MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Obama Sparks All-Out Revolt Over Socially Conservative Judicial Nominee
By ocean-kat on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 2:07pm |Boggs appears so out-of-step with Obama's past nominees because he is part of an all-or-nothing package of six judicial nominees agreed to by the president and Georgia's two Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, months ago. Obama made some pretty big concessions: Four of the six nominees are GOP picks, and just one of the six is African American -- a lack of diversity that Georgia Democrats argue doesn't reflect the population those judges will oversee.
Lowery, for one, was so baffled by the president's choice that he said it must have been a staff error.
URL:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/michael-boggs-opposition_n_4775150.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
- Add new comment
- 1350 reads
Comments
This from our
capitulatercompromiser in chief. Here's an idea to end republican obstruction to Obama's judicial nominees. Instead of 66% being republican picks he should just appoint all republican picks. I have little doubt that will be his next "compromise."by ocean-kat on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 2:16pm
Nobody who voted for him expected a no-drama, be-cool, be-mellow-bordering-on-boring, no-rocking-of-boats post partisan? Here he is again:
Obama picks low-profile arts center executive to chair the NEA [arts world: snore; congressional GOP: snore]
It's actually why I found the "red line" threat against Assad sorta shocking. At the same time, it made sense because international WMD control is one of his passions which he hasn't been able to address as much as he'd like. For that reason, I suspect he lost his cool when he said that, and was happy to have an out present itself.
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 2:53pm
BTW, the article is very good on particulars of the deal cutting, reporter did a good job. No surprise on my part to see the name Valerie Jarrett involved with the schmoozing of the offended....miz fixer...
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 3:06pm
From fluffington post no less. Its not all NSFW nip slips.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 4:29pm
Is this a "blue slip" issue? If so, Harry Reid needs to step up agan, and flush this hangover from the pre-filibuster reform days.
Meanwhile, can one imagine a more effective knee-capping of the base going into a perilous midterm election.?
If anything, this scumbag motherfucker should be jamming the federal judiciary with bombthrowers while he still can; on a daily basis he pulls shit like this that can only result in the loss of the Senate.
He must want this outcome, because he surely knows better.
I know this will firmly land me in the ranks of the crazies, but, query: Is he being paid, or is he just hopelessly in mental thrall to Mr. Charlie.?
Word to Barry-you ain't white, you ain't never gonna be white, get over it.
by jollyroger on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 3:13pm
It'd be nice to get an occasion nominee from the left. I'd have been satisfied with his normal barely left of center picks. I at least expected his picks to be a bit left of center. Not 4 out of 6 republican picks one of which looks like Scalia. He is a democrat isn't he? I knew I'd be disappointed when I voted for Obama, but I never expected to be this disappointed. Worst democratic president ever.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 4:37pm
I have been obliged to apologize to the Hilary supporters who warned us that this would happen...
by jollyroger on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 4:51pm
All they had to do to is read this 2005 DKos post by the then Senator and perhaps Audacity of Hope if one had more time, it's all in there. He wasn't hiding anything, and when he ran for president, it would be kind of crazy to expect him to say "hey you liberal Obamabots, if you read my book, you'd know you don't really want someone like me. Just because my speechwriter recycles RFK and MLK Jr. catchphrases is not a sufficient reason to presume I am what you want." He was supposed to look a gift horse in the mouth? As far as I'm concerned a lot of it was reverse racial prejudice; I certainly saw a lot of that in people like M.J. Rosenberg, just totally so in love with the color of Obama's skin and a few speech quotes that he would totally ignore all the policy positions Obama put in print that were antithetical to his own.
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 5:44pm
One didn't even have to read the post.
All one had to do is listen to his 2004 speech.
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 5:50pm
Not sure why you have to apologize to them.
Hillary, if anything, is to the right of Obama and would have done much of what he's doing now. Hard to see how these supporters could argue anything other.
Anyway, we might get a chance to find out...
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 6:23pm
I'm sure I would have been disappointed if Hillary had won. And I'll likely be as hard on her as Obama while in office if she wins in 2016. That being said I think a good argument can be made that Bill was to the left of Obama and Hillary to the left of Bill. I very much doubt Hillary will be as much as a push over as Obama has been. But there's not much to be gained by debating the 2008 primary all over again.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 6:40pm
Instead of having a Maris-Mantle debate, I'll say this...
I still think the 2004 convention speech is the mother lode for figuring him out. From the beginning, he wanted to go beyond the divide and has only reluctantly conceded that that isn't possible at this time.
Bill was/is more partisan and a tougher partisan fighter than Obama. But it's hard to say that he was the left of Obama ideologically. His signature achievements were reforming welfare and balancing the budget. He pretty much invented triangulation.
I don't know Hillary's record in the Senate, but vague recollections say she dug into military affairs in particular. Not sure she was a big progressive, but I could be wrong.
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 9:30pm
I'm not claiming either Obama, Bill or Hillary are big progressives. Just stating my opinion of the degree they differ. As I posted I'd likely have been disappointed with Hillary too if she had won.
I disagree with your analysis of Bill. A balanced budget isn't an exclusive republican goal. Progressives favor it as well. The differences we have with republicans are how and when. Progressives are generally Keynesian and advocate for deficit spending during recessions while waiting for growth periods to balance the budget or pay down debt. Clinton's budget act was both timely, during a period of high growth, and consisted of mostly tax hikes on the wealthy. I consider myself a pretty far left liberal and I mostly approved of it.
Obama couldn't even get those Clinton tax hikes back when all he had to do was let Bush's cuts expire. One might try to blame that lousy compromise on Reid but many articles at the time claimed Reid was pissed when Obama sent Biden in to reach that deal with McConnell. I also read that in some of the later deal making Reid told Obama that he wouldn't get involved unless Obama promised not to send Biden in to scuttle his deal.
I wasn't happy about the welfare act, as with many of Bill's policies, but reform was coming. He did fight hard for protections for the poor, especially children, and for that reason vetoed two welfare reform bills passed by congress before signing the third. I can't see Obama ever doing something like that.
This latest deal that you've referred to as "standard deal cutting" is just one more of a long list of gifts to republicans and capitulations by Obama imo. I don't think it would have been considered standard in the Clinton White house. I no longer think its just Obama's poor negotiating skills or lack of the partisan fighting skills you credit Bill with. I think he's very comfortable with republican positions. He's very much an old style moderate republican of the center right.
I'll let it go with that as I think we're all going to be sick of talking about Hillary a year from now. I'm trying to wait until after the midterm elections to start that conversation.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 1:15am
I still think that 2004 speech and the famous 2003 anti-Iraq War speech were shameless posturing, similar to to his "against FISA before he was for it".
The difference with Hillary's getting involved with military issues is she rather publicly acknowledged needing some security cred to compete (especially with all the Bill Clinton draft-dodging, left-the-military-unprepared-for-9/11, let Arabs-do-Cole bullshit from the right, but also just the general situation that Democrats frequently left the military field unchallenged)
"Not sure she was a big progressive, but I could be wrong." Even a quick Wikipedia glimpse at Hillary's record includes decades of work on women's & children's issues, poverty, family, rural health, child defense, work on the board & head of the liberal New World Foundation, the failed effort at universal health care and the successful follow-on SCHIP for kids and the best-known women's conference in Beijing during the 90's... as well as work on McGovern campaigns and as assistant for the Watergate Committee early on.
I'm pretty amazed that the only thing that shines through is her work for military issues.
Similarly, Clinton's reform of welfare & balancing the budget? He presided over one of our greatest periods of economic growth & transformation to the internet economy, under him black poverty and black-on-black murder were cut to *one-third* of their previous rate (yes, incarceration greatly expanded). Both welfare & the budget were handled via greater prosperity, not cutting services during a recession - black unemployment greatly decreased, black home ownership and participation in middle class government jobs greatly increased. Unfairly, Bush came in and really fucked up welfare reform, but Clinton gets blamed for that because folks on the left can't seem to read or remember.
Unlike the 2012 campaign where no substantive issues were discussed, all of these things were debated ferociously in 2008 - it's very frustrating to see how little of this stuck in our awareness for discussion 6 years later.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 3:32am
Oh yeah, the balanced budget created by pushing through *increased taxes* against the St. Ronnie "cutting taxes spurs growth" doctrine. And he managed to keep us out of stupid wars - with Bosnia & Kosovo mostly aerial actions, rather than trillion dollar boots-on-the-ground. All sounds easy in retrospect - he was derided for not doing more against Hussein than firing some cruise missiles in, but overall, overflights and sanctions were effective in containment for a decade at a fraction of the cost of a stupid war.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 3:36am
Standard deal cutting.
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 5:54pm