Congress. His dismal ProgressivePunch crucial vote score for 2015-16 is exactly tied with that of conservative Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina-- 33.33-- and worse than that of moderate Republican Chris Gibson of New York. Boehner knows he can always count on Murphy when he wants to present a piece of the reactionary Republican agenda as "bipartisan." When Republicans claim something is "bipartisan," they're almost always talking about Blue Dogs and New Dems like Patrick Murphy, Gwen Graham, Brad Ashford, Henry Cuellar, Collin Peterson and Sean Patrick Maloney. The Post speculated that "the crossover appeal that makes Murphy attractive as a potential general election candidate could create some interesting clashes in a Democratic primary."



First of all, the poll belies the idea that Murphy is an attractive candidate to run in the general. 38% is unattractive. And as for a primary, the Post ignorantly refers to Wasserman Schultz as a "liberal." And while she is liberal on most of yesterday's soft social social issues-- especially women's rights and Choice-- when people think of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "liberal," isn't what pops to mind. She symbolizes corrupt political hackery, incompetence, and a ceaseless quest for money that leads her into the pockets of every corrupt special interest in Florida and across the country. "Disgusting" trumps "liberal." So why don't Florida Democrats consider running a real Democrat instead of a New Dem? Alan Grayson is a proud, smart, inspiring New Deal Democrat and he's interested in the Senate race. Mason-Dixon didn't include him in the poll. He's certainly far more in a position to rally the Democratic Party base in Florida than either Murphy or Wasserman Schultz. More likely, Murphy is just a stalking horse for the highly unpopular former Republican Charlie Crist, who is actually trying to persuade people he would be the best candidate for the 2016 Senate seat! -





http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com

March 11, 2015

Hillary’s Email Mess: Why this Clinton “Scandal” WILL PERSIST

~snip~

With that in mind, Clinton did herself no favors at yesterday’s press conference. She confirmed that her policy for ensuring that records of her official communications were preserved had giant holes. “It was my practice to communicate with State Department and other government officials on their .gov accounts,” she said, “so those e-mails would be automatically saved in the State Department system to meet recordkeeping requirements, and that, indeed, is what happened.” In essence, she was relying on others to do her records retention for her. And there is an obvious and glaring flaw in this system: emails sent to or received from non-State Department, non-.gov accounts would not be captured. When it came time to hand those records over to the State Department, the decision as to which emails were “official” and which were “personal” came down to Hillary’s attorneys. “What I did was to direct, you know, my counsel to conduct a thorough investigation and to err on the side of providing anything that could be connected to work,” she said. “They did that, and that was my obligation. I fully fulfilled it.” They apparently culled out 30,000 or so emails that qualified as “personal,” and the rest were sent off to State.


~snip~

So here’s what going to happen now. Clinton will start up her campaign at some point in the next few weeks or months and coverage of this email business will die down, but never completely go away. It’ll stay at a slow simmer, encouraged along by talk radio and Fox News, which will embellish it to whatever degree necessary to keep it going. Occasionally the coverage will boil over, as will happen when Trey Gowdy makes good on his threat to subpoena Clinton to testify before his Benghazi committee. And that’s what makes the prospect of another Clinton candidacy so frustrating. Right now there’s no reason to think that Clinton did actually try to cover something up with this email arrangement, but then again, there’s also no way to confirm it because the records are under Hillary’s control or no longer exist. The ways in which conservatives and Beltway media Clinton antagonists exploit these stories is gross and exasperating, but there’s no overlooking the fact that the Clintons help create the environment in which this sort of nonsense thrives. The American Prospect’s Paul Waldman captured this frustration perfectly:





Perhaps what’s more frustrating than anything is the near certainty that Clinton “scandal” coverage will at various points overwhelm coverage of issues that actually matter in a presidential race. Yesterday, the former secretary of state came down hard on Republicans in Congress for acting in a way that is “helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander- in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy.” She called them discredited and “out of step with the best traditions of American leadership.”

But no one really cared or noticed because of those damn emails.




cont'

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/11/hillarys_email_mess_why_this_clinton_scandal_will_persist/

March 10, 2015

On March 17, It Will Be A MITZVAH To Vote Against Netanyahu THE TOXIC

Nine years into his rule, Benjamin Netanyahu has poisoned his country. Israel is broken and battered and weak with fear. He's taken serious problems, and made them into a miserable nation.


MITZVAH

- a precept or commandment.
- a good deed done from religious duty.




Benjamin Netanyahu has granted his people a rare gift. Thanks entirely to him – thanks, that is, to a political cost-benefit calculation he made months ago – this coming Tuesday, we can vote him out. It will be an honor. Nine years into his rule, he has poisoned his country. Israel is broken and battered and weak with fear. He could have worked to heal this place. The country would have backed him. But he always had other priorities. His legacy is decay. He's taken serious problems, and made them into a miserable nation. Israelis have come to expect another war by the summer. A third of their children, nearly a million, live in poverty, many of them going hungry. A health care system which was once a source of national pride, has been neglected into collapse. Israel is a nation which has been instructed by its leader to expect nothing, change nothing, roll over and play dead. And then vote him back into office.



His legacy is darkness. It is coded gratuitous hatred in legislative form, like the Jewish nation-state bill, which would excise equality as a principle of Israel, and drop Arabic as its official language. It will be a privilege to vote against him. There was a time, not long ago, when he commanded a 94-seat majority in the 120-strong Knesset – nearly 80 percent. He could have done anything he wanted. Built critically needed housing. Healed old wounds. Made a new future. But he had other priorities. He routed billions to remote West Bank settlements whose only purpose was to foil any possibility of diplomacy. People who have worked closely with him, true Israeli patriots, have tried everything to sway him. They are rewarded with abuse. People like retired major general Meir Dagan, who served as chief of the Mossad for more than eight years under three prime ministers, and was in many ways Israel's, and Netanyahu's, point man in the effort to counter a nuclear Iran.



Following Netanyahu's speech to Congress last week, Dagan responded with a quietly blistering refutation of many of the prime minister's central contentions on Iran. He told Israel Channel 2 television that Netanyahu had knowingly misled Congress, lying about the "breakout time" it would take Iran to build a bomb, and about an Iranian capability of reaching the U.S. with missiles. Then, on Saturday night, Dagan, 70 and seriously ill, spoke to tens of thousands of Israelis at an anti-Netanyahu rally in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square. He detailed criticisms of the prime minister's policies, of Netanyahu's refusal to seek diplomatic solutions, and the damage he had done to U.S.-Israeli relations. Dagan spoke with emotion, moderation, and evident physical difficulty, of his fears that the intransigence of a new hardline Netanyahu government would mean that his children and grandchildren would live in an apartheid state.

~snip~

Of late, claiming to speak for all Jews everywhere, Netanyahu's influence has grown: He is poisoning his own people. In Israel, in America, in France, he has set Jew against Jew. So polarizing is his message, so toxic its representation, that Jews in many communities abroad have learned to avoid the topic of Israel altogether. It is too painful. Too dangerous. Thanks in no small part to Netanyahu, Israel - once a reservoir of unity and pride - has become a loaded gun left sitting on the mantlepiece. World Jewry itself has fallen under occupation, gagged and self-censored, demoralized and alienated and bitter, and it can't find a way out. Here and abroad, Netanyahu's ideology, his tools, and his achievements are one and the same: an Israel ruled by and prizing bullying, stonewalling, racism, kitsch. An Israel whose every answer on every issue is nothing if not consistent: Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. All in all, I wish Benjamin Netanyahu well. I truly do. I wish him success in whatever he may turn to after this. May he have nothing but naches from his kids. May his quality of life only improve.



On March 17, it will be a mitzvah to vote against him.




cont'

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/.premium-1.646229

March 10, 2015

PINKWASHING? Netanyahu Gov. Uses Gay Celebrities To Promote Israel But DOESN'T CARE ABOUT GAY RIGHTS

A large majority of the Israeli public supports the peace process, but doesn't believe it's achievable, Knesset Member Tamar Zandberg tells Haaretz in this interview. "This is the result of long years of right-wing governments that [have] made an active effort to convince the people to lose faith," she said.


In an interview with Aimee Amiga for "The Candidates" ahead of the March 17 general election, the Meretz MK says all the key issues required for reaching a two-state solution with the Palestinians have "already been settled," except for the settlements. "The only obstacle that remains and the only one that the Israeli government refuses to solve is the settlements," she says, clarifying that it is not the settlement blocs that are the issue, but the isolated settlements, "that will have to be evacuated in order to make the reality [on the ground] possible for an agreement."


Zandberg also discusses issues of women's rights and gay rights in Israel. In response to a question of whether she takes issue with people accusing Israel of "pinkwashing the occupation," she accuses Foreign Minister Avidgor Lieberman (Yisrael Beiteinu) and Economy Minister Naftali Bennett (Habayit Hayehudi) of using gay Israeli celebrities as ambassadors abroad, while not taking meaningful steps to advance gay rights or the peace process.




cont'

http://www.haaretz.com/video/.premium-1.646016

March 10, 2015

Watch This Open-Carry Activist Taunt Cops Outside A School: ‘I'M TALKING TO YOU TOUGH GUY’

A gun owner triggered a brief lockdown last week while demonstrating his open carry rights outside a Michigan high school. Police spotted the man, who they recognized from previous encounters, walking about 11:30 a.m. Wednesday near Lamphere High School in Madison Heights. Officers called administrators when the man approached school property, and they locked down the school for nearly an hour.




http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/watch-this-open-carry-activist-taunt-cops-outside-a-school-im-talking-to-you-tough-guy/