Tag Archives: graham

How are Republicans dealing with Green New Deal enthusiasm? As well as you’d expect.

Subscribe to The Beacon

This post has been updated to include Senator Klobuchar’s endorsement of the Green New Deal.

Congressional Republicans don’t have a plan to tackle climate change — an issue voters across the political spectrum now agree needs to be addressed — but it only took a weekend for the GOP to come up with a response to the Green New Deal proposed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey.

Surprise! The right is not a fan of the proposal, which calls for rapid decarbonization of the economy alongside other agenda items like universal healthcare, housing, and a federal jobs guarantee. Already, more than 15 percent of the House — 68 members — have signed on as sponsors of the deal. Supporters include five high-profile presidential contenders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and, most recently, Amy Klobuchar.

Always free, always fresh.

Ask your climate scientist if Grist is right for you. See our privacy policy

Republicans, banking on the hope that backing such an ambitious proposal will come back to bite Democrats during the presidential election next year, unleashed a torrent of backhanded encouragement.

“It would be great for the so-called ‘Carbon Footprint’ to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military – even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!,” President Trump tweeted on Saturday. Eliminating airplanes and oil and gas would be great for our carbon footprint, but the resolution doesn’t actually call for an end to fossil fuels.

“I would like them to push it as far as they can. I’d like to see it on the floor. I’d like to see them actually have to vote on it,” Idaho Republican Representative Mike Simpson told Politico, adding, “It’s crazy. It’s loony.” South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham tweeted on Friday, “Let’s vote on the Green New Deal!”

Other Republicans took a more straightforward approach. Wyoming Republican and Environment Chair John Barrasso called the deal a “socialist manifesto.” “I think everyone on our side would say that the Green New Deal is a little bit much,” Michigan Representative Fred Upton told journalists.

Clearly, Republicans are a bit skeptical of the goals outlined in AOC and Markey’s resolution. But I think the Democrats pushing the deal would agree with Senator Graham: “Let’s vote on the Green New Deal!”

Jump to original: 

How are Republicans dealing with Green New Deal enthusiasm? As well as you’d expect.

Posted in Accent, alo, Anchor, Casio, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, OXO, Radius, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How are Republicans dealing with Green New Deal enthusiasm? As well as you’d expect.

Spicer Suggests Tighter Voting Restrictions as Solution to Nonexistent Voter Fraud

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hours after President Donald Trump tweeted that he’d launch a “major investigation” into massive voter fraud, of which there’s no evidence, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday laid out a few details of what such an investigation might look like.

As reporters and experts immediately pointed out, Trump’s belief that 3 million to 5 million people voted illegally in November is at odds with what his own lawyers said in court when they challenged the recount petitions of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. “All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake,” Trump’s legal team argued in a brief.

But on Wednesday, Spicer claimed that the legal team had actually only been discussing the three states where Stein pushed for recounts, not the entire country. “I think there’s a lot of states that we didn’t compete in where that’s not necessarily the case,” he said, mentioning California and New York. “I think that if you look at where a lot of potential—a lot of these issues could have occurred in bigger states. That’s where I think we’re going to look.”

Spicer also floated the idea that voter ID laws, which serve to suppress voter participation among minorities, young people, and the elderly, could be a solution to problems the investigation may find.

Spicer’s comments led reporters and other observers to question why a massive voter fraud scheme would be carried out in reliably blue states, instead of swing states where the election is decided.

It’s not just Trump’s legal team that sees no evidence of fraud. Secretaries of state, governors, and even Republican members of Congress have come forward to say they have no evidence to back up Trump’s allegations. On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that Trump’s voter fraud claims will “erode his ability to govern this country if he does not stop it” and urged him to “knock this off.”

If Wednesday is any indication, Trump is not taking Graham’s advice.

This article – 

Spicer Suggests Tighter Voting Restrictions as Solution to Nonexistent Voter Fraud

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Spicer Suggests Tighter Voting Restrictions as Solution to Nonexistent Voter Fraud

At Russian Hacking Hearing, Most Republican Senators Express No Outrage

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

At Thursday morning’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing about Russian hacking during the 2016 elections, little new information was revealed about Moscow’s meddling in the presidential campaign. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper did say that the intelligence community’s review ordered by President Barack Obama of the Russian operation will be done early next week and will yield an unclassified report for public release. “I intend to push the envelope as much as I can,” Clapper said, referring to information the report will make public.

Clapper also noted that the intelligence community is now more “resolute” in its assessment that Russian intelligence was behind the cyber thefts and subsequent public dissemination of emails from the Democratic Party and John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He also testified that the public report will include an assessment of Moscow’s motives behind this operation—the CIA concluded weeks ago that the motive was to boost Donald Trump’s prospects—and that there was “actually more than one motive.”

Though the hearing did not expand public knowledge of the Russian hack, it did serve a political purpose: to slap Trump for both his refusal to acknowledge Russian involvement in the hacking and his related disparagement of the intelligence community. Several senators seized the opportunity to challenge the president-elect’s denialism and to send him a message. Some referred to him directly; some took veiled—though barely veiled—shots. Opening the hearing, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the committee’s chairman, said there was “still much we don’t know…But Russian intrusions in the election…are not in any doubt.” And Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the senior Democrat on the committee, scoffed at the “indifference of some to this matter” and asked Clapper if the hacking was a stand-alone Russian operation. (Clapper replied, “This was a multifaceted campaign. The hacking was only one part of it. It also entailed classical propaganda, disinformation, fake news.”)

Other Democratic senators also banged on Trump. Sen. Claire McCaskill thanked McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another member of the committee, for defending the intelligence community against Trump’s insults. And referring to Trump’s approving tweets about WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange—Trump indicated he believed Assange was more credible that US intelligence—McCaskill thundered that Trump placing “Julian Assange on a pedestal” relative to the men and women of the US intelligence community ought to cause bipartisan outrage. Pointing to widespread Republican silence on this front, she added, “Mark my word, if the roles were reversed, there would be howls from the Republican side of the aisle.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) later chimed in that Trump’s “disparagement” of the intelligence community “has been a terrible disservice to our nation…I hope that we will see a change.”

Graham also scolded Trump. “It’s okay to challenge the intel,” he said, adding, “but what I don’t want you to do is undermine” the intelligence community. Noting that Clapper was due to brief Trump on Friday on Russian hacking and other intelligence matters, Graham asked the nation’s top intelligence officer if he was ready to be challenged by the president-elect. “Yes,” Clapper replied.

Other than McCain and Graham, the Republican members of the committee shied away from referring to Trump or even the main matter at hand: the Russian hacking. Many asked about other cyber threats and attacks, such as the Chinese hack that penetrated the US government’s personnel system. It was just too awkward or politically incorrect for them to question Clapper and the other witnesses about the Moscow operation and Putin’s intentions. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) even tried to undermine the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia intended to help Trump. “There’s a widespread assumption—this has been expressed by Secretary Clinton herself since the election—that Vladimir Putin favored Donald Trump in this election,” Cotton said. “Donald Trump has proposed to increase our defense budget, to accelerate nuclear modernization, to accelerate ballistic defenses, and to expand and accelerate oil and gas production, which would obviously harm Russia’s economy. Hillary Clinton opposed, or at least was not as enthusiastic about all those measures.” Cotton asked Clapper, “Would each of those put the United States in a stronger strategic position against Russia?” Clapper said that “anything we do to enhance our military capabilities, absolutely.” Then Cotton made his point: “So there is some contrary evidence, despite what the media speculates, that perhaps Donald Trump is not the best candidate for Russia.” He was suggesting that because Trump’s campaign platform had a hawkish military plank, the intelligence community’s assessment was wrong and that Trump was not Putin’s preferred candidate. Clapper did not respond to this argument.

And Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) won the blame-America-first-to-protect-Trump prize. He tried to diminish the Russian hacking that profited Trump by pointing out that the United States, too, has tried to influence elections overseas:

The glass house comment is something I think is very important. There was a study by a professor up at Carnegie Mellon that’s estimated that the United States has been involved in one way or another in 81 different elections since World War II. That doesn’t include coups or regime changes, so tangible evidence where we’ve tried to effect an outcome to our purpose. Russia’s done it some 36 times. In fact, when Russia was apparently trying to influence our election, we had the Israelis accusing us of trying to influence their election. So I’m not here to talk about that, but I am here to say that we live in a big glass house and there are a lot of rocks to throw and I think that that’s consistent with what you said on other matters.

Actually, Tillis was indeed here to talk about this in order to not talk about how Russian intelligence subverted an American election and aided Trump.

Toward the end of the hearing, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Clinton’s running mate, took a seat on the dais. When it was his turn to question the witnesses, he noted that a few years ago he was chairman of the Democratic Party and that the party’s office contained a filing cabinet that had been rifled during the Watergate break-in. That burglary, he noted, led to a “high moment” for Congress, when the House and the Senate conducted bipartisan investigations that sought to protect the integrity of American elections. Referring to the Russian hacking, Kaine said, “This is a test of this body.” He wondered if the current Congress would act in a bipartisan fashion to preserve the “integrity of elections.” Judging from the ho-hum attitude of most Republicans on the panel toward the Russian intervention, Kaine may end up being disappointed.

View this article – 

At Russian Hacking Hearing, Most Republican Senators Express No Outrage

Posted in alo, Cyber, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on At Russian Hacking Hearing, Most Republican Senators Express No Outrage

Donald Trump’s 47 Percent Moment

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last week, Mitt Romney, the twice-failed GOP presidential candidate, delivered a speech that blasted Donald Trump, the current Republican front-runner, calling the tycoon “a phony, a fraud” and citing Trump’s “dishonesty” and his “bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third-grade theatrics.” It was a clear move on Romney’s part to rally the GOP establishment against the celebrity real estate mogul whose endorsement he warmly embraced during the 2012 campaign. Naturally, Trump responded in kind. Within hours, at a campaign rally in Portland, Maine, he lashed out at Romney.

Trump noted that Romney had “failed horribly” four years ago. He claimed that Romney had begged Trump to endorse him in that race: “I could have said, ‘Mitt, drop to your knees.’ He would have dropped to his knees.” His audience roared with laughter. And Trump went on:

It was a campaign that should have never been lost. You’re running against a failed president. He came up with the 47 percent. He demeaned 47 percent of the people in our country, right? The famous 47 percent. Once that was said, I’ll be honest, once that was said, a lot of people thought it was over for him.

On Monday, after Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) assailed him, Trump returned to this line of attack, tweeting, “Lindsey Graham is all over T.V., much like failed 47% candidate Mitt Romney. These nasty, angry, jealous failures have ZERO credibility!”

In Trump’s view, Romney lost partly due to the infamous remarks, reported by Mother Jones, in which Romney said at a private fundraiser that 47 percent of Americans “believe that they are victims…that government has a responsibility to care for them…that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.” Romney noted that these people do not pay income taxes and do not “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” His comments indicted nearly half of the nation as moochers and freeloaders who do not contribute to society.

For Trump, that insult helped doom Romney’s campaign. But last year, Trump voiced a strikingly similar sentiment. During a June 2015 one-on-one interview on Fox News, host Sean Hannity asked Trump if he, as president, could get 50 million Americans out of poverty. Of course, Trump said, and he added:

I would create incentives for people to work. People don’t have an incentive. They make more money by sitting there doing nothing than they make if they have a job. We have to create incentives that they actually do much better by working. Right now they have a disincentive. They have an incentive not to work.

This was a routine conservative contention: Assistance programs cause people not to work. And Hannity pressed Trump: Would he insist that recipients of food stamps, welfare, and other government assistance “have to work for it?” Trump replied that this could be necessary, and he remarked that Bill Clinton had pushed such a approach with welfare reform. Then Trump made a broader point:

The problem we have right now—we have a society that sits back and says we don’t have to do anything. Eventually, the 50 percent cannot carry—and it’s unfair to them—but cannot carry the other 50 percent.

So one half of the nation is carrying the other half, and the attitude of those in the latter half is, “we don’t have to do anything.” This is darn close to Romney’s 47 percent analysis, but 3 percentage points greater. Trump was depicting 50 percent of Americans as people seeking a free ride.

Both Romney’s and Trump’s comments hail back to a right-wing talking point—this is a country of takers and makers—that distorts actual statistics. In 2011, 46.4 percent of US households did not pay federal income taxes. (The number was higher that year than the usual 40 percent or so, due to the recession that hit during the Bush-Cheney years.) This is the stat that Romney had obviously had in mind. The problem comes—the demeaning, as Trump would put it—when folks who do not pay income taxes are equated with lazy ne’er-do-wells merely angling for a handout. That’s not what the numbers show. In 2011, 60 percent of those who didn’t pay income taxes did pay taxes for Social Security and Medicare. These people essentially did not make enough money to qualify for the income tax. Another 22 percent of the people who didn’t pay income taxes were retirees. Only 8 percent of US households paid no federal taxes at all. According to a Washington Post analysis, that was “usually because they’re either unemployed or on disability or students or are very poor.”

So many of the those who didn’t pay income taxes are working and paying some form of tax, and many others within this group—pensioners and poor people—shouldn’t be expected to pay income taxes. These people are not shirkers who say, “We don’t have to do anything.”

But Trump, like Romney, seems to believe the country is indeed equally split between strivers and loafers. And last year Trump had no reluctance in demeaning 50 percent, not 47 percent.

His comment, not surprisingly, didn’t cause a stir. He’s been spraying a fire hose of outrageous remarks since he entered the presidential race, and this one got lost in the wash. It’s also a statement fully in sync with his arrogant schtick that divides the world into winners and losers. Though he’s now blasting Romney for the original 47 percent insult to Americans, Trump, too, apparently views many Americans as parasites. The only difference is that his estimate is higher.

Visit site: 

Donald Trump’s 47 Percent Moment

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump’s 47 Percent Moment

Republican Candidates Demand Opening and Closing Statements at Next Debate

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From Alex Isenstadt’s Politico account of a leaked RNC conference call that ended in chaos:

Ken McKay, Chris Christie’s campaign manager, expressed worry about stating his position on an open conference call line, saying that it could expose his campaign to leaks.

I would expect the Christie campaign to understand the need for operational secrecy pretty well, and sure enough, they were apparently the only ones to think about this. And they were right: the entire conversation was immediately leaked.

But here’s the best part: the chaos was over the pressing question of whether candidates would be allowed to give opening and closing statements at the next Republican debate. Seriously. CNBC wants to ditch them, for obvious reasons I think. But the candidates are fuming over this brazen display of disrespect toward their God-given right to give mini-stump speeches on national TV. Rand Paul’s representative put it the most pungently: “If we don’t have opening and closing statements, CNBC can go fuck themselves.”

Trump and Carson later sent a letter to CNBC promising to boycott the debate unless opening and closing statements were allowed.1 The others didn’t go that far, but in a display of their shaky grasp of what what the TV-watching public wants, they did all agree on the crucial need for the viewing audience to hear 30 minutes of tedious speechifying from their own silver tongues. However, that doesn’t mean there was a completely united front on this issue:

Christian Ferry, a representative for Lindsey Graham, who’s been relegated to undercard debates, chimed in. If any of the top-polling candidates didn’t want to participate in the Colorado debate, Graham would gladly take their place.

Atta boy, Lindsey!

1They also want assurances that the debate won’t go longer than two hours. This just goes to show that Trump and Carson can occasionally be right about something.

Visit link: 

Republican Candidates Demand Opening and Closing Statements at Next Debate

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republican Candidates Demand Opening and Closing Statements at Next Debate

Donald Trump Gave Out a Senator’s Cell Phone Number. So He Doused the Phone With Lighter Fluid and Torched It.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Lindsey Graham learned the hard way on that you never give your phone number to a petty billionaire. But even though Donald Trump’s public read-out of Graham’s cell phone number to the entire country on Tuesday led to a slew of random calls, the Republican senator from South Carolina is responding with a sense of humor.

First he joked on Twitter that he needed a new phone thanks to the flood of calls, asking his Twitter followers on Tuesday afternoon what kind he should get.

Now Graham is trolling Trump in a video for IJReview, a conservative news site. Using fire, a toaster oven, a golf club, a cleaver, and other fun but totally unnecessary methods, he destroys a bunch of flip phones—and one unfortunate blender. “Or if all else fails, you can always give your number to The Donald,” Graham says in closing, before hurling one last phone off screen “for the veterans,” a dig at Trump’s attack on Sen. John McCain’s time as prisoner of war.

Someone may eventually want to tell Graham this isn’t actually how phone numbers work, but we’ll take the videos for now.

See original article here:

Donald Trump Gave Out a Senator’s Cell Phone Number. So He Doused the Phone With Lighter Fluid and Torched It.

Posted in Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, toaster oven, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Gave Out a Senator’s Cell Phone Number. So He Doused the Phone With Lighter Fluid and Torched It.

South Carolina’s Gov. Finally Calls for Removing the Confederate Flag From the State Capitol Grounds

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Following days of mounting pressure, Gov. Nikki Haley just announced her support for removing the Confederate flag from the grounds of the state capitol.

“It’s time to move the flag from the capitol grounds,” Haley told reporters at a press conference, where senators Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham were also present, on Monday.

“Some divisions are bigger than a flag. We are not going to allow this symbol to divide us any longer. The fact that people are choosing to use it as a sign of hate is something we cannot stand,” she added.

The flag has been the subject of controversy in the past, including in 2000 when large protests opposing its presence took place in Columbia, the state’s capitol. The issue resurfaced, creating national headlines, after the mass shooting inside a historic black church in Charleston. This weekend, a racist online manifesto apparently belonging to the suspected gunman, Dylann Roof, which included images of him posing with the flag, one in which he had a gun in his hand, surfaced.

Following the shooting, a slew of Republican presidential candidates—some of whom shied away from directly stating Roof had racist motives—have been asked about their stances on the Confederate flag. Although he condemned the shooting as an “evil act of aggression,” former Florida governor Jeb Bush ultimately said he did not know what was “mind or the heart of the man” behind it, despite the obvious racist symbolism Roof appeared to embrace. After once defending the flag as a “part of who we are,” Graham joined Haley on Monday in backtracking his longstanding support of the Confederate flag.

See the original post: 

South Carolina’s Gov. Finally Calls for Removing the Confederate Flag From the State Capitol Grounds

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Green Light, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on South Carolina’s Gov. Finally Calls for Removing the Confederate Flag From the State Capitol Grounds

Attention Sunday Shows: Here Are 5 Republicans Who Won’t Lie to Your Viewers About Climate Change

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Wednesday, I wrote about a new Media Matters for America study that shines a light on a big problem with how TV news shows cover climate change. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are warming the planet, but Media Matters found that the highly influential Sunday morning talk shows often feature misleading talking points from global warming skeptics. Frequently, these segments turn into bizarre debates between those who accept science and those who reject it.

On NBC’s Meet the Press, for example, almost two-thirds of the climate coverage last year included “false balance,” according to Media Matters. Fox News Sunday and ABC’s This Week had similar problems:

The Media Matters study drew the attention of Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). In a press release, he slammed the news networks for misleading viewers “by framing the facts of climate change as a ‘debate.'” He urged them “to stop creating a false debate about the reality of climate change and engage in the real debate about how we can solve it.”

This presents something of a dilemma for the Sunday shows. Interviewing elected officials from both sides of the aisle is a big part of the reason these programs exist in the first place; they can’t host a debate about climate policy and invite only Democrats. At the same time, however, global warming denial is so ingrained on the right that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find Republicans who can talk about the issue without misinforming viewers. The Media Matters report cites a couple examples of this: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) saying on Meet the Press that there’s no scientific consensus on climate change, and North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) saying on This Week that “the big debate is how much of it is manmade and how much it will just naturally happen as Earth evolves.”

Fortunately—thanks to Schatz—TV bookers now have a handy list of GOP senators who acknowledge the scientific facts surrounding climate change and who, presumably, can participate in an intelligent discussion of what should actually be done about the problem. Last week, Schatz introduced legislation declaring it the “sense of Congress” that climate change is real and that human activity contributes significantly to it. Five Republicans voted in favor of Schatz’s amendment: Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Mark Kirk (Ill.). The other 49 voted no.

There’s plenty of room for disagreement on policy matters, of course. Alexander and Graham, for example, have called on the Obama administration to withdraw its proposed greenhouse gas emissions rules, the centerpiece of the president’s climate plan. But if the networks are looking for Republicans who can speak accurately about the science, at least now they know where to find them.

(Disclosure: I used to work at Media Matters.)

More here: 

Attention Sunday Shows: Here Are 5 Republicans Who Won’t Lie to Your Viewers About Climate Change

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Attention Sunday Shows: Here Are 5 Republicans Who Won’t Lie to Your Viewers About Climate Change

Lindsey Graham Lays Down a Terrorism Marker

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Lindsey Graham says that if we don’t attack “ISIS, ISIL, whatever you guys want to call it”—and attack them right now—they’ll be attacking us on American soil before long. “This is about our homeland,” he said yesterday. Steve Benen correctly interprets Graham’s remarks:

In this case, Graham seems to be laying down a marker: if members of the Islamic State, at some point in the future, execute some kind of terror strike on Americans, Lindsey Graham wants us to blame President Obama — because the president didn’t stick to the playbook written by hawks and neocons.

I don’t think anyone is actively hoping for a terrorist attack on American soil. Just as I don’t think anyone was actively hoping to keep the American economy in ruins back in 2009. Still, these are cases where ideology and politics line up nicely: if something bad does happen, Republicans want to lay down a marker making sure that everyone knows whose fault it is.

Sometimes this doesn’t work: Republicans confidently predicted doom in 1993 when Bill Clinton raised taxes, for example. But wrong predictions are quickly forgotten. Occasionally, however, predictions are right, and then they can be milked forever. When Ronald Reagan insisted that tax cuts would supercharge the economy, and the economy then dutifully improved, his reputation was cemented forever—even though tax cuts played only a modest role in the economic recovery of the 80s.

Another major terrorist attack on the American homeland is bound to happen sometime. Who knows? It might even happen within the next year. And make no mistake: if it does happen, Lindsey Graham wants to make sure you know who to blame. If it doesn’t happen, well—look! Gay climate Obamacare!

Link: 

Lindsey Graham Lays Down a Terrorism Marker

Posted in Casio, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Lindsey Graham Lays Down a Terrorism Marker

Anti-Keystone ads banned by Facebook

Anti-Keystone ads banned by Facebook

CREDO Facebook page

The ad that Facebook banned.

Activist cell-phone company CREDO tried to run an advertisement on Facebook calling on Facebook’s founder to stop running TV ads that support the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

Guess whether the social media giant liked that idea.

Facebook quickly rejected the ad, saying it violated its advertising policies.

We told you last week about FWD.US, a political group cofounded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to push for immigration reform. One of the group’s subsidiaries is running an ad praising Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in which Graham voices his support for Keystone XL and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, along with his opposition to “ObamaCare.” The ad is apparently attempting to bolster the lawmaker’s support among conservatives, which is jeopardized by his support of immigration reform. An ad financed by another FWD.US subsidiary supports Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), praising him for pursuing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But Facebook does not want its billion or so users hearing from its opponents on this issue.

From The Washington Post:

The ad was rejected when CREDO tried to post it to the social network. According to an e-mail the company received from Facebook, the ad violates Facebook policies because it uses Zuckerberg’s image.

Facebook policies do state that it will reject ads that contain Facebook logos, icons or trademarked images in a way that falls outside of its usage guidelines or if the advertisements incorrectly imply the social network has given its “partnership, sponsorship or endorsement” to the ad.

In a statement, Facebook said it generally rejects “ads that contain Mark’s image because — not surprisingly — in our experience those ads tend to be confusing for users, and frequently misleading. Users may click on the ad thinking it is a message from Mark or from Facebook, not understanding that they are actually in an advertisement seeking to take advantage of Mark’s image.”

CREDO isn’t the only group taking to Facebook to object to the Graham and Begich ads. From Politico:

The Sierra Club is taking a similar approach. The environmental group encouraged its members Monday to share a note that says, “Zuckerberg promoting dirty fuels? DISLIKE.”

The critics say they are infuriated that a group backed by Zuckerberg and green-minded venture capitalists like John Doerr could be supporting ads that tout oil drilling.

Meanwhile, Keystone XL opponents are planning a protest today that will be harder for Facebook to simply squash. The protest will be conducted the old-fashioned way, in person, outside of Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif.

Go ahead and post this story on Facebook — the image of the banned advertisement should show up automatically. And let us know in our comment section below whether the Facebook overlords take it down.

Here is one of the television ads that has activists riled:

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continue at source:

Anti-Keystone ads banned by Facebook

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Pines, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Anti-Keystone ads banned by Facebook