127 Responses to “Heads Up: President Obama nominates Sally Jewell to head Interior Dept”

  1. February 6, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    Yeah I am first, I am soooo bored in this class am in thank god for my cure TOD 🙂

  2. 7 utaustinliberal
    February 6, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    This is my take on the Michael Tomasky article Chipsticks posted in the previous thread.

    Thank you so much for posting this Chips and thanks to Michael Tomasky for providing a clear minded take on the situation.

    War is not a joke. Drone strikes are no joke and yet the PL and emoprogs act like Pres. Obama and those in his administration sit down and pick out targets for shits and giggles. They don’t and the image being projected that they do is insulting. Drone strikes are done when we cannot send our men and women in uniform into extreme harms way. Drone strikes – as chilling as they are – are preferable than ending up with hundreds of dead soldiers whatever nationality they hail from. Drone strikes are not new. They’ve been around since 2007 and for the left to act like we are not at war is naive to say the least. War is not pretty and no one on the left has given a credible solid alternative to drone strikes.

    Tomasky points out that a president’s responsibilities are weighty and it reminded me of the memo provided to the Bush administration about the forthcoming the 9/11 attack. If something had been done to avert that before chaos and untold tragedy struck, we might be in a different place now. Alas, that’s not the case. The left sometimes likes to pretend that there aren’t depraved people out there who would kill thousands heck millions of innocent lives due to their warped beliefs and pretends that we just have to sit across a table from them and talk it out. In some cases, that might work but do they really expect a president sworn to protect his people to take that chance? If the drone program was retired and heaven forbid, another 9/11 was to occur, the left would be the first to raise hell and drag Pres. Obama’s character through the mud. They would eschew all their previous proclamations and paint him as weak, a traitor, and the enemy.

    When an individual, yes, even an American citizen consciously chooses to join a terrorist organization, move up the food chain, actively recruit and plot to brutally murder innocents like Al-Awlaki did, said citizen has in effect given up his/her rights. The left likes to pretend that if Al-Awlaki had been left alone, life would be hunky-dory, everyone could sit back and eat a donut and Al-Awlaki would just say “it’s all good everyone, I’m no longer a terrorist. I no longer want to blow the crap out of the United States.” That’s naive and simple minded thinking.

    Life isn’t always black and white and we might not all agree about all aspects of the drone program, but we sit back here innocent of the horrors Pres. Obama is briefed about everyday. We sit back here and could never comprehend how many potential 9/11′s he’s averted. We sit back here and are hopefully thankful that we have a president who does not waver in his commitment to keep us safe from harm.

    Thanks again for the post Chips. Great food for thought.

    Link for the article:


    • February 6, 2013 at 2:01 pm

      Great commentary UT. Seems so practical. Can’t understand how people just don’t reason it out.

    • 9 57andfemale
      February 6, 2013 at 2:08 pm

      There were some terrifying comments by gun nuts after Newtown that said that that loss of life was the price we pay to have the ‘freedom’ of the 2nd Amendment.

      Are the emoprogs any better when they imply that it would be worth it to let Al-Awlaki plot to do whatever he damn well pleased, because we can’t haul him in front of the local magistrate?

      I would like to see the guidelines codified and limited to a clear definition of ‘imminent threat’. We should as a nation be able to debate these things rationally but we’ve lost all ability to do that.

    • February 6, 2013 at 2:24 pm

      Thanks a million for bringing that over from the last post UT, like Japa’s comment I’m copying and pasting to read a little later, have to run in a minute but will be back in a while. Thanks UT.

    • 11 yardarm756
      February 6, 2013 at 3:52 pm

      Oh boy, you are so on point ut. There is another aspect to this that some “bleeding hearts”(left and right) have no idea about. The fact that a lot of innocent people die in conflicts/wars. It’s been particularly horrible in the wars of the 20th century. One can say that killing of innocent civilians is never justified and in some cases that would be true. However, who makes the decision about innocence? You, me or any of us enjoying a latte or athletic event, or commuter on his way to work?
      I submit that unless one has actually been in combat where they come face-to-face with an enemy that is a child that hasn’t reached his/her teens, or a woman with a baby in her arms and a hand grenade tucked in the baby diaper. Don’t talk to me about due process or innocent civilians.
      I’m certainly not proud of some of the things I had to do in combat, but I lived to talk about it. Since before WWII we have had this romantic idea that war is an honorable endeavor with Hollywood rules of engagement. It is a dirty, nasty bit of business of the highest magnitude. Find some old-timer that was a POW in the Pacific, or maybe a Filipino that witnessed Japanese occupation. The primary objective is to break the enemies will to make war……That is done by any means necessary.
      Sadly we haven’t learned that yet. Perhaps this ‘dust up’ would be clearer if we were ever occupied by a foreign nation.
      Believe me. There are some buried in Arlington and other places that mistakenly thought that the little kid or woman with a push cart were harmless………Sorry for the rant you guys. This has been stewing in my gut for awhile.

      • 12 nathkatun7
        February 6, 2013 at 5:02 pm

        Thank you so much Yardarm for bringing the reality of war to the discussion. The other reality that we must never forget are the innocent victims of terrorist attacks. While pundits have the luxury (without any responsibility) of criticizing the use of drones to attack those planning terrorists attacks, the President of United States, whose number one responsibility is to protect the safety of the people, has no such luxury.

        • 13 jacquelineoboomer
          February 6, 2013 at 5:54 pm

          Well said, nathkatun.

          • 14 nathkatun7
            February 6, 2013 at 7:37 pm

            Thanks, Jacqueline. Sometimes I wonder about the sanity of the holier than thou progressives. Are they suffering from amnesia? Do they not remember the horrors of 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, Nairobi and Tanzania, when innocent people were slaughtered by these terrorists? Again, at the end of the day, it’s not the pundits in the media who will be held responsible if terrorists slaughter hundreds and thousands of people in the U.S., or hundreds of of our men and women in uniform, because the president failed to take preventive actions. The President has to deal with the reality he is faced with and not some moot court arguments about the 4th Amendment to be applied in terrorists camps and staging grounds in places like Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

        • 16 yardarm756
          February 6, 2013 at 5:59 pm

          It is what it is. Been there;done that. Didn’t like it.

      • 19 jacquelineoboomer
        February 6, 2013 at 5:36 pm

        Oh, Yardarm, I’m just reading this. Sorry you had to write it, from both experience and judgment, but thank you – and Bravo. I was listening to one of the pundits (from his comfy chair in the good old U.S. of A.) go on and on about how we need to set up a magistrate or something or other, for each instance, so no “innocents” get hurt (and even his use of the term “innocents” sounds nameless, faceless, and definitely was not from his experience). I like that particular pundit and understand he thinks he’s saying the right thing, but he has not fought in a war, nor ever been in harm’s way, no doubt, and he definitely has never been one of the “generals on the ground,” much less their Commander in Chief, whom he was going on and on about. Again, thanks for the sanity – and reality – check for all of us.

      • 20 canadabarb4obama
        February 6, 2013 at 8:27 pm

        Thank you Yardarm. Painful memories you shared will help many of us to see things from a different perspective.

  3. February 6, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    • 23 whatisworking
      February 6, 2013 at 2:03 pm

      Yipee – that’s my Congressman. Mike Thompson from CA. A vietnam vet and a hard working guy. Love it.

    • 24 jacquelineoboomer
      February 6, 2013 at 5:38 pm

      Chris Rock rocked, and made Rep. Cummings laugh at some of his straight talk! Good for these folks who are adding some star power, for a nation that would rather hear from celebrities, anyway, than do some cognitive thinking of their own.

  4. 25 57andfemale
    February 6, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    A good comment from the Orange Satan:

    “I’ve known Sally since the early 1980’s, she is (39+ / 0-)
    a dedicated environmentalist. This is a great nomination. She has no ties to the extractive industries yet by education and experience understands the oil business. I don’t think they can bs her. Her job at the bank in Seattle in the ’80’s was to keep the bank out of troubled loans with the oil patch slicksters.”

  5. 26 Japa21
    February 6, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    Well, this actually was posted at the end of the last thread, but Chips is putting her magic fingers to work so here are my thoughts on the controversy of the day, drones and targeting American citizens.

    I have to admit that this is one of those issues that I am very conflicted on. And I think it is important that we remove PBO from the equation because in 4 years he isn’t the one who will be making these decisions.

    There are several issues that need to be taken into account. The first is legal. The Constitution is clear about the need for due process. However, it does not really specify what due process is in detail. Can the President, in conjunction with some of his advisors, be considered due process? I am not a lawyer and am not about to pretend to say that I have the answers to this one.

    The second issue is the moral equation. This is a much more difficult and hazy area because, to some degree, we are talking about relativity. We can talk all we want about the saving of American lives, which is fine, but these strikes have tremendous collateral casualties, many innocent civilians. I realize that is part of war, but are we then not saying American lives have more value than foreigners? I don’t know the answer to that.

    The third is effectiveness. And here I am talking about drone strikes in general. Are we gaining more than we are losing strategically? Again, I don;t have the answer.

    Also, I think this is a debate about technology as well as everything else. In WWII we firebombed cities, unleashed atomic weaponry which caused massive casualties. Now technology allows us to narrow the window of devastation. The negative to that is that that advance in technology also makes it easier to utilize.

    Of course, the biggest issue currently udner discussion is the one of due process, specially as related to American citizens. Tomasky makes the point about what woudl have happened in WWII. And he is, of course, correct. At the same time, there is a difference between deciding somebody can be a target and actually doing the targeting. I am sure al Awaki, for example, was determined to be a legitimate target well prior to the actually sending of the drone against him.

    I wonder is a process cannot be put into place within our legal system to at least provide evidence of a person’s involvement in an organization that is plotting aqainst our country, thus putting that person into the targetable category. Evidence can be provided not only of the person’s involvement but of the unlikelihood of actually capturing said person.

    The reason I tool PBO out of the equation at the beginning is taht I do trust him to work throughb this and make decisions that have a true legitimacy. I am not sure I can say that about others, including some Dems.

    This is not meant to be an argument for or against, but is more of an attempt to sort things through and see all sides.

    • 27 carolmaewy
      February 6, 2013 at 2:14 pm

      Did he mention that about 60 million people died in WWII? Most of those were civilians. Most starved. That was a a lot of people at the time.

    • February 6, 2013 at 2:22 pm

      Japa, I’ve copied and pasted that for reading a little later, have to run in a minute, but hugely interested on your thoughts on this. Thank you.

    • 30 jackiegrumbacher
      February 6, 2013 at 3:00 pm

      Japa, all of these considerations are very thoughtful. I’m glad you took PBO out of the equation because the likelihood exists that we would one day have a very different president making these decisions and I shudder to think what some of the loonies on the right would do if given the chance. So yes, it’s important to think about how to put a process in place that would protect the country and act as a safeguard against a drone-happy, George W-type future president (God help us).

  6. February 6, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    • 32 Joy
      February 6, 2013 at 2:25 pm

      Great stuff! I was only able to capture Tony Bennetts words and they were powerful. Hoping there will be some video on all of them speaking out. Thanks Chips!

    • 34 jacquelineoboomer
      February 6, 2013 at 5:50 pm

      Now THAT is an endorsement. Good for both of them, to become involved again at this point (as they’ve stayed involved their whole lives). That photo of RFK in the tweet kills me. I was pregnant with my son, who’ll be 44 this month, when RFK was murdered, just as Ethel Kennedy was pregnant with her youngest daughter and last child, Rory. Life goes on, obviously, but I’ll never forget waiting to hear if RFK were going to make it. He didn’t. More misery for the country, during a decade of all kinds of misery across the land because of guns. It’s time!

  7. 35 whatisworking
    February 6, 2013 at 2:06 pm

    Time for the encouraging quote of the day

    “Fall seven times, stand up eight.”

    Help me promote this video on gun violence


  8. 36 Ladyhawke
    February 6, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    Pakistan’s involvement in negotiations that could lead to an end to the indefinite war

    By Smartypants


    While most of the discussions about national security right now are focused on the recently released white paper on targeted drone killing, there was some actual news that broke this week that almost no one is paying attention to.
    This is not only important because Pakistan supported the Taliban rule in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. They have also provided a safe haven for both the Taliban and al Qaeda following their defeat there. Finally it might be Pakistan’s involvement in these negotiations that could bring the Taliban back to the table. As I’ve suggested before, a peace settlement between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Taliban at the time of our troop withdrawal could finally signal an end to this indefinite war.

    As the article above says, these talks were hosted by British Prime Minister Cameron in London. And so it should come as no surprise that the very next day Vice President Biden – one of the main proponents of this process – was in town to meet with Cameron, British military chiefs, intelligence officials and political leaders.



  9. February 6, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    What a lovely ceremony, what lovely people.

  10. February 6, 2013 at 2:22 pm

    Hi everyone, regarding the use of drones, I believe that most Americans supports this. Normally the Media takes polls of anything regarding the President. Ed and Rachell are silly to think that Americans value the life of an Alquida-American plotting to kill them over an ordinary law abiding citizen. I looke up the most recent polling on torture and was surprised to learn that most Americans support torture to fight terrorism.


    Americans just want to feel safe and we even prefer drones fighting terrorism than their children getting killed in battle.When an American joins the enemy to kill us, his fate will end like the enemy, he will be killed in combat.Period.
    The President responsibility is to protect America and Americans, from foreign and domestic enemies. Period.

    “Zegart also discovered that 25 percent of Americans would be willing to use a several-hundred-kiloton atomic bomb in order to stop the next terrorist plot. Overall, she believes, the poll numbers suggest Americans have become tougher on counterterrorism policy since Obama took control of the White House. ”
    This is extreme but is how some feel about terrorists.

    • 40 theo67
      February 6, 2013 at 2:42 pm

      I’m not sure I agree with the results of some of these polls. If you’re prepared to use a tactic against your enemy, then you also have to be prepared that they will use that tactic against you.
      1. Drones – could be used here against Americans. Minimal damage compared to facing a foreign army.
      2. Torture – damages the tortured person, as well as the person doing the torture. And would Americans be ok with their troops being tortured, if captured?
      3. Atomic bomb – as the only country that has ever dropped one of these bombs and seen the resulting damage, and realizing that there are plenty more of them around the world (including Pakistan), would Americans really be ok with their enemies using these weapons against them or their allies? If so, then why the fight against Iran?

      I’m not sure this report makes much sense, because it doesn’t present Americans as a very level-headed, compassionate or empathetic (or civilized) bunch, and reflects a selfishness that I think is not real. Most people are not prepared to do anything to stay “safe”, even if it ultimately harms them/their country in the long run. Even publishing these kind of findings puts Americans in more danger, in my opinion.

  11. 41 utaustinliberal
    February 6, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    The friendship and respect between Sec. Salazar and Pres. Obama is just a joy to watch.

  12. February 6, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    I will miss Ken Salazar. He is a lovely man, whose admiration for the President is steadfast. He has been a great steward of the land and resources.

  13. 43 ranman11
    February 6, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    Wow, that was one of the best transition I have witness in a long time. Salazar delivered some of the most heart felt appreciation of President Obama that I will always remember.

  14. 44 Judith Fardig
    February 6, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    As an REI member since 1971 and an ardent environmentalist, I LOVE it that President Obama has tapped Sally Jewell, REI CEO, to succeed Ken Salazar as Interior Secretary.

    We have to go through our Inauguration pictures today after having gotten home last night from a long visit-the-relatives on the East Coast trip. I’ll probably never catch up on TOD, but it was lovely to know you’re out there while I was off-line.

  15. 47 theo67
    February 6, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    About the boy scouts: why would anyone want to knowingly join or belong to an organization that finds it difficult to give up discriminatory practices – and plans to teach those “values” to young boys? Maybe it’s time for the country to admire a new organization that teaches open-mindedness, and focuses on teaching children things that matter – like character, integrity, honesty, respect, etc.

  16. February 6, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    I’m working on a piece for TPV on drones. Like many here, I’m conflicted, mostly because while I trust Barack Obama to manage the drone program, he won’t be President forever. But to say that we’re not in a war is the worst kind of sticking your head in the sand. Al Qaeda and its affiliates certainly consider us in a state of war. For us not to respond in kind would be national suicide. I’ll have more later.

  17. 49 Linda
    February 6, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    There is a direct link between Anwar al-Awlaki and the Fort Hood shooter…..Maj. Nidal Hasan

    Both American born terrorists….they gave up their rights as far as I am concerned.

    • 50 HZ
      February 6, 2013 at 2:53 pm

      I do not know how to bring over this, but it someone will share the speech that was made today at Georgetown University by out-going Sec. Defense, Leon Panetta on C-SPAN, please do so. Very powerful. speech by Sec. Defense Panetta. HZ

  18. 55 nospin
    February 6, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    I am not in the least bit conflicted about the use of drones. It is a heck of a lot better than putting our solders or the country in harms way. The President is not randomly taking people out and the decision to take lives whatever form is never easy.

    This issue is a non-troversy.

  19. 56 Linda
    February 6, 2013 at 3:07 pm

    Josh Marshall February 6, 2013, 2:47 PM 297

    This is an amazing development. Only a day and a half ago it seemed that Sen. Hagel’s nomination to serve as Secretary of State was basically a done deal. But now a new gambit by Sen. Cruz — the one who went full McCarthy on Hagel at the hearings — looks like it has a chance of derailing or seriously delaying the nomination. And Sen. Levin might be inclined to let him get away with it.

    The Senate Armed Services Committee was preparing to vote Hagel’s nomination to the full Senate for a vote. But Sen. Cruz has now decided to ask for the text of every speech Hagel has given over the last four years (text he appears not even to have in many cases) and records of the funding, membership and business dealings of every group or corporation he’s given a speech to.

  20. 63 Linda
    February 6, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    Sen Lindsey Graham says he would oppose a “motion to proceed” on a potential vote in the Armed Services Cmte tmrw on Hagel.

  21. 64 LB4Obama
    February 6, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    Fox News has hit a record low of trustworthiness, according to a new survey. WOOT!!!!!! First ratings in 25-54 demo at 12 year low and now this! Please God let this be the beginning of the end for FukNews!

    Public Policy Polling, deemed the most accurate polling firm for the 2012 elections, finds that only 41 percent of Americans trust Fox News while 46 percent do not — down from a 49-37 percent ranking in 2010. The news comes one week after the network hit a 12-year low in the coveted 25-54 demographic for primetime.

    The fourth annual TV News Trust poll also found that PBS is the only television news source more Americans trust than distrust. 52 percent told PPP they trust PBS, while 29 percent said they don’t trust it. The other seven outlets — NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and Comedy Central — were all distrusted by a plurality of voters.

    In keeping with past surveys, Democrats expressed trust in every network except Fox News, while Republicans said they did not trust any network other than Fox News.

    PPP surveyed 800 voters nationally from January 31st to February 3rd. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.5%.

  22. February 6, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    Here’s another take from LAWFARE which basically states that Eric Holder gave a speech on this and that the white paper does not deviate much from Holder said. I thought all this was made clear before and was confused as to why the media was treating this as some secret.
    Just Calm Down About that DOJ White Paper
    By Benjamin Wittes and Susan Hennessey
    Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 11:56 PM

    Okay, everyone, take a deep breath. Chill out. The DOJ’s “White Paper” on targeted killing is no big deal. Really.

    You wouldn’t know this from reading the somewhat breathless press coverage of the document, much of which offers a reasonable reader some confusion as to what the White Paper actually is.

    The more responsible reporters have been reasonably careful. Michael Isikoff’s original story for NBC News calls the document a “confidential Justice Department memo,” and a “confidential Justice Department ‘white paper.’” Isikoff goes one to say that, “Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.” Isikoff then says, rather more tendentiously, that the document authorizes the killing of U.S. citizens who are top operational Al Qaeda figures “even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.” This latter point is, to put it mildly, a stretch.
    But to read some of the other stories on the subject, you might think that the Obama administration had crafted and released to the Hill a “White Paper” that staked out bold new ground on killing Americans. It hasn’t. What has happened, rather, is that a document has been leaked that tracks closely previous public statements by the administration and that adds marginal flesh to those statements in some respects.

    Let’s start by clearing up what this document is and isn’t. In the wake of the Al Aulaqi strike, there were widespread calls for the release of the OLC memo proclaiming the strike legal. This produced, inside the administration, a discussion regarding what the administration could and could not release about that memo. There were, loosely speaking four possibilities: (1) say nothing, (2) give a speech, (3) release a white paper, and (4) release a redacted version of the memo itself. The interagency process being what it is, the real debate was between the second and third options. And ultimately, the speech idea prevailed. In a speech at Northwestern University last March, Attorney General Eric Holder laid out the case that the killing of a person like Al Aulaqi (though he did not address the case specifically) would be lawful under both international law and the U.S. Constitution—and that it would not violate the targeted person’s due process rights.

    Read more here: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/02/just-calm-down-about-that-doj-white-paper/

    • 68 utaustinliberal
      February 6, 2013 at 4:36 pm

      Thank you so much for this. It’s always nice to read in depth comprehensive coverage of issues without the media’s manufactured poutrage.

  23. February 6, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    Hiya everyone, don’t forget: just short extracts from posts/articles (depends on length of article, but usually 2 or 3 paragraphs is okay), with the link underneath – otherwise there’s no need to go to the source site, which isn’t fair.

    Thank you! Back in a while.

  24. 72 Japa21
    February 6, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    Good read on some of the lies bout Obamacare and resulting premiums.


  25. February 6, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    The last time there was a dust up about drones, I used to hear bloggers/pundits say President Obama basically has the right to kill any US citizen for having a different opinion. This is complete bullshit of course and they don’t help their case by dumbing down the issue. What I noticed recently is that they don’t sound any different from Ann Coulter who said gun registration will lead to confiscation and extermination. Its just flat out false. Its fear mongering and it really turns off a lot people. Alawki didn’t just have an opinion. He joined a terrorist group that murdered Americans and many more Muslims. And they intend to keep doing it. Talk to us like adults. The topic is scary enough.

  26. 74 sabreen60
    February 6, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    As Stephanie Miller says of herself, I too am pretty much a “happy clappy liberal”. I am not a hawk or a chicken hawk, but I am NOT a pacifist. I do NOT have a problem with drones. It seems to me we have 3 options. Drones, boots on the ground, or cower under the bed and pretend the rest of the world is “happy clappy”. That said, I would like to see some policy/process that ensures that Presidents cannot make the decision to use drones without some oversight – unless there is some immediate threat to Americans abroad.

    • 75 jackiegrumbacher
      February 6, 2013 at 4:58 pm

      Sabreen, it’s amazing how refreshing common sense sounds, isn’t it? We hear it so seldom, it sounds profoundly wise, even if it’s just really sensible. Good for Stephanie Miller.

      • 76 sabreen60
        February 6, 2013 at 5:07 pm

        😀 Actually what came from Stephanie is the “happy clappy liberal”. The rest is my take. Although, I think Stephanie would agree with me even though she sounded a little conflicted

    • 77 prettyfoot58
      February 6, 2013 at 5:13 pm

      Congressional Oversight ..hmmmm……..from a bunch of folks who don’t believe in science…who want to dismantle and impede a woman’s right to choose…who believe that a woman cannot get pregnant if she is raped because she has special powers/…..who to take away the right to vote for certain populations of Americans…who want to strip workers of their rights….and the list goes on…and on

      and who now will Filibuster…for the first time in history…a President’s Cabinet choice…

      These are the people who would have oversight….

      • 78 Betsy
        February 6, 2013 at 5:57 pm

        Thanks Harry Reid, for trusting that Republicans would keep their word on anything in the Senate.

      • 79 sabreen60
        February 6, 2013 at 6:33 pm

        It is a dilemma. However, every President is not going to be as rational or trustworthy as President Obama. So then what?

  27. 80 Alycee (@jazziz2)
    February 6, 2013 at 4:32 pm

  28. February 6, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    Rubio to give response to SOTU???
    Every three words will be…, it’s Obamas fault!
    We already know the Republicans feel good non policy Rhetoric! Blame The President.
    Ain’t nobody going to listen to his jibberish.
    He said today that same sex rights for immigration reform will be the sticking point
    Well, their you have it. They don’t compromise on jack shit!

    • 83 carolyn
      February 6, 2013 at 4:46 pm

      Remember Bobby Jindal’s much touted response to President Obama’s first SOTU? That was pathetic, and everyone knew it. Marco Rubio is no stronger than Jindal, and I assume his “response” sill be just as lame. They never can anticipate what the president says, so their responses are always off track. Republicans always pick who they think is the new golden boy. This is a sure way to wreck Rubio for years.

    • 84 jackiegrumbacher
      February 6, 2013 at 4:55 pm

      Yesterday I was meeting with group of Latinos to plan our Spring workshop and the collective response to Rubio was
      a big guffaw. They actually thought it was funny that Rubio would think he could speak for them. The Castro brothers, on the other hand, evoke enormous pride. Would like to see Julian Castro as Governor and his brother as Senator.

    • February 6, 2013 at 4:57 pm

      That’s the kiss of death for Rubio. Rule #1 – You never follow PBO’s SOTU address. So far, ALL the GOP politicians who have rebutted PBO after major speeches have simply faded.

      • February 6, 2013 at 5:14 pm

        I agree, hopefruit – let’s keep our fingers crossed that he falls on his face. How he has rocketed to the top of the garbage pile that is the GOP is beyond me – what has he done yet, except speak Koch Brothers words practically verbatim.

    • 87 lamh36
      February 6, 2013 at 5:03 pm

      I hear he’s gonna do it in English and Spanish. I assume the Spanish version will be shone on Spanish television channels?

      • 88 theo67
        February 6, 2013 at 6:27 pm

        He’s going to do the rebuttal in Spanish while demanding that anyone wanting to be a US citizen learn to speak English. Sounds like pandering, to me.

  29. 89 utaustinliberal
    February 6, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    Thanks GoBrooklyn!

  30. 90 Linda
    February 6, 2013 at 4:50 pm

    That Kristen Welker person on MSNBC that covers the WH gets on my nerves….she never fails to give a dig to PBO. She just made a comment about him going to Israel FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HIS PRESIDENCY and said he has been criticized for that..

    Reagan NEVER went and Bush went ONCE in his final year in office…….

  31. 92 utaustinliberal
    February 6, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    I believe it’s because of Ted Cruz.

    • 93 anniebella
      February 6, 2013 at 4:55 pm

      Do you remember the Democratic Governor of Mass, saying the Democrats need to get some backbone. Now what is the reason for this delay and why hay Levin allow it/

      • 94 jackiegrumbacher
        February 6, 2013 at 5:01 pm

        AB, I suspect Levin is going to get a call or two from the White House this evening. PBO is meeting with the Dem caucus this week and I would not be surprised if he is giving them an earful about all his appointments.

  32. 95 carolyn
    February 6, 2013 at 4:52 pm

    Watched the entire ceremonial swearing in of Secretary Kerry. I am so glad to see him getting his due…..finally! I loved it when VP Biden said he was glad to stand by John Kerry now, but really wanted to stand by him when he was sworn in as President. He also said the world would be a much different (better) place if John Kerry had been elected. That is so true. We would have been out of Iraq sooner, and Katrina would not have been the debacle it was. The only problem would have been John Edwards, who has not proven to be a person of integrity like Kerry, Biden and Obama.
    I’m very glad John Kerry is SOS.

  33. February 6, 2013 at 4:58 pm

  34. 103 utaustinliberal
    February 6, 2013 at 5:10 pm

    According to my twitter timeline, Matthews is actually being reasonable about the White Paper on drones and asking liberals to provide a credible working alternative to drones. Do you send in soldiers to die? Do you send in innocent civilians to die? Do you sit back and do nothing and allow another 9/11 to occur? What do you do?

    I’m pleasantly surprised.

    • February 6, 2013 at 5:21 pm

      And Eugene Robinson is umm umm ah ah umm ah eh ah umm umm just mortified!

      • 105 Linda
        February 6, 2013 at 5:22 pm

        I mute Robinson….that stutter is just to much..it is like he is afraid to take a stand on anything

        • 106 lisalovesobama
          February 6, 2013 at 5:35 pm

          I wasn’t watching, but the memory for his speech pattern is horrible. WTF? If part of your job is going on tv to run your fool mouth, why not go to a speech pathologist to improve the ways in which you communicate? I don’t have time for his crap. It’s like his brain and mind are out of sync, his brain is a going 60 miles an hour north and his mouth is at 20 miles an hour going south. 🙄 Please, with all the money he’s making, go to a speech pathologist for piss’ sake!!!

          • 107 Vicki
            February 6, 2013 at 6:26 pm

            I politely beg to differ. Eugene Robinson is measured and temperate. Granted not a silver-tongued orator but a valuable voice, nevertheless.

            He is a journalist not a partisan opinionator. What can i say—I like him.

            • 108 jacquelineoboomer
              February 6, 2013 at 6:30 pm

              I like him, too. His real skill is writing … and he’s damn good at it. If he’s able to get a word in, during a conversation where he’s not being interrupted constantly, his verbal skills are as good as anybody else’s, IMHO. You are right about his being measured, which is sometimes a novelty among the pundits!

            • 109 lisalovesobama
              February 6, 2013 at 6:48 pm

              PBO is measured and temperate. Robinson has a speech problem. He stutters all over himself and somehow, the message gets lost in his disjointed speech patterns. there is nothing wrong with having speech impediments or speech difficulties. that’s why speech pathologists go to school, risk tens of thousands in school loans…… so people like Eugene can improve how they speak, especially if he’s going to be a talking head. I spend most of my time muting him when he talks, so do other people. how does that benefit me as a listener or him as the speaker?

    • February 6, 2013 at 5:22 pm

      I’m not watching, but this is good to hear. Person could get whip-lash from CM though. 🙂 Never know what he’s going to say.

    • 111 nathkatun7
      February 6, 2013 at 8:10 pm

      Sometimes Matthews makes a great deal of sense. It’s just that he is so inconsistent and tends to be so excitable on insignificant issues. But those questions he posed are the right questions, which have not been answered by all the drone critics. Guess what, if, God forbid, there was a terrorist attack in America, carried out under the leadership of Al Qaeda Americans, President Obama would get nowhere by saying that he was trying to protect the Constitutional rights of Americans, and that’s why he didn’t act to prevent them from attacking us, although he had information and knew what they were up to! I bet you some of these “holier than thou liberals,” especially if they lost loved ones, would be the first in line to attack him for dereliction of duty.

      Until the critics of drones can come up with a practical alternative method of how to guarantee the safety of innocent Americans while preserving the so called Constitutional and human rights of terrorists, who are intent on massively killing innocent people, I will pay them no serious attention.

      UT, thank you for your wise and sensible commentaries on this and other issues.

  35. 113 vitaminlover
    February 6, 2013 at 5:22 pm

    Why does Tweety talk to Joe Scarfbro?

  36. 115 dotster3
    February 6, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    And on and on it goes—-here, there, everywhere——for decades and decades….

    • 116 Roberta in MN
      February 6, 2013 at 5:29 pm

      I don’t think this is going to stop. Even the current Pope was involved in the coverup.

      • 117 prettyfoot58
        February 6, 2013 at 5:35 pm

        I don’t think it is going to stop…till the Catholic Faithful demand that it stops….
        i don’t thik it will stop until the Catholic Faithful hold the Catholic Hierarchy accountable…
        I don’t think it will stop till the priests and nuns and parishers demand JUSTICE…

  37. February 6, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    CBC is demanding, demanding that the President make Clyburn the DOT Sec. And while I like Clyburn, who does the CBC think they are?

    • 119 prettyfoot58
      February 6, 2013 at 5:38 pm

      making Clyburn a Cabinet member? DOT?….i have never heard him speak on this….what is this about…the last i heard is that he wanted to be Minority Leader in the House….of course Pelosi got that position..

    • 120 lisalovesobama
      February 6, 2013 at 5:44 pm

      the what? what is DOT? and why do the CBC think they have any say in PBO’s appointments? More importantly, why in heaven’s name do they think PBO gives a shit what they think or demand?

    • 123 Nena20409
      February 6, 2013 at 6:14 pm

      I say No. In SC….pardon me, what has Clyburn done for the Folks down there? He was there while, Greene, was somehow funneled $10K by DeMint…..My take… in 2010 to win the senate seat again.

      Clyburn has a daughter in the Gov’t….appointed to FCC or the FEC.

      Sorry anyone from SC…..Clyburn and Folks like him are there for themselves…..not for the masses. I say, No, no, no.

    • 124 theo67
      February 6, 2013 at 6:22 pm

      What has the CBC done to support this President? The only time we seem to hear from them is when they’re whoring for TV time by dragging the President’s name into the mud.

    • 125 jacquelineoboomer
      February 6, 2013 at 6:24 pm

      Is this a rumor? Doesn’t sound like something Rep. Clyburn would want put forth on his behalf.

  38. February 6, 2013 at 5:41 pm

    Ok, as promised, here’s my new piece on TPV:

Comments are currently closed.







Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.



RSS Obama White House.gov

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS WH Tumblr

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Steve Benen

  • Joe: Sometimes grown ups are in charge in D.C. and things get done
  • James Comey: Trump poses a near-existential threat to the rule of law
  • 'A win for all Americans': Head of National Economic Council praises debt agreement
  • Head of conservative think tank makes 'bizarre and dangerous' comments about FBI
  • House member looks for debt ceiling bill to 'cross the finish line' this week
  • As president, DeSantis said he would 'destroy leftism' and 'woke ideology'
  • 9 people, including 3 children, injured in shooting near Florida beach
  • Biden pays respects to the fallen; Trump compares himself to fallen troops
  • Vets from different wars bond over fly-fishing in 'Mending the Line'
  • Outlines of a deal in Washington are starting to emerge



Blog Stats

  • 43,364,389 hits
February 2013

%d bloggers like this: