Currently viewing the tag: “Brown”
From Sunlen Miller and Jon Garcia Goodbye to gas-guzzling fleet vehicles like the ubiquitous big brown UPS trucks? President Obama hopes so, saying it’s not only good for the environment, it’s good for business. “From gas-guzzlers to hybrids, … there’s…
Political Punch
In today’s National Journal Daily (subscriber), we take a closer look at an argument some Democrats are making about the Massachusetts Senate race:
Their reasoning goes like this: Democrats have a better chance of beating Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) the longer they go without a top Democratic challenger getting attention, so that labor groups and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee can define Brown without their candidate getting attacked.
When told about the argument that it was preferable to wait, Massachusetts Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh said it was important to continue to define Brown and point out problems with his Senate record, but, “You can’t beat somebody with nobody. And what we saw in the special election is a crowded, bloody, and expensive primary [and that] isn’t going to help anybody beat Scott Brown in a six-week race between September and November.”
Working to define Brown is a valid strategy that may pay dividends for Democrats. But there are also reasons why not having a top candidate yet should worry the party.
For one, as of the end of last year, Brown was sitting on a campaign war chest of $ 7.2 million. The longer it takes for a consensus Democratic candidate to appear, the harder it will be to catch up with the Republican.
Also, the delay could prompt more candidates to enter the race, making a divisive primary more likely. “It’s starting to seem that way, isn’t it?” said Marsh, citing the news this week that Gerry Kavanaugh, former chief of staff to the late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, might be interested in the seat.
Maverick.
Really irritating, and I say that knowing it’ll damage my cherished RINO cred. From his letter tonight to Reid and McConnell: I am disappointed that despite passing six different FY 2011 Continuing Resolutions, each with the understanding that passage would move bi-partisan negotiations further along, that we are once again faced with the likelihood of […]
Despite Massachusetts being a deeply Democratic state, Steve Kornacki reports a new DSCC poll finds that Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) popularity is soaring.
“The survey, which has been seen by at least one D.C. insider and was detailed for Salon, measured Brown’s approval rating at 73% — easily surpassing the scores for Barack Obama and the state’s two top Democrats, Gov. Deval Patrick and Sen. John Kerry. It also found him running over the magic 50% mark against every potential Democratic challenger, and crushing the strongest perceived Democrats (Reps. Michael Capuano and Ed Markey and former Rep. Marty Meehan) by double-digit margins. The results only grew closer when respondents were primed with negative information about Brown.”
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire
For an MSMer attacking a Republican, there's nothing quite like a wild-animal metaphor.
Witness Newsweek/Daily Beast's Tina Brown, claiming on Morning Joe today that the Obama administration is loath to speak of "regime change" in Libya. Why? Because that phrase "has been taken by the big, greasy paws of Dick Cheney."
View video after the jump.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The president also talked of how they're still going to put pressure on Gaddafi to resign.
TINA BROWN: There's semantic nonsense, really, about regime change, because the fact is it's almost as if the phrase, regime change, has been taken by the big, greasy paws of Dick Cheney. Nobody wants to say that word, because it is our desire, our goal is to get rid of Gaddafi.
Jay Smooth is the man. via his site,
Jay Smooth is the man. via his site,
On Wednesday, the red-caped bagpiping Catholic loons of the Society for Defense of Tradition demonstrated at Rhode Island’s Brown University, knowing that their presence would provoke the famously ultra-liberal Ivy Leaguers and provide fodder for the below clip. You can read about the students’ response at the school’s newspaper.
Subscribe to Joe.My.God.![]()
All the discussion about the wisdom or legality of Eric Holder’s unilateral change to Miranda procedure for “operational terrorists” (Evan Perez story, Charlie Savage story, bmaz post) seems to be missing a stunning detail.
The memo laying out the change in procedures apparently doesn’t distinguish between foreign terrorists (that is, members of al Qaeda) and domestic terrorists (presumably including self-radicalized Muslims, but also white supremacists, and abortion doctor killers). Indeed, Perez’ article uses the term “domestic-terror” three times. I asked Savage about this specifically, and he said that while the preamble of the memo notes international terrorist groups are of particular danger (a claim I’m not convinced holds up after 10 years of the GWOT and the recent rise in right wing hate groups), the memo seems to apply to all “operational terrorists.”
Whatever the hell that means.
Now, as much as I think the policy is ill-considered, at one level the application of it to white terrorists along with brown ones is, IMO, a good thing. After all, if the reason for the change in Miranda derives from “operational” risk, then nothing really does distinguish between the danger of an imminent attack by a white guy and the danger of an imminent attack by a brown guy. So to take any other approach-to apply the Miranda change just to brown terrorists-would demonstrate the claimed reason for it to be false.
Moreover, this country will never begin to restore a balance between rule of law and security until white terrorists are treated according to the same abusive rules as brown people. I mean, you really think Peter King would be so thrilled about this change (as reported in Perez’ story) if he realized that the same rules might apply to white supporters of terrorists like him?
New York Republican Peter King, chairman of the House homeland-security committee, is among the lawmakers who welcomed Mr. Holder’s call to change Miranda. At a hearing last year, Mr. King said, “It’s important that we ensure that the reforms do go forward and that at the very least the attorney general consults with everyone in the intelligence community before any Miranda warning is given.”
All that said, what is the first non-distinction between foreign and domestic terrorists of the GWOT that I know of is deeply troubling.
It was inevitable, of course, that as the US continues its success at shutting down al Qaeda abroad, and as the government increasingly has to point to self-radicalized terrorists (or young Muslim men entrapped as such) to justify their expanded GWOT powers, and as it became increasingly clear that right wing terrorists pose as great a threat domestically and-with the MLK bomber-have the same operational sophistication as Islamic terrorists, that the limits on special terror-related authorities would begin to break down. But there’s really no protection against a further breakdown here. Soon, environmental activists (already officially classified as terrorists according to DOJ and DHS) will have their Miranda rights withheld because they were “operationally” prepared to strike at property, not people. And from there it won’t take long to deny peace activists their Miranda rights because they support humanitarian groups that might be trying to persuade terrorists to adopt peaceful tactics.
In spite of all the myths government lawyers have told themselves, in secret, to pretend the assault on privacy and civil liberties in the name of a war on terror is different from that of the 60s, we were always on a slippery slope that would eventually defy all those myths.
And limiting the Miranda rights of white terror suspects along with brown terror suspects is just one more important step down that slippery slope.
Related posts:
A new Quinnipiac poll in Ohio finds Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) in decent shape with
registered voters, who prefer Brown over an unnamed GOP challenger 45% to 29%. Voters
also say 45% to 30% that he deserves a second term in the U.S. Senate.
Said pollster Peter Brown: “Brown is in decent shape heading into 2012. While he doesn’t have large numbers
of voters massed against him, his re-elect number, 45 percent, is short of the 50 percent threshold
that generally signals an incumbent’s likely re-election.”
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire
It’s probably the fault of climate alarmists James Cameron and Al Gore, who took unnecessary fossil fueled flights to Latin America. Anyhow, there’s a new study out
More and more brown bears are embracing the single life — at least that’s according to an extensive, decades-long study of the animals in Alaska’s Kodiak wilderness. Researchers have observed a dramatic change in the bears’ relationship statuses in recent years, warning that shifts in seasonal patterns may be behind this new-found unwillingness to settle down and give their parents some darn grandcubs already.
Biologist Bill Leacock of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge recently presented the findings from the longest-running bear survey of its kind, and it would appear that traditional couplings are falling out of fashion in the world of brown bear relationships. “So, we’re seeing a lot less family groups,” he said. “Whether this is a long-term trend or not, we don’t know yet.”
Obviously, it’s all globull warming
Climate change has already been linked to anomalies in seasonal changes, which, in turn, have had recorded impact on plant, bird, and insect species throughout the world. For some animals, like bears, shifts in seasonal triggers could throw off the balance our their hibernation patterns and ultimately their mating habits — meaning more bears stay single and less cubs are born.
Ah, but, is it globull warming, or something else?
Leacock notes that changes in seasonal patterns, namely the late arrival of Spring, may be contributing to the shift in bear behavior — but further study may be required to better assess the trend.
See, it’s all about greenhouse gases making the world warmer and …….. wait, what? The late arrival of Spring? Doesn’t that mean that the Alaskan winter is lasting longer than it used to, ie, frickin’ cold?
Washington (CNN) – Republican Sen. Scott Brown said Tuesday he disagrees with the Republican House effort to cut off support for Planned Parenthood as part of the ongoing budget negotiations.
“I support family planning and health services for women. Given our severe budget problems, I don’t believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts,” the Massachusetts senator said in a statement. “However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate.”
Conservatives in the House have demanded Congress end funding for the organization because of its abortion services and last month passed an amendment, largely along party lines, to end funding. Although current law prevents the use of federal money for abortion procedures, critics argue the money guarantees the organization has the resources to provide the operation.
Brown, a freshman senator from a historically Democratic state, is up for reelection in 2012 and is the latest Republican to break with his party over funding for the non-profit organization. Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susah Collins of Maine have also raised concerns about cutting off funding, an issue sure to receive attention as the Senate and House debate how to continue funding the government when the current continuing resolution expires April 8.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee used Brown’s statement to criticize him in an email to supporters Tuesday.
“If Scott Brown felt this way, he should have shown some backbone and opposed these cuts in the first place,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Matt Canter said in a statement.
The statement pointed to Brown’s support of the Republican budget passed earlier in March that cut all funding for Planned Parenthood.
Uh oh.
We all understand that primarying him would be a kamikaze mission since at this point he may well be the only Republican in Massachusetts capable of getting elected to the Senate. That knowledge has bought him a wide, wide berth among the base. But I keep thinking — at some point, he’s going to cross […]
Uh oh.
We all understand that primarying him would be a kamikaze mission since at this point he may well be the only Republican in Massachusetts capable of getting elected to the Senate. That knowledge has bought him a wide, wide berth among the base. But I keep thinking — at some point, he’s going to cross […]
Here’s yet another indication that Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown intends to vote in a way that more reflects his state’s electorate and less the way Tea Party movement Republicans demand him to vote: he’s against eliminating all Planned Parenthood funding. Look for Rush, Sean, et. al to start going after him with frequency and a Tea Party primary challenge when he’s up for re-election. But this may be the straw that broke the tea pot’s spout:
US Senator Scott Brown opposes a House Republican plan to cut all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the womens’ health service provider, and today urged budget negotiators to reach a compromise.
“I support family planning and health services for women,” Brown, a Bay State Republican, said in a statement. “Given our severe budget problems, I don’t believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts. However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate.”
House Republicans have sought to eliminate all federal grants and contracts with Planned Parenthood, some $ 300 million, because the agency provides abortion services. By law, none of the federal money can be used to pay for abortions, but abortion-rights opponents have argued that any financial support for Planned Parenthood frees up other money that could be used for abortions.
The argument comes as part of an ongoing budget fight: Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have been unable to agree on a budget to fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year; Congress has recently passed two short-term stopgaps to allow more time to reach a long-term deal.
Massachusetts has always been a different kind of state for Republicans, where they must jump through hoops not on the far right to survive. Just look at Mitt Romney running around the country trying to distance himself from his health care reform record (and stands) as Governor — a record admired by some RINOS, Democrats and independents and reviled by many conservative Republicans.
