DOWNLOADS: (58)

PLAYS: (126)

Embed

One of these things is not like the other, but this is what's passing for political debate on CNN this weekend. Republican strategist and dirty trickster Alex Castellanos did his best to help the network continue on their path to becoming Fox-lite with this false equivalency on the drummed up Benghazi "scandal" they're all having the feeding frenzy over this week.

CROWLEY: Now, while I'm asking you this question I want to put up an NRCC, a Republican campaign committee, an ad they put up asking for funds saying, you know, we're after Benghazi. Is it smart to go after substantive things with Rand Paul in Iowa attacking Hillary, who might run in 2016 and the NRCC raising funds off of it. Isn't that kind of a mixed message?

CASTELLANOS: Well sometimes if you make something too political you undermine your motive that you really want -- a fair investigation.

CROWLEY: Do you think that has happened here?

CASTELLANOS: Not yet. Politics is also how we govern our governors. It's the only control we have. So, when government fails, the political arena is the place that we want to expose something and bring it to people's attention. And this is bad news for Hillary Clinton. This could be what mission accomplished was for George Bush. What difference does it make could be for Hillary Clinton? She -- three bad mistakes here. She didn't look after the people under her care in Benghazi. She either allowed or encouraged or didn't know about a cover up and then she marked it with a YouTube moment and those things last and travel in politics. This is going to make it very tough for her in 2016.

Ah yes, taking part of Hillary Clinton's testimony during the Republicans witch hunt on Benghazi out of context is exactly like Bush declaring that we'd "won" in Iraq right as things were about to go to hell after our illegal invasion of a country that was not a threat to us. Just the same! Jesus this crap makes my head hurt. And not an ounce of push back from host Candy Crowley, of course.

Full transcript from the segment above below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (87)

PLAYS: (456)

Embed

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) says that he would like to weaken existing gun control laws with any new legislation by decreasing the number of background checks required for people who apply for concealed carry permits in multiple states.

During an interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Rubio if his filibuster of a bill to expand background checks to include gun shows and Internet sales meant that he would also vote against the final bipartisan legislation.

"Well to be fair, I haven't read it in its totality, but I can tell you this, I am very skeptical of any plan that deals with the Second Amendment because invariably these gun laws end up impeding on the rights of people to bear arms who are law abiding and do nothing to keep criminals from buying them," the Florida Republican opined. "Criminals don't care what the law is."

"You have supported background checks in the Florida legislature," Wallace pointed out.

"Yeah," Rubio replied. "But those background checks in Florida are for people who have concealed weapons permits. If you have a concealed weapons permit, you do background check. I have no problem with that."

"But are they going to honor that in all 50 states? If someone goes to another state to buy a gun, do I have to undergo another background check or will my concealed weapons permit be de facto proof that I am not a criminal? These are the sorts of things that I hope we'll talk about."

According to The Washington Post, gun rights lobbyists and pro-gun lawmakers are hoping to weaken existing gun laws by amending a background checks bill in the Senate.

"Most worrisome to those who advocate new gun limits is an expected amendment that would achieve one of the National Rifle Association’s biggest goals: a 'national reciprocity' arrangement, in which a gun owner who receives a permit to carry a concealed weapon in any one state would then be allowed to do that anywhere in the country," the Post's Karen Tumulty and Ed O’Keefe wrote on Friday.

DOWNLOADS: (121)

PLAYS: (470)

Embed

From this Saturday's Up With Chris Hayes, his Story of the Week is a good reminder for anyone who is not thrilled with a lot of the ugliness of our democratic process, or frustrated with dealing with the United Nations -- it sure beats the alternative.

Hayes: The beauty of process:

ABC's Martha Raddatz did, I thought, on the whole, a pretty good job moderating Thursday night's vice presidential debate, particularly when asking questions on her area of expertise, foreign policy. But her final question of the night, about the negativity and sordidness of electoral politics, really bothered me.

Here's what she asked:

I recently spoke to a highly decorated soldier who said that this presidential campaign has left him dismayed. He told me, quote, "the ads are so negative and they are all tearing down each other rather than building up the country." What would you say to that American hero about this campaign? And at the end of the day, are you ever embarrassed by the tone?

That soldier, of course, isn't alone: Lots of Americans feel the same way. I've heard the same thing from random voters I've interviewed in every campaign I've covered. And it's a recurring theme among the political press paid to cover politics to bemoan the nastiness and negativity of the thrust and parry of electoral politics. But it's an impulse we should collectively resist, because it contains the kernel of an insidious view of the value of democracy and diplomacy and bureaucracy and the manifold ways that we as human beings channel and resolve conflict in a non-violent fashion.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (148)

PLAYS: (1279)

Embed

From Politico -- Herman Cain's economic adviser is not an economist:

Herman Cain says his much-touted 9-9-9 plan is the product of extensive testing and thinking, but the only man he cited as involved with its research — Rich Lowrie of Cleveland, Ohio — is not a trained economist.

Instead, Lowrie — who’s the only economic adviser Cain has been willing to mention by name — is a wealth manager for a division of Wells Fargo and according to his LinkedIn page holds an accountancy degree from Case Western Reserve University. Lowrie also spent three years on the advisory board of the conservative third-party group Americans For Prosperity.

The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO was pressed for his circle of economic advisers at Tuesday’s debate in response to a question from moderator Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post.

“My advisers come from the American people. Now, I will have some experts. One of my experts that helped me to develop this is a gentleman by the name of Rich Lowrie out of Cleveland, Ohio,” Cain said during the debate. “He is an economist, and he has worked in the business of wealth creation most of his career.”

The Daily Show's Blog has more on Lowrie -- Meet Rich Lowrie, Herman Cain's Mystery Economic Adviser:

Who is this "Rich Lowery?" Is he an Economics Nobel Laureate? A former high-ranking Federal Reserve official, like Herman Cain himself? Actually, the crack news team at the Spencer Daily Reporter of Spencer, Iowa reveals him to be Rich Lowrie, a wealth management adviser with an accounting degree.

Lowrie, who has affiliations with the American Conservative Union and Americans for Prosperity, was a donor to Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign efforts, but has since drunk the pizza-sauce-flavored Kool-Aid — excuse me, the "pure rocket fuel" — of Cain's economic policies. Of course, as an employee of a division of Wells Fargo, a firm that received $25 billion in TARP funds, Lowrie may not be the best spokesman for Cain's free-market oriented policies. There's another lesson Cain learned in the chain pizza biz: don't let the diners get a close look at the sous-chefs.

DOWNLOADS: (103)

PLAYS: (441)

Embed

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Tuesday that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) should be in jail instead of the bankers responsible for the financial meltdown.

"I think the people who are protesting on Wall Street break into two groups," Gingrich told an audience at The Washington Post/Bloomberg debate. "One is left-wing agitators who would be happy to show up next week on any other topic, and the other are sincere middle-class people who are, frankly, close to the tea party people and actually care. You can tell which group are which. The people who are decent and responsible citizens pick up after themselves. The people who are just out there as activist trashed the place and walk off and are proud of having trashed it."

"I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be angry, but let's be clear who put the fix in. The fix was put in by the federal government. If you want to put people in jail, I'll second what [Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)] said. Start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and let's look at the politicians who created the environment."

"Clearly, you're not saying they should go to jail?" Bloomberg TV's Charlie Rose asked.

"Well in Chris Dodd's case, go back and look at the Countryside deals," Gingrich insisted. "In Barney Frank's case, go back and look at the lobbyists he was close to at Freddie Mac. All I'm saying is that everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start to go after the politicians who have been at the heart of the sickness which is weakening this country."