| |
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Gail Collins: Filibuster Has Prevented Obama from Doing AnythingWhat a joke this column is. Talking about the Massachusetts special election, Collins gripes that his status as the 41st Republican senator could prevent the health care bill from passing. She does a little exercise to show how only a small minority of the country could bring the process to a halt: There are 100 members of the Senate. But as Brown is currently reminding us, because of the filibuster rule, it takes only 41 to stop any bill from passing.
U.S. population: 307,006,550.
Population for the 20 least-populated states: 31,434,822.
That means that in the Senate, all it takes to stop legislation is one guy plus 40 senators representing 10.2 percent of the country. In theory, of course. In practice, the 40 Republican senators do not represent the 20 smallest states in population. Texas has two Republican senators and is the second largest state with a population of 24,000,000. Florida, the fourth largest, has one GOP senator. Getting back to Massachusetts, Collins talks a bit about the enthusiasm gap: The tea-party types are euphoric, pouring money in Brown’s direction. The people who voted for Barack Obama, meanwhile, are sullen and dispirited. This is, of course, partly because of the economy, but also partly because of the sense that the president is not getting anything done.
Which brings us back to the 10 percent rule. Don’t get me started again. Doggone those nasty Republicans! Why are they filibustering all the president's programs! Labels: Filibuster, Gail Collins, New York Times
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Moron Bill AyersAn FBI informant tried to write an oped for the Times on the real Bill Ayers after the former domestic terrorist published a self-serving column in that declining rag. You can read the informant's piece at PJ Media. Billy goes on about how the Weather Underground came into existence because “peaceful protests had failed” and “after an accidental explosion killed three comrades.” The explosion of the townhouse in Greenwich Village was the result of a bomb factory which was preparing bombs containing roofing nails for use at a Fort Dix enlisted club. The inclusion of roofing nails can have but one purpose and that’s to injure or kill people. Prior to this event Bill’s wife, Bernardine Dorhn, placed a bomb of the same design at the Park Police Station in San Francisco and killed Officer McDonnell. Additionally, I was still inside the Weather Underground when the townhouse blew up and the commitment to sabotage and terrorism had already been established and the purpose was the overthrow of the United States government. Labels: Bill Ayers, New York Times
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Yes, Obama Said He Would Meet Ahmadinejad UnconditionallyThe New York Times attempts a rowback for Obama: “Senator Obama wants to sit down and have negotiations and discussions with the person who just yesterday called Israel a quote ‘stinking corpse,’ ” he said, referring to Mr. Ahmadinejad, and “who continues to advocate quote ‘wiping Israel off the map.’ ”
Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Oh, well, excuse us; we have just taken Obama at his word: QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.
Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Labels: Barack Obama, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, New York Times
Monday, February 25, 2008
Kinsley on the New York TimesThis is really well done: Many readers of last week's New York Times article about McCain, including me, read that article as suggesting that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist. This is obviously a much more important question. To be absolutely clear: The Times itself was not suggesting that there had been an affair or even that there had been the appearance of an affair. The Times was reporting that there was a time eight years ago when some people felt there might be the appearance of an affair, although others, apparently including McCain himself, apparently felt that there was no such appearance. Labels: John McCain, Michael Kinsley, New York Times
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Times Serves Up a Nothing BurgerAs Clara Peller would say:  The New York Times serves up a giant (3000 words) bun on supposed improprieties between Senator John McCain and a female lobbyist, but even they must have sensed how weak the story was, because they entitled it "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk". Not even the liberal bloggers are biting on this one. Greg Sargent: Let's try a little experiment. Let's take the meat of the big New York Times story and substitute the words "Dem Presidential Hopeful" for "John McCain"...
If these words had appeared on the front page of The New York Times, wouldn't we all be yelling and stamping our feet about "panty sniffing" and condemning the use of anonymous sources who suggest a possible affair that may or may not have happened and wasn't directly alleged by anyone?
That's a sincere question. Wouldn't we? Matt Yglesius: NB, thinking more clearly past my loathing of John McCain, the Times's effort to substitute innuendo for making a straightforward true or false assertion is seems like a pretty shameful attempt to set up a Kaus-like presumption of guilt. If they have reporting they're willing to stand behind of a McCain-Iseman affair, they should publish it. And if, as seems to be the case, they don't have the reporting, then they shouldn't write the story. And from the starboard: Captain Ed: The New York Times launches its long-awaited smear of John McCain today, and the most impressive aspect of the smear is just how baseless it is. They basically emulate Page Six at the Post, but add in a rehash of a well-known scandal from twenty years ago to pad it out and make it look more impressive. In the end, they present absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing -- only innuendo denied by all of the principals.... Power Line: What is most striking, though, if you actually read the story, is how thin it is. It's mostly about the Keating Five scandal, which dates to the late 1980s. The "news" that gives the story a hook has to do with McCain's friendship with a pretty blonde lobbyist that apparently ended in 2000. As for the purported affair, the Times offers zero evidence. Labels: John McCain, New York Times
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The End of Times SelectWell, as predicted long ago, the New York Times' effort to get people to pay to read Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman has come to an end. Krugman kicks off a new blog called "The Conscience of a Liberal" today with an article on income inequality. Krugman claims: The great divergence: Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent. And yet, if you look at the graph he provides, it does not show this:  As you can see, it certainly appears that the great divergence he harps on appears to start after 1987, which is inconvenient as heck for Krugman, since you know damn well that he wants to blame it on Ronald Reagan and the Republicans. Indeed, it is quite apparent that a large part of the rise in inequality that he bemoans comes during the Clinton era. Krugman also does his usual peak to non-peak comparison; no surprise there as we have seen him do this often in the past. Labels: New York Times, Paul Krugman
|
|
