Wednesday Open Thread | Michael Rose | Reggae Week

Michael Rose..One of Jamaica’s most distinguished singers, as a member of Black Uhuru Michael Rose was one of the foundation stones of the roots movement, before launching a successful career in the modern dancehalls. His work with Uhuru helped bring the group a Grammy, while his distinctive vocals launched an entire musical style — the Waterhouse sound. The Kingston neighborhood of Waterhouse is where Rose was born, on July 11, 1957. There, Rose grew up with a love of music, and began his career when barely  into his teens competing in talent contests, and then working the North Coast hotel circuit. At 15, he returned to the capital and cut his first single, a DJ version of Andel Forgie’s “Woman a Gineal fe True” for producer Newton Simmons. That barely hinted at what was to come. Soon after, Rose linked up with childhood friend Sly Dunbar, who brought him to meet producer Niney Holness. The singer cut a number of songs for Holness during 1972: “Clap the Barber,” “Love Between Us,” “Freedom Over Me,” and best of all, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” Although, none of these songs fired the charts, Rose was already putting into place a sound and vision that would shake the music world. Through Holness, Rose also came to cut a song for Lee Perry, “Observe Life”; it too did little.

About SouthernGirl2

A Native Texan who adores baby kittens, loves horses, rodeos, pomegranates, & collect Eagles. Enjoys politics, games shows, & dancing to all types of music. Loves discussing and learning about different cultures. A Phi Theta Kappa lifetime member with a passion for Social & Civil Justice.
This entry was posted in Current Events, Music, News, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Wednesday Open Thread | Michael Rose | Reggae Week

  1. rikyrah says:

    Detroit’s Emergency Manager Is Just As Guilty As the Crook Who Hired Him

    By: Black Liberal Boomer
    Mar. 19th, 2013

    The fact that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder followed through on his decision to appoint an emergency manager to take over Detroit’s finances isn’t the surprise because, well, it’s what he said he was going to do. And even before he announced his intentions outright the signposts were all up and down the road everywhere you looked. Snyder’s intention all along has been to hijack democracy in Michigan – and Detroit in particular – and as of March 14, 2013 he officially accomplished exactly that.

    So that’s not what has me most concerned because anyone who was paying attention could see that one coming. What has me considerably more concerned are certain Detroiters themselves who are suddenly smitten with the bright and shining smile of the man whom Snyder has appointed to dismantle our democracy and assist him in hijacking our vote. Kevyn Orr, a high-powered African American attorney, made his introductory remarks last week and within moments I was seeing Facebook posts and overhearing conversations from people who just couldn’t help but stutter with praise at how well-spoken Orr is. He was just so impressive. Just so…so…. in command.

    It’s not like we haven’t seen this trick before, folks. When Snyder made his move to take over the Detroit Public Schools, he used a high-powered African American male (Roy Roberts) to do the job. Now he is stealing democracy from the largest city in the state, and once again he brings in a high-powered African American male to do his bidding. And Orr isn’t just high-powered and black, he’s a Democrat who actively supported and campaigned for President Barack Obama.

    Nobody ever said Snyder was stupid, and anybody who still buys that gosh-golly-gee-I’m-just-a-nerd routine he sold to get himself elected needs to quit snoring. Because tactically speaking this was a brilliant move. Snyder knew there was no way he could appoint a white person to take control of the blackest big city in America, especially not as a white Republican male, so like any good 21st century plantation owner he got a strong young black male to work the fields in his stead. And then, just for some added security against any possible future backlash from Attorney General Eric Holder who has been requested by numerous parties to intervene, he appointed an Obama supporter to boot. This move also works well to frustrate the machinations of local democrats trying to decide the best way to continue the fight against a ticking clock and a stacked deck.

  2. rikyrah says:

    RNC Chair Announces GOP Plot to Infiltrate Minority Communities With Propaganda

    By: Sarah Jones
    Mar. 20th, 2013

    Republicans are going to rebrand via the “Growth and Opportunity Project” by winning the “emotional and cultural” votes. WOO HOO!

    During an interview on MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown, Luke Russert asked RNC Chair Reince Priebus how the Republican Party is going to change the impression that they exist only to give tax breaks to the rich when Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)’s budget is the same-old-same-old bend over for the wealthy. Priebus dug down into his we’re-so-clueless bag and retrieved some misogyny and racism as a huge surprise reply. See, the math is all good in Reince’s world. It’s those darn 47%ers who are “emotional and cultural”. (Waving hello to women and brown skinned minorities!)

    But he has a plan: The big plan is to pay workers to infiltrate these minority communities in order to compete with Obama’s unpaid workers, “You have to have the resources to be able to have an effective ground operation in minority communities…. I’m looking to get in the communities by the hundreds with paid people to make the case for the Republican Party.”


    Then Russert brought up former RNC Chair Michael Steele’s criticism that so long as Republicans are pursuing policies that hurt minorities like Voter ID laws, they don’t stand a chance to win them over. Reince, who understands minorities as well as he does women, smirked and scoffed because of course, Michael Steele knows nothing about black voters.

  3. rikyrah says:

    Freezing Out the Religious Right

    by BooMan
    Wed Mar 20th, 2013 at 05:31:26 PM EST

    When I saw that the RNC had advised Republican lawmakers that gay marriage is a “gateway” issue that must be supported to get young people to even consider supporting the party, I was amazed. I saw it as a huge middle finger to Christian conservative base. In other words, I saw it pretty much like this:

    That division within the ranks of the religious right is clear even in their response to the RNC’s report.

    On one hand, Wildmon’s American Family Organization, a particularly hard-line conservative Christian organization that owns 200 radio stations nationwide and runs an active grassroots network, has pledged to meet any attempt by the Republican Party to sideline its social agenda with revolt.

    “The social conservatives will quit voting,” he said. “They’ll give up, they’ll be despaired. Those are the most loyal people to work for you because they’re energized because they believe their cause is something God stands for and that’s a pretty good motivator. And you take that away? You diss them? You tell them their issues aren’t important anymore? I don’t know who you’re going to be left with. I think you won’t have any troops out there. I don’t know how many country club people will go and walk door to door over the taxes issue.

    The RNC took another stance that startled me. They said that support for immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship was basically a gateway issue for Latinos that must be supported if the Republicans want Latinos to consider their other policies. That was a huge middle finger to their racist base. These two groups, the evangelicals and the racists, have some overlap but they are not the same. In fact, the strongest support for immigration reform on the right is coming from evangelicals.

  4. rikyrah says:

    Michele Bachmann runs away from reporter
    Don’t you dare ask the congresswoman about something she said in a speech
    By Alex Seitz-Wald

    Michele Bachmann has been uncharacteristically quiet since her razor-thin reelection last November, but she emerged loud and proud at CPAC this past weekend to preach to the faithful. Bachmann’s speech focused on the Benghazi attack, but also on the lavish lifestyle enjoyed by President Obama, claiming the first family costs taxpayers $1.4 billion a year in “perks and excess.”

    But it won’t come as much of a shock to any Bachmannphile to learn that some of the claims she made in the speech are the opposite of true. It turns out they’re mostly based on a self-published book with few citations written by a longtime Republican lobbyist whom the New York Times once compared to Darth Vader.

    The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler has done yeoman’s work in debunking the claims, but even his mighty fact checking is no match for The Bachmann: “There really aren’t enough Pinocchios for such misleading use of statistics in a major speech,” he lamented, sighing heavily over his keyboard as he gazed blankly out the window (we imagine).

    For instance: Bachmann almost gets the dollar figure of running the White House correct, but the vast majority of that goes to Secret Service, not perks; Bachmann claims Bo Obama has a full-time dog handler, but he doesn’t, White House groundskeeper Dale Haney has voluntarily walked every presidential dog since Nixon’s (he likes dogs); she says Air Force One has five chefs, but it’s more like cooks, and White House staffers need to pay — $20 per meal — out of their own pockets to eat; she claims 70 percent of the money spent on food stamps goes to bureaucrats, which just isn’t close to true.

    CNN congressional corespondent Dana Bash tried to ask Bachmann Tuesday about her the inconsistencies in her speech. It didn’t go too well, as she explained to Anderson Cooper last night. Bash, who has gotten pretty good at chasing Bachmann in heels, tried to speak with the Tea Party Caucus chairwoman in the basement of the Capitol, but the congresswoman took off running. Bash kept pace, valiantly trying to keep up her questions as they careered through the narrow corridors, but Bachmann refused to play ball.

    Finally, the congresswoman stopped, squared her shoulders to Bash, and unleashed a tirade. How dare you “talk about dog handlers when we have four Americans killed in Benghazi,” she demands. Bash replies by noting that it was Bachmann, not her, who brought up the dog handlers in her CPAC speech. Bachmann takes off again, leaving Bash holding her microphone in thin air, saying, “but you’re the one who brought it up.”

  5. rikyrah says:

    RNC chair: All those issues we lost on in 2012 are really winners for us
    Posted by Greg Sargent on March 20, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    Jed Lewison flags a remarkable moment on MSNBC today that illustrates yet again that the GOP “makeover” really consists of changing the party’s position on immigration reform and nothing else.

    The MSNBC host presses RNC chair Reince Priebus on whether the party is really changing, given its continued fealty to the Paul Ryan fiscal vision (in my view, this is one of the central obstacles to any real change):

    Priebus’s response:

    “We’re not losing the issues on the math. We’re not losing the issues on spending, and debt, and jobs, and the economy. Those are total winners for us. What we found in the election is that while we’re winning those arguments on spending and math, we’re losing this sort of emotional, cultural vote out there in presidential elections.

    Maybe I’m misremembering, but wasn’t the 2012 election all about those very same issues that Priebus claims are “total winners” for the GOP? For months, the two parties fought it out over how much we should cut spending, the priorities that should dictate how we tackle the debt, and whether jobs are created by downsizing government and slashing tax rates on the rich or whether we should invest more in education, infrastructure, clean energy and research to create jobs and ensure long term economic security for the middle class. The whole election was an argument over what kind of economy we want. The GOP vision on all these issues lost decisively. Yet here is Priebus, telling us that they are “winners” for the GOP, only two days after Republicans released a massive new investigation into what went wrong.

    Meanwhile, Priebus’ claim that Republicans lost because of the “emotional, cultural vote” carries echoes of the deeply flawed theory of the race that drove GOP strategy throughout the campaign. Remember, Republicans confidently predicted swing voters would finally “break up” with Obama over the economy. The premise was that their support for the President could only be emotional or symbolic, and couldn’t possibly be rooted in substantive agreement with him or in the calculation — despite their disappointment with the sluggish recovery — that Obama was offering a better set of ideas for fixing the economy over the long haul than Mitt Romney was. This turned out to be a disastrous miscalculation.

    • Ametia says:

      Romney & his GOP ilk LOST in 2012, because they banked on the WHITE MALE & STUPID POOR WHITE TRASH and told the WOMEN, BLACKS, BROWNS, REDS, YOUNG, OLD, LGBTS to go FUCK THEMSELVES.

      THE END

  6. Ametia says:

    Can we get a thread for this presentation, SG2, please? It’s a great get, and deserves a post all its own. Thanks!

  7. Ametia says:

    Awww shit!

  8. Ametia says:


    Arizona Lawmaker Introduces Bill To Prosecute Transgender People Who Use The ‘Wrong’ Bathroom
    Posted by Neal on March 20, 2013 at 2:08pm in Gender BlenderBack to Gender Blender

    Ah, Arizona. With the mindset of a child, it’s the state that, at times, makes the south look progressive. If you check his quote, it’s not because of someone who is transgendered that he wants to prevent from using the opposite gender’s facility, it’s because of people who want to do that because “they’re weird.” You know, men wanting to see women or women wanting to see men, that’s a real oddity.

  9. rikyrah says:

    On sequester, liberals face a dilemma

    Posted by Greg Sargent on March 20, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    Maybe I’m wrong about this. But it’s looking more and more like progressives and liberals are going to be facing a tough question: Which is worse, indefinite sequestration or a grand bargain that includes serious entitlement cuts? Seems to me that sooner or later, major players on the left are going to have to stake out a position on this question.

    With Republicans seemingly refusing to yield on new revenues, it’s looking increasingly as if they are going to stick with sequestration and gamble that they can ride out the politics until sequestration-level spending becomes the “new normal.” Brian Beutler has a gloomy take on why this is looking likely. Obama, of course, will continue to push for a “grand bargain” that trades entitlement cuts for new revenues, on the theory that the bite of the sequester really is going to be felt over time — the Huffington Post details that job losses really are starting to happen — which could force at least some Republicans back to the table.

    It’s unclear to me which of those two endgames is going to happen. But one thing that appears very unlikely is the preferred progressive endgame: As the sequester grows increasingly unpopular, Obama and Dems rally public opinion to force Republicans to replace it with a deal that combines new revenues with judicious spending cuts that don’t hit entitlement benefits. I’m just not seeing any way this happens.

    That means that at some point, liberals may well be faced with a choice — should they accept the grand bargain that includes Chained CPI and Medicare cuts, and join the push for that, or essentially declare the sequester a less awful alternative, and instead insist that we live with that?

  10. rikyrah says:

    My Own Mea Culpa

    by BooMan
    Wed Mar 20th, 2013 at 01:04:05 PM EST

    Unlike Ezra Klein, I did not support the invasion of Iraq. But I didn’t spend my energy trying to stop it because I saw it (correctly) as inevitable. I spent a good part of 2000 arguing that people should not vote for George W. Bush because he would invade Iraq. I believe that even absent 9/11, we would have started a war with Iraq. There were compelling reasons to do so, and those reasons were convincing to many people in our foreign policy establishment. The root of the problem was Saddam’s continuing existence in power which seemed to require an unending containment policy. But the support for that unending containment policy had eroded dramatically.
    One by one, the allies that had stood with us when we launched the Persian Gulf War peeled off and began criticizing us. The French pulled out of the no-fly operations. The embargo harmed Iraqi civilians and actually served to make Iraqis dependent on Saddam’s aid programs, increasing his internal grip on power. The embargo also harmed the economies of allies like Jordan and Turkey that naturally wanted to trade legally with their neighbor. The UN inspectors may have successfully disarmed Hussein, but the degree of their success was unclear and they were no longer on the ground (until the Bush administration felt compelled to seek UN support for their invasion plans). In any case, the issue facing U.S. foreign policy leaders in the 1999-2003 period was whether we could sustain our containment policy, and, if not, whether we could trust Saddam Hussein not to rearm and seek revenge if we ended our containment policy.

    At the outset of the Bush administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell was dispatched to the Middle East to argue for something he called “smart sanctions.” This was an effort to address the complaint, made by an increasing international consensus (including Usama bin-Laden), that our sanctions on Iraq were causing a massive increase in child mortality and were morally unsupportable. However, Colin Powell’s efforts failed after Iraq insisted on a complete repeal of sanctions and Russia refused to go along in the absence of Iraq’s consent.

    It was the failure of smart sanctions that put the U.S. foreign policy establishment in a bind that made invasion an appetizing alternative to an unsustainable status quo. The sanctions were falling apart and had only made Hussein’s grip on power more intractable. The no-fly zones necessitated U.S. military forces be stationed in Saudi Arabia, which was already causing the rise of al-Qaeda and major security risks to our embassies, war ships, and personnel. Saddam was viewed as particularly evil and reckless, and not to be trusted with all the money that would flow to him in the absence of the Oil-for-Food program and other sanctions. The Oil-for-Food program itself was rife with corruption. The nail in the coffin was the decision of Hussein to offer oil contracts to all the non-Anglo permanent UN Security Council members, conditional on a lifting of sanctions.

    Even prior to the September 11 attacks, the U.S. faced a very unappealing set of options. Politically, it was pretty near unthinkable that we would agree to lift the sanctions, watch everyone else get all the oil contracts, and just trust Hussein not to resume WMD programs or to seek revenge. Powell’s failure to get smart sanctions meant that the status quo wouldn’t hold. It seemed like the only way out was to remove Hussein from power, but nothing short of an invasion seemed likely to remove him.

  11. Ametia says:

    President Barack Obama, an avid sports fan, forecast that Indiana would defeat the widely favored University of Louisville in this year’s men’s NCAA national basketball championship.

    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Wednesday picked Indiana University to win the NCAA annual men’s college basketball tournament, joining in the “March Madness” office pool craze that sweeps America every spring.

    The president, an avid sports fan, forecast that Indiana would defeat the widely favored University of Louisville in the championship game.

    “I think this is Indiana’s year,” he said in an interview on ESPN, the sports cable network.

    Obama began a three-day trip to the Middle East on Wednesday and taped the interview on Tuesday.

    Millions of Americans are obsessed with the annual National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball tournament, which pits the nation’s top teams against one another in 67 games over two weeks.

  12. rikyrah says:

    he’s so fucking thin-skinned, it’s hilarious.


    Don’t Call it a Flip-Flop

    by BooMan
    Wed Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:48:41 AM EST

    David Hawkings thinks opposition to comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship is crumbling. He sites as evidence Rand Paul’s speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the recommendations contained in the the Republican National Committee’s autopsy of the 2012 elections, and the support expressed by the Evangelical Immigration Table, which includes many influential conservative Christian leaders. As Politico notes, Rand Paul’s openness to the idea stands in stark contrast to his earlier positions on immigration. He introduced a bill two years ago that would have revoked “birthright” citizenship, and he once recommended building an underground electric fence on the border.

    After his speech, reporters filed stories about Sen. Paul’s about-face, and the senator became uncomfortable .

    The immigration debate has been trapped and it’s been polarized by two terms: path to citizenship and amnesty,” Rand told reporters on a conference call. “Everybody who doesn’t want anything to move forward calls every proposal that somebody else wants ‘pathway to citizenship’ or ‘you’re granting amnesty.’ Can’t we have reform and just not call it by some names that discourage the progress from going forward?”

    In other words, Rand Paul was asking the press not to characterize him as supporting a “pathway to citizenship” because it makes his base angry. It seems like the influence of Frank Luntz is now near total. Lawmakers like Rand Paul think the base doesn’t respond to substance, but only to rhetoric. So, we can have immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship as long as we never mention the terms “amnesty” or “pathway to citizenship.”

    Needless to say, the media shouldn’t take instructions from lawmakers about how to spin their positions on the issues. In the interest of getting something done, however, perhaps advocates of immigration reform would be wise to listen to what Rand Paul is saying. They could call Frank Luntz and ask him what synonyms for “amnesty” and “pathway to citizenship” would be acceptable to the morans.

  13. rikyrah says:


    By Kay March 20th, 2013

    Commenter Bella Q took a field trip to testify in favor of Ohio’s Medicaid expansion, and she was kind enough to send me an account. Here’s part of what she wrote and agreed to share with us:

    The interesting highlights include the testimony of government affairs personnel of assorted chambers of commerce, in support of Medicaid expansion. Strange bedfellows indeed, though the straightforward argument is that it will cost businesses more by way of increased premiums if Medicaid expansion is not adopted. The most remarkable, slightly surreal, moment of those presentations is not in the public record as it occurred in response to a question. The government affairs VP of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce stated that employers don’t know what their employees make. I verified with my nearby colleague that I’d heard correctly. The audience in our section looked at one another, puzzled, as none of us could quite believe he’d made that statement. It was quickly stepped on by a tangential question from another committee member, which appeared to be asked in genuine discussion rather than by design.

    An additional interlude of note was the appearance by an Ohio Liberty Coalition board member. Her appearance itself was remarkable for her attire: a slightly short and very tight knit skirt and pumps with what appeared to be 5” heels. The blouse was white and nondescript, but she wore no jacket. Her glasses were stylish and rectangular. My colleague and I both noticed the apparent reference to a heroine of liberty for regular Muricans everywhere; even the voice was reminiscent. Her presentation concluded unsurprisingly, and I excerpted this from the public record:

    “We were all very happy when Governor Kasich decided not to involve Ohio in implementing federally mandated Healthcare Exchanges because that would have committed our state’s resources to expanding federal power over healthcare in Ohio. Little did we know, a few months later that he would choose to pledge Ohio to a federally dictated expansion of Medicaid by agreeing to go along with the false promises of federal funding for it. I say false because our country is 16.4T in debt and counting. Whether you realize it or not, we have already gone over the fiscal cliff and now it’s a matter of how hard or softly we hit the bottom. By expanding Medicaid, I imagine we’re going to hit very hard.
    I’m asking all true statesmen that we have in Ohio who are willing to stand up for our state, our country, all the elderly and handicapped through no fault of their own, that depend on Medicaid, and voters who helped vote all of you into office. I’m asking you to stand strong with the other states that are refusing to accept the expansion of Medicaid. Help us rid ourselves of this Obamanation in healthcare. With the expansion proposed by our Governor, the people of the state of Ohio will be burdened with heavy taxes and crushing debt, and Ohio’s truly needy children and disabled citizens will be trapped in a medically failing and bankrupt Medicaid system. Please vote no on the expansion of Medicaid. There has to be a better way of tackling the issue on healthcare than this. Thank you.”

    My impression from observing the subcommittee is that there are representatives who are open to passing Medicaid expansion, as well as some who will not be persuaded. But the swing votes must hear from constituents in favor of Medicaid expansion, as they are hearing early and often from its opponents.

  14. rikyrah says:

    Darrell Issa’s misguided priorities

    By Steve Benen
    Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:54 AM EDT.

    The Beltway’s interest in the role of sequestration cuts leading to canceled White House tours reached farcical heights last week, in large part because congressional Republicans are afraid the scrapped tourist opportunities will make them look bad.

    But leave it to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) to go completely over the top.

    For those who can’t watch clips online, Issa released an attack video this morning, presumably paid for with our tax dollars, whining once more about the White House tours. The message of the attack itself is rather odd — Issa apparently believes the cancelation of tours will give the president more leisure time, though that really doesn’t make any sense — and comes across as rather desperate, even by House GOP standards.

    But what’s especially amazing about this case is Issa’s bizarre priorities. For reasons I can’t understand, the far-right Republican is fascinated by White House tours, but seems entirely indifferent to the meaningful effects of sequestration in his own congressional district.

    A Democratic source this morning alerted me this morning to several recent headlines from the area Issa ostensibly represents:


    * A rally was held in San Diego last week to “demonstrate the impact of sequestration on low income seniors.” An administrator at a local facility said, “[B]ack in D.C. what they’re talking about are cuts from White House tours and the president’s golf game but in the meantime real seniors who are hungry are not going to have food.”

    * A major employer in San Diego announced a series of layoffs, effecting 185 workers, which became necessary “as a result of the cuts being brought about in the federal budget because of sequestration.”

    * The sequester is set to shutter an air-control traffic tower in San Diego, which local officials believe will “jeopardize aerial firefighting in a region prone to wildfire.”

  15. rikyrah says:

    ‘Strategy is not our long suit’

    By Steve Benen

    Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:53 AM EDT.


    Getty Images

    Congress has a week left before federal funding ends and the government shuts down, but nearly everyone seems to agree that’s extremely unlikely. We here at the Maddow Show have taken to giving these crises names, and with that in mind, Congressional Storm Francis appears unlikely to do any real damage.

    Of course, it’s not too easy. The Senate is trying to take up a temporary spending bill to finance the government through the end of the fiscal year — it’s called a “continuing resolution” — and though there’s generally bipartisan agreement on the stopgap measure, some Senate Republicans are delaying the process anyway. Still, the Senate is expected to pass its CR this week; House leaders have said they’ll approve the Senate version; and the threat of shutdown should be eliminated with several days to spare before the deadline.

    And at that point, attention will turn to Congressional Storm Gertrude, the name we use to describe the next Republican debt-ceiling crisis.

    Roll Call reported yesterday that there’s been “discussion at the highest levels” among congressional Republicans about the next debt-ceiling increase, and GOP leaders met with a “working group” of five influential conservatives late last week. They agreed to a series of “special, extended closed-door meeting with the entire Republican Conference after the Easter recess to walk through the coming battle.”

    In theory, there’s really not that much to talk about. Unless Republicans are serious this time about defaulting, refusing to pay the bills for things they’ve already bought, trashing the full faith and credit of the United States, crashing the economy, and hurting Americans on purpose, they’re going to have to raise the debt limit whether they want to or not.

    In January, Republican leaders conceded they don’t consider default an option, and yet, they appear eager to threaten the possibility again anyway.

  16. rikyrah says:

    GOP senators to Dems on immigration: Slow down

    By Steve Benen
    Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:23 AM EDT.

    There’s reason for some cautious optimism about the fate of comprehensive immigration reform this year. The idea is increasingly popular in the Senate, and appears to have more than enough support to overcome a predictable Republican filibuster. In the House, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) appears to be on board with the package that’s coming together.

    It’s pushing opponents and skeptics to come up with creative new complaints.

    The effort to reform the nation’s broken immigration system is moving much too fast, at least according to six of eight Republican members serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is tasked with finding a comprehensive solution.

    “Before the Immigration Reform and Control Act was first introduced in the Senate in 1982, the Committee had 100 hours of hearings with 300 witnesses before marking up a bill,” the senators write in a Tuesday letter to chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT). “Congress continued to debate the bill for the next three years, and even then, the Judiciary Committee spent three months reviewing the bill before it was reported in August of 1985. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the public be given adequate time, consistent with past practice in handling complex comprehensive immigration legislation, to read and analyze the contents of any such bill before it is listed on the Committee’s Executive Business Meeting agenda.”

    Yes, for Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz, the Judiciary Committee shouldn’t even prepare for a debate just yet. Those reform proponents, the argument goes, are just moving too darn quickly.

  17. rikyrah says:

    Steele: RNC Minority Outreach Incompatible With GOP Voter ID Laws (VIDEO)

    Former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele on Wednesday continued his critical talk of his successor, wondering how current RNC chair Reince Priebus can mesh the organization’s much-ballyhooed minority outreach with the GOP’s push for tougher voter registration laws widely viewed as discriminatory.

    Steele defended his record as head of the RNC from 2009 until 2011, touting his own efforts to reach out to constituencies that don’t typically vote Republican.

    “You come in and you put boots on the ground. You go out and you talk to people directly,” Steele, an MSNBC contributor, said during an appearance on “Morning Joe.” “And you expose the party in a way that is not traditional. I argue taking the party outside of its comfort zone. A lot of members at the time thought that was a good idea until they realized this is going to require exposure on policy, exposure on principle, exposure on a lot of things that the party just didn’t want to be exposed on.”

    Steele said the RNC’s autopsy of the 2012 election does nothing to address the substantive reasons why the party fails to connect with minorities, highlighting voter identification laws championed by many Republicans, including Priebus, that disproportionately affect black voters.

    “How does Reince Priebus reconcile his approach and his agreement with voter registration policies that many in the black community view as anti-black, racist, whatever the term happens to be,” Steele said. “You’ve got to reconcile how people feel about your policies, not just the fact that you’re going to show up. You can show up any time. It’s what you say and what you do when you get there that matters most to people.”

  18. rikyrah says:

    Ed Schultz Blows Up At POLITICO Over Report On His MSNBC Move: ‘Nothing But A Bunch Of Freaking Whores’

    Ed Schultz has never been particularly shy about responding to media stories about him and his relationship with MSNBC, and following Schultz’s shift from the coveted 8 P.M. slot to a weekend program, many in the media have speculated about what this means for Schultz’s future at the network. POLITICO’s Dylan Byers wrote in his report following Schultz’s announcement that MSNBC insiders do not consider the move to be as amicable as Schultz suggested. Schultz expressed his outrage at the report last week when he called POLITICO “freaking whores.”

    Schultz railed against all the reporting about his potentially rocky relationship with his employer, insisting that he wanted the lighter workload. He complained about “media people who haven’t even had the courtesy to call me,” and called POLITICO out in particular for its reporting.

    “I’m amazed at media vultures out there who think that they’re gaining respect by people because they talk to someone anonymously. POLITICO, they’re nothing but a bunch of freaking whores down there in Washington. That’s all they are. They don’t know their ass from third base and none of their people have talked to me.”

  19. rikyrah says:

    Cuccinelli’s website gets a touch-up

    By Steve Benen
    Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:30 PM EDT

    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, about seven months before he hopes to be elected governor, has suddenly become a little shy. The far-right candidate has traditionally been rather bold in sharing his views, but as the Washington Post editorial page discovered, the Republican nevertheless decided to give his campaign website “a little airbrushing.”

    As recently as November, Mr. Cuccinelli’s campaign Web site boasted of his uncompromising positions on illegal immigration, including opposing tuition subsidies for undocumented students (even if they grew up in Virginia), firing state contractors who employ illegal immigrants and stepping up deportations and employment verification.

    But clicking Tuesday on a link to the campaign site’s immigration policy page brought up the following: “This is somewhat embarrassing, isn’t it? It seems we can’t find what you’re looking for.”

    Somewhat embarrassing, indeed.

    Of course, the candidate’s record can’t be scrubbed quite that easily. Cuccinelli is on record supporting an end to birthright citizenship, defending Arizona’s scandalous “papers please” law, denying unemployment benefits to those who don’t speak English, and allowing law enforcement to investigate and punish crowded boardinghouses, which he called “one of the most common side effects of illegal immigration.” Before it was deleted, Cuccinelli bragged he “voted consistently against in-state tuition for illegal aliens.”

    A friend to the immigrant community he isn’t.

  20. rikyrah says:

    ‘Reassess all the rules’

    By Steve Benen
    Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:04 PM EDT.

    There was reason to believe the Senate schedule would go smoothly this week. The parties had already agreed to the provisions of a spending bill to prevent a government shutdown next week, and the House was set to pass it and send the stop-gap spending to the White House for President Obama’s signature. The Senate could then move on to trying to pass a budget.

    But that’s proving to be more difficult, leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to once again raise the prospect of filibuster reform.

    While the Senate waits to wrap up passage of a stopgap bill to fund the government, Democratic leaders want to begin debate on the budget resolution. But Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) is blocking that unless Reid agrees to vote on his sequester amendment, which Reid won’t do because Democratic leaders don’t want to replace the automatic cuts in patchwork measures. So they’ll have to wait out the delays and finish the stopgap bill before moving on to the budget.

    “It is things like that that will cause the Senate to have to reassess all the rules because right now they accomplish so little,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “I’m disappointed.”

    OK, but how disappointed is he?

  21. rikyrah says:

    From the Appalachian Trail to the Comeback Trail

    By Steve Benen

    Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:00 AM EDT.

    American politics can offer some unusual career trajectories, but by any measure, South Carolina Republican Mark Sanford is unique.

    After serving three unremarkable terms in Congress, Sanford was elected governor twice, and in 2008, was widely considered a top contender for his party’s vice presidential nomination. By early 2009, the governor appeared to be laying the groundwork for a likely presidential campaign.

    Those plans were scrapped by June 2009, when Sanford, a “family-values conservative,” confessed to having an extra-marital affair with an Argentinian woman. The governor had lied about his activities, misused public funds, violated state ethics guidelines, and was censured by state lawmakers from his own party.

    That was then; this is now.

    A disgraced ex-governor and the sister of a popular comedian came out victorious on Tuesday in South Carolina’s special congressional primary, possibly setting the stage for an uncommonly tight race for what is normally a Republican safe seat.

    Republicans in South Carolina’s 1st congressional district showed forgiveness by supporting Mark Sanford after a campaign focused as much on the former governor’s personal transgressions as his record. Sanford came out on top of the crowded 16-candidate Republican primary, according to the Associated Press.

  22. Ametia says:



  23. Ametia says:

    Meet The Five Cowardly Senate Democrats Who Killed the Assault Weapons Ban
    By: Jason EasleyMar. 19th, 2013more from Jason Easley

    It wasn’t cowardice that killed the assault weapons ban. It was five Democratic senators who opposed the measure that forced it to be dropped from the Senate guns bill.
    The assault weapons ban will be given an up or down vote as an amendment, but not included in the final Senate bill designed to limit gun violence. Many on the left will direct their rage at Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) or the entire Democratic caucus, but the reality is that the assault weapons ban is not in the final bill because five Senate Democrats opposed it.

    Bloomberg reported back in January that, “The five Democratic senators from traditionally pro-gun states who have expressed skepticism about the bill are Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, also said he opposes a ban.

  24. Zimmerman attorneys depose Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend.,0,866649.story

    George Zimmerman’s attorneys were in South Florida late last week, deposing Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend, dad, mom and brother, according to newly-filed case records.

    On Wednesday, Mark O’Mara took the sworn account of Trayvon’s girlfriend, the state’s most important witness, at a Miami office of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

    Shortly after Trayvon’s death, she told authorities that she was on the phone with him a few moments before he was shot by Zimmerman, a Neighborhood Watch volunteer who had called Sanford police a few minutes earlier, describing the unarmed 17-year-old as suspicious.

  25. Ametia says:

    March 20, 2013 10:02 AM
    More Kabuki on Guns
    By Ed Kilgore

    Perhaps the least surprising development in the slow progress of gun legislation in Congress was yesterday’s separate announcements by Harry Reid and Diane Feinstein that the latter’s legislation restoring the Clinton-era assault weapons ban would not be included in the former’s official Democratic gun violence bill on the Senate floor. As both noted, a head-count showed no more than 40 solid votes for the provision, which will still get a vote as a doomed amendment (Feinstein’s proposed restrictions on high-capacity ammo clips will probably meet the same fate).

    But the cultural Kabuki of gun politics required that the gun lobby alternately crow over this trophy and warn the residual legislation still leads down the road to mass gun confiscation, while their enemies react in the manner typified by this headline from Mike Lupica in the New York Daily News: “Spineless pols spit on the graves of Newtown victims by not pushing for assault weapons ban.”

  26. Ametia says:

    New Prague Middle School On ‘Code Red’ Lockdown
    Source: CBSlocal Minneapolis

    MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Officials say a middle school in New Prague has been placed on lockdown Wednesday morning, after reports suggested there may have been a shooting.

    Few details were immediately available, but an ambulance staging area was reportedly being set up at New Prague Middle School.

    An official with the school district said that the middle school and the CEC Building, which houses sixth graders, have been put on “code red.”

    WCCO is sending crews and will bring updates as they are available.

    Read more: MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Officials say a middle school in New Prague has been placed on lockdown Wednesday morning, after reports suggested there may have been a shooting. Few details were immediately available, but an ambulance staging area was reported

    • Ametia says:

      Oh, and Extended Magazines Probably Won’t Get a Vote Either
      Posted on March 20, 2013 at 8:27 am by Bob Cesca
      The NRA keeps on winning, and the Democrats keep on letting them.

      Left unsaid on Tuesday was that another major element of the president’s gun policy proposal could be joining the assault weapons ban in the scrap heap.

      Legislation to limit the size of ammunition feeders was part of Feinstein’s bill as well. And as of now, lawmakers are expected to separate that measure from the assault weapons ban so that it can be considered individually.

      But that hardly ensures that a ban on high-capacity magazines will make it through the Senate. One top Democratic aide said leadership was leaning against putting the magazine ban in the baseline bill, while another said that they would consider it as an amendment instead.

      So whatever we get out of Congress will have background checks. I suppose we need 91 percent support for a gun control measure before Congress will allow it, because the majority support for extended magazine bans and assault weapons bans just isn’t good enough.

  27. Ametia says:

    Assault weapons ban dropped from gun bill

    By Ed O’Keefe and Philip Rucker, Published: March 19

    Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid on Tuesday declared politically dead the effort to ban military-style assault weapons, a setback for President Obama and gun-control advocates who are pushing the Senate to move quickly on bills to limit gun violence.

    Reid (D-Nev.) is preparing to move ahead with debate on a series of gun-control proposals when the Senate returns from a two-week Easter recess in early April. Although he has vowed to hold votes on measures introduced after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn., in December, Reid told reporters Tuesday that the proposed assault-weapons ban isn’t holding up against Senate rules that require at least 60 votes to end debate and move to final passage.


    “I want people to have the ability to vote on assault weapons, mental health, safety in schools, federal trafficking, clips — everything,” Reid told reporters. “But I cannot do that until I get a bill on the floor, and it’s been very clear that the Republicans want us to have bills coming to the floor that have gone through committee.”

    You put that bill through and let everyone one vote one way or the other, so we know who is FOR or AGAINST it.

  28. rikyrah says:

    The immigration policy Rand Paul (quietly) supports

    By Steve Benen
    Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:33 AM EDT

    Ordinarily, when there are questions about where a politician stands on a given issue, he or she will deliver a speech and clarify matters. But sometimes, even after the speech, we still can’t be sure.

    Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) sent out word Monday night that he would deliver remarks on Tuesday endorsing comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship. Soon after, Paul aides backed off, saying the senator’s position was more nuanced. The Republican eventually delivered the speech, and still left everyone wondering. The New York Times felt compelled to say Paul “strongly implied” his support for citizenship provisions in a reform plan.

    So, where does that leave us? Rand Paul apparently supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the United States, but he doesn’t want to say he supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the United States.


    The senator eventually told reporters he doesn’t want to “get trapped too much” in “descriptive terms.”

  29. rikyrah says:

    Joe Biden Is The Coolest Motherf*cker Alive (PHOTOS)

    Posted 20 hours 46 min ago by Rachel Samara for Global Grind Staff

    Read more:

  30. Ametia says:

    Blow job Billy boy is FiNNA throw Ashley Judd under the bus!

    In Kentucky, prominent Democrats wooing Alison Lundergan Grimes, not Ashley Judd
    By MANU RAJU | 3/19/13 5:14 PM EDT

    Democratic heavy hitters — including Bill Clinton — are quietly trying to woo a new candidate to jump into the race to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, even as actress Ashley Judd is taking steps toward launching a star-studded campaign of her own.

    With fears growing in some Democratic quarters over Judd’s potential candidacy, some prominent Democrats in the Bluegrass State are beginning to set their sights on 34-year-old Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Kentucky secretary of state. Among Grimes’s attributes: She lacks political baggage since she’s served barely a year in office, and she hails from a well-connected family influential in Kentucky Democratic politics. But it’s not at all certain if she’ll jump into the race.

    Read more:

    • Ametia says:

      Grimes does have the Clintons in her corner. Earlier this month, the former president — a longtime friend of Grimes’s father — privately urged the young secretary of state to mount a Senate bid while assuring Grimes that both he and his wife, Hillary, would get behind her should she decide to take on the powerful Senate GOP leader, according to several sources familiar with the matter.

      Hillary’s running for POTUS in 2016; BANK IT.

    • rikyrah says:

      ok, another reason why I want Judd to run.

  31. Ametia says:

    Happy HUMP day, Everyone! :-)

Leave a Reply