Tag Archives: house

Support for a $10 Minimum Wage Is Surprisingly High

by Elva Diller Posted on December 11, 2013

Mother Jones

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

I’m not super interested in the latest poll results about whether Obama’s approval is up or down a point or two, or whether Obamacare is up or down a point or two. It’ll all shake out soon enough. But the Wall Street Journal’s latest poll asked about raising the minimum wage, and the results were pretty interesting:

So 63 percent were in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10. That’s surprisingly high. Hell, 43 percent even favor raising it to $12.50. I don’t imagine that this support is especially deep or passionate, but it’s still pretty high. As Damon Silvers of the AFL-CIO says, “If I was a House Republican, I’d be concerned about opposing anything that polled at 63%.”

Of course, gun registration polls at better than 63 percent, and so do higher taxes on the rich, just to name a couple of examples. That doesn’t seem to have caused very many Republicans to start quaking in their boots. Still, it’s encouraging news.

Original link: 

Support for a $10 Minimum Wage Is Surprisingly High

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Support for a $10 Minimum Wage Is Surprisingly High

Will the Supreme Court Force Immigrants to Leave Their Children Behind?

by Charlie Smith Posted on December 10, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Foreigners applying to permanently live in the United States spend years, sometimes decades, waiting to receive their green cards. But when that visa finally arrives, some law-abiding immigrants have to choose between emigrating to America and staying back with their children—all because their young sons and daughters became adults during the lengthy process. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is expected to hear a case, Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio, that could have a big effect on whether some applicants who turned 21 during the US visa process are allowed to immigrate at the same time as their parents, rather than being bumped all the way to the back of the line.

“I hope the Supreme Court will show common sense and realize that if a mother applied for a visa when her children were clearly minors, she could not have predicted that it would take so long,” says Richard Alba, an immigration expert and sociology professor at the Graduate Center, CUNY. “The kind of conservative notion that undocumented immigrations are law-breakers really doesn’t apply at all here.”

One of the case’s named plaintiffs is Rosalina Cuellar de Osorio, who applied for a visa in 1998 to join her mother, who is a US citizen. At the time, Cuellar de Osorio’s son was 13. The visa application only took a month to be approved—but a visa didn’t become available until 2005, after her son, Melvin, had turned 21. (US law dictates that only a certain number of visas may be issued per country in a fiscal year.) She was able to emigrate from El Salvador, but the government would not issue an immediate visa for Melvin because he was no longer a child.

Under the 2002 Child Status Protection Act, children who turn 21 during the application process are supposed to “retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition”—which prevents kids like Melvin from being moved to the back of the visa line just because of their birth date. But in 2009, the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled differently—arguing that the original law wasn’t very clear and could be interpreted to only apply to certain categories of visas—like those that are filed by a lawful permanent resident on behalf of his or her spouse and children—but not necessarily those filed by US citizens. The board maintains that if the law starts applying to everyone, it will “undermine the perception of fairness of the rules” and introduce “tensions” among immigrants.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in September 2012 that the immigration board was wrong because it failed to take into account Congress’s intent behind the law: That lawmakers never intended for the petitioner’s visa category to factor into the decision-making process. A bipartisan group of lawmakers who were serving when the original law passed in 2002—including Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—filed a brief on November 4, 2013, backing up that position: “The Solicitor General’s continuing insistence that that the law is ambiguous raises serious institutional concerns…Congress does not typically give an agency carte blanche to rewrite statutory language that is clear.”

The Supreme Court isn’t the only branch taking up this issue—the Senate’s mammoth immigration reform bill, which still hasn’t passed the House, would also fix this problem. Alba, the immigration professor, says, “This is a committee within the immigrations board that made a bad decision, so the question is now, can it be reversed?” The American Immigration Council notes that the current policy “has been heartbreaking for too many individuals,” and that countless immigrants sit in limbo until the issue is resolved. An Iranian applicant who goes by the initials K.M.K., for example, waited with his family for 12 years to get a visa before being bumped because he turned 21. He’s still in Iran, separated from his family, and waiting.

Continue at source:

Will the Supreme Court Force Immigrants to Leave Their Children Behind?

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will the Supreme Court Force Immigrants to Leave Their Children Behind?

You Can Also Blame Newt Gingrich for the Obamacare Website Screwup

by alka24 Posted on December 6, 2013

Mother Jones

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

As the Obama administration continues to unsuck its health care website, one questions lingers: How did this important government project get so screwed up? If you ask technologist Clay Johnson, the insurance exchange’s problems began, in a way, in 1995, when “Congress decided to lobotomize itself.”

Johnson was referring to a specific action lawmakers took then: They killed a tiny federal agency called the Office of Technology Assessment. Established in 1972 as Congress’ nonpartisan in-house think tank, the OTA studied new technologies and offered recommendations on how Washington could adapt to them. But then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) turned off its lights.

Today, members of Congress have legislative counsels to help draft laws. They have the Congressional Budget Office to analyze how much laws will cost. But they don’t have the OTA’s experts to tell them how those laws will work.

“An OTA review might have prevented some heartburn and embarrassment” associated with the Healthcare.gov rollout, argues Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), an astrophysicist who has previously introduced legislation that would resurrect the agency.

Warning Congress about problems with Healthcare.gov—and explaining them—would have been right in OTA’s wheelhouse. The office, Rep. George Brown (D-Calif.) dryly remarked in 1995, was a “defense against the dumb.” During its 24-year existence, the agency developed a reputation for sharp, foresighted analysis on the problems of the new information age: It called for a new, reinforced tanker design a decade before the Exxon-Valdez spill; emphasized the danger of fertilizer bombs 15 years before Oklahoma City; predicted in 1982 that email would render the postal service obsolete; and warned that President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (better known as “Star Wars”) would likely result in a “catastrophic failure” if it were ever used.

Analyzing health care spending was one of OTA’s specialties. One of its final reports, “Bringing Health Care Online,” published in 1995, focused on the potential (and potential for mishaps) in electronic data interchanges. “Changes in the health care delivery system, including the emergence of managed health care and integrated delivery systems, are breaking down the organizational barriers that have stood between care providers, insurers, medical researchers, and public health professionals,” the report warned.

Continue Reading »

See original – 

You Can Also Blame Newt Gingrich for the Obamacare Website Screwup

Posted in Anker, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You Can Also Blame Newt Gingrich for the Obamacare Website Screwup

Forgiveness – Iyanla Vanzant

by Myrna Posted on December 3, 2013

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Forgiveness

21 Days to Forgive Everyone for Everything

Iyanla Vanzant

Genre: Self-Improvement

Price: $9.99

Publish Date: December 3, 2013

Publisher: Hay House

Seller: Hay House, Inc.


Too many of us feel trapped in stagnant romantic, family, or workplace relationships. Weighed down by toxic thoughts and emotions, we might be quick to judge and slow to pardon, and self-righteous about our feelings as we dwell on memories of what we or others did (or failed to do). In this new book, Iyanla Vanzant challenges us to liberate ourselves from the wounds of the past and to embrace the new power of forgiveness. With Iyanla’s 21-Day Forgiveness Plan, you’ll explore relationship dynamics with your parents, children, friends, partners, co-workers, bosses, yourself, and even God. With journaling work and Emotional Freedom Techniques (also known as “tapping”), you’ll learn to live with more love; gain new clarity on your life, lessons, and blessings; and discover a new level of personal freedom, peace, and well-being. Forgiveness doesn’t mean agreeing with, condoning, or even liking what has happened. Forgiveness means letting go and knowing that—regardless of how challenging, frightening, or difficult an experience may seem—everything is just as it needs to be in order for you to grow and learn. When you focus on how things “should” be, you deny the presence and power of love. Accept the events of the past, while being willing to change your perspective on them. As Iyanla says, “Only forgiveness can liberate minds and hearts once held captive by anger, bitterness, resentment, and fear. Forgiveness is a true path to freedom that can renew faith, build trust, and nourish the soul.”

More here – 

Forgiveness – Iyanla Vanzant

Posted in alo, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Forgiveness – Iyanla Vanzant

The EPA’s Bold New Agenda

by Myrna Posted on December 2, 2013

The agency’s plans for 2014 involve a hard look at fracking and new curbs on carbon-belching power plants. porchlife/Flickr The Environmental Protection Agency has released its to-do list for 2014, in the form of its annual regulatory agenda. And it calls for tackling some controversial environmental questions that Congress has been unable to resolve, including how to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants and whether energy companies should be required to disclose the chemicals they inject into the ground during fracking. While the plan has some gaps—Bloomberg BNA has pointed out it’s noticeably silent on coal ash, a toxic coal-burning byproduct that has been responsible for several recent environmental disasters—it could have far-reaching environmental benefits. Below is a summary of the EPA’s biggest goals in the new year. Carbon caps for power plants Between now and September 2014 the EPA aims to finalize its rules for capping greenhouse gas emissions from existing natural gas and coal-fired plants, which together produce a whopping 40 percent of the United States’ carbon emissions and one-third of its heat-trapping gases. Controlling smokestacks emissions is critical to addressing climate change, but carbon legislation is a non-starter, even in the Democratically controlled Senate. The EPA rules are bound to be challenged in court and they’ll invariable fuel allegations that Obama—and his vulnerable Democratic allies on Capitol Hill—are waging a war on coal. But, presuming they survive, they could be historic. The new target date is more ambitious than the mid-2015 goal that President Obama previously proposed for finalizing EPA regulations for existing power plants. But EPA rules often get stuck in the regulatory pipeline. While the caps for existing plants have yet to take shape, the White House recently called for limiting new coal-fired plants to 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour—60 percent less than the average coal-powered plant releases—and gas-power plants to 1,000 pounds. Disclosure rules for fracking fluid Late next year, the EPA plans to weigh in on whether oil- and gas-drilling companies should be required to disclose which chemicals they inject into the ground during fracking. Environmentalists and public health watchdogs have long pressed fracking companies to reveal this information, saying otherwise there’s no way of judging the risk to groundwater. (The scene in HBO’s documentary Gasland in which a resident near a fracking site lights tap water on fire encapsulates their fears.) But companies usually resist, claiming their formulas are proprietary. So far, only a handful of states have passed laws forcing fracking disclosure. Industry groups have managed to hobble some of them, while also pushing their own legislation that would protect these chemicals as trade secrets. Congressional lawmakers, who have seen donations from oil and gas companies rise by 180 percent rise over the past nine years, don’t seem eager to act on the issue. The FRAC Act, a bill first introduced in 2009 that would force disclosure of fracking chemicals, is stalled in committee in both the House and the Senate. And thanks to the “Halliburton Loophole,” which was slipped into a 2005 energy bill at the behest of then Vice President Dick Cheney, the EPA is barred from monitoring the industry’s compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA disclosure requirements could go a long way to bringing uniformity to patchwork state laws and allowing public health advocates to keep tabs on an opaque industry. Protecting small waterways Two US Supreme Court rulings from 2001 and 2006 have created enormous confusion over the EPA’s authority to regulate small water bodies under the Clean Water Act. As a result, under George W. Bush the agency dropped hundreds of enforcement cases involving streams and isolated wetlands that share flood plains with or flow into the nation’s major water sources. The new rules would clarify the EPA’s authority to protect these waterways, based on a September report showing that they are vitally interconnected with larger ones. (This, of course, is common knowledge among ecologists.) Environmentalists say the move is long overdue. “This really isn’t an expansion of EPA’s authority,” Bob Wendelgass, the CEO of Clean Water Action, said recently. “It’s really a restoration of EPA’s authority.” But Republican lawmakers are framing the potential rule as assailing the rights of private citizens who have waterways on their property, with Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) and Chris Stewart (R-Utah) calling it “a massive power grab.” See the original article here: The EPA’s Bold New Agenda ; ;Related ArticlesHow Do Meteorologists Fit into the 97% Global Warming Consensus?Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined ForcesPolar Bear Numbers in Hudson Bay of Canada on Verge of Collapse ;

Credit – 

The EPA’s Bold New Agenda

Posted in alo, Annies, Citizen, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Monterey, Naka, ONA, OXO, Pines, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The EPA’s Bold New Agenda

Park Service to Congress: Only YOU Can Prevent Government Shutdowns

by heloltiki554 Posted on November 29, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Perhaps nothing is more emblematic of the frustration Americans felt during the October government shutdown, which cost the economy an estimated $24 billion, than the furor over the shuttering of more than 400 federal national parks. Republicans accused Democrats of keeping veterans from seeing the World War II monument in Washington, DC. Democrats blamed the Republicans (who effectively held the nation’s budget hostage for 16 days until they couldn’t politically afford to anymore) of seizing the park issue to distract from the economy. But now, the US National Park Service—which lost $450,000 a day in park entry and activity fees during the shutdown—has a new message for Congress: No, we’re not going prepare for another government shutdown, because you need to do your job.

The smack-down took place at a hearing last week before the House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, which weighed in on a new bill introduced by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) in October. The Provide Access and Retain Continuity (PARC) Act, which has 17 Republican co-sponsors, would allow states to keep national parks operating in the event of another shutdown and would make them eligible for reimbursement by the federal government. (During the shutdown, six states entered into a similar agreement.) Right now, the government is only funded until January 15, meaning that Republicans could potentially pull the same shenanigans all over again in 2014. Stewart tells Mother Jones, “This bill is designed to provide some safeguards to local communities that rely heavily on access to public lands in the event that a shutdown does occur.”

According to a National Park Service spokesman, more than 11 million people were unable to visit parks during the shutdown, and the park service lost about $7 million in park entry fees. The Park Service also estimates that communities within 60 miles of a national park suffered a collective negative economic impact of $76 million for each day of the shutdown. But Bruce Sheaffer, Comptroller of the National Park Service,testified that the agency “strongly opposes the bill.” He said:

We have a great deal of sympathy for the businesses and communities that experienced a disruption of activity and loss of revenue during last month’s government shutdown and that stand to lose more if there is another funding lapse in the future. However, rather than only protecting certain narrow sectors of the economy…from the effects of a government shutdown in the future, Congress should protect all sectors of the economy by enacting appropriations on time, so as to avoid any future shutdowns.

Sheaffer took issue with other parts of the bill, noting that forcing the Park Service to rely on state revenue would be “a poor use of already strained departmental resources” and would “seriously undermine the longstanding framework established by Congress for the management of federal lands.” While Sheaffer didn’t object to another GOP-backed bill on the table—the Protecting States, Opening National Parks Act, which would reimburse states for National Park expenses incurred during the October shutdown—he concluded that planning for another shutdown “is not a responsible alternative to simply making the political commitment to provide appropriations for all the vital functions the federal government performs.”

Scheaffer’s position had support from Rep. Raul Grijalva, (D-Ariz.), who told Cronkite News Service at the hearing, “We shouldn’t be coming up with doomsday preparations.” But Stewart says, “The Park Service opposition is odd and misses the point. Of course the preferred course of action is to avoid future lapses in funding.” He adds, “While I cannot predict the future, I do not anticipate another shutdown during the 113th Congress.”

When Mother Jones asked the National Park service whether it considered the GOP’s fixation on funding national parks a way to deflect blame away from the shutdown, a spokesman said, “Your question asks us to speculate on an issue. We don’t do that.”

More:

Park Service to Congress: Only YOU Can Prevent Government Shutdowns

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Prepara, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Park Service to Congress: Only YOU Can Prevent Government Shutdowns

Dreaming of a Majoritarian Congress

by MatthiasA Posted on November 23, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Martin Longman wonders what the Senate will be like if, eventually, the filibuster on legislation is eliminated. First he notes that the Employee Free Choice Act got the support of every single Democrat in 2007, when everyone knew it was doomed anyway thanks to a Republican filibuster, but suddenly lost several votes in 2009, when a big Democratic majority and a Democratic president meant that it actually had a chance of passage:

This is the kind of dynamic that is altered by eliminating the filibuster. Hiding behind cloture votes enables you to support things your base wants but that you think are too politically perilous to support if they might actually become law. Blanche Lincoln (D-Walmart) was pro-union when it didn’t count, and the Waltons were okay with that…wink, wink, nod, nod.

In the new Senate, particularly if the legislative filibuster soon succumbs, there will many fewer of these free votes, and imperiled senators in the middle will need to break with their party more often and more openly, which should provide more opportunities for bipartisan coalitions in the middle to form to cover each other’s asses. Rather than joining together to block legislation, which wasn’t even necessary so long as the Republicans remained united in their opposition, these senators will have to join together to mitigate the damage that could be done to their political careers if legislation actually passed. If sufficient mitigation cannot be achieved, they will have to join together to vote the legislation down.

There will certainly be fewer chances for cheap grandstanding if the filibuster is eliminated, though as Longman points out, those chances won’t go away entirely. They’ll stick around in circumstances when you know the House won’t go along or the president has threatened a veto. In some sense, this is good: it means that parties are actually responsible for their rhetoric. If Republicans say they want to cut Social Security or ban abortion, then by God, they’ll have to do it if they win control of Congress. It can’t just be cheap rhetoric. Ditto for Democrats who say they want to pass labor-friendly bills or gun control legislation.

Will this mean that centrist coalitions will become more important? I’m not sure. I feel like we need to game this out a little more thoroughly to get an answer. But it might!

Continue reading: 

Dreaming of a Majoritarian Congress

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dreaming of a Majoritarian Congress

The three anti-environmental bills that are wasting Congress’ time

by h7paisjnha Posted on November 21, 2013

The three anti-environmental bills that are wasting Congress’ time

By

Shutterstock

Republicans and a handful of Democrats in Congress really want to demonstrate their loyalty to their fossil-fuel masters. The House has passed three bills to benefit the oil and gas industry, but they have no chance of being becoming law so long as Barack Obama is president.

H.R. 1965 — Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act

Sponsor: Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.)

What it would do: “This would direct that federal lands be managed for the primary purpose of energy development, rather than for stewardship balancing multiple uses including recreation,” according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Astonishingly, it also would curb and then penalize the public for raising concerns about oil and gas projects on public lands that may affect them.”

Status: Approved by the House of Representatives on Wednesday by a vote of 228 to 192, with seven Democrats joining the majority of Republicans in voting in favor of the bill.

Why Obama would veto it: “H.R. 1965 would reverse Administration oil and gas leasing reforms that have established orderly, open, efficient, and environmentally sound processes for energy development on public lands,” the White House said in a statement [PDF].

H.R. 2728 – Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act

Sponsor: Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas)

What it would do: “The bill prevents Interior from enforcing any federal standards on hydraulic fracturing if a state has any rules or even vague guidance for fracking,” NRDC explains. “It also could lead to barring federal oversight of fracking-related activities on federal lands, including toxic waste management, clean water protection, and other important regulatory responsibilities.”

Status: Approved by the House of Representatives on Wednesday by a vote of 235 to 187, with 12 Democrats joining the majority of Republicans in voting in favor of the bill.

Why Obama would veto it: “[The Bureau of Land Management] has been working in close consultation with States and Tribes on strengthening oversight of hydraulic fracturing operations and establishing a uniform baseline level of appropriate environmental protection. The bill, as reported, would undermine these efforts,” the White House said in a statement [PDF]. 

H.R. 1900 — Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act

Sponsor: Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.)

What it would do: “It would rush approval of natural gas pipelines with disregard for potential impacts on the public and on clean water and air,” NRDC explains. “In essence, this legislation is a direct extension of the entire House Republican effort that is focused on eliminating the transparent environmental review process that is required when energy projects are proposed.”

Status: Approved by the House of Representatives on Wednesday by a vote of 225 to 194, with four Democrats joining the majority of Republicans in voting in favor of the bill.

Why Obama would veto it: “The bill’s requirements could force agencies to make decisions based on incomplete information or information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time,” the White House said in a statement [PDF]. 


Source
House Republicans’ Reckless Energy Bills Would Tear up Federal Lands and Shut Down Public Engagement, NRDC

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin 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

View article:

The three anti-environmental bills that are wasting Congress’ time

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The three anti-environmental bills that are wasting Congress’ time

CHART: These Members of Congress Are Bankrolled by the Fracking Industry

by Margherita4998 Posted on November 20, 2013

Mother Jones

The growing fracking industry is “yielding gushers” of campaign donations for congressional candidates—particularly Republicans from districts with fracking activity—according to a new report from the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The report, “Natural Cash: How the Fracking Industry Fuels Congress,” examines a period spanning from 2004 to 2012. In that time, CREW finds, contributions from companies that operate hydraulic fracturing wells and fracking-related industry groups rose 180 percent, from $4.3 million nine years ago to about $12 million in the last election cycle.

These donations are flowing to members of Congress at a time when some legislators are trying to increase regulation of fracking, a process in which drillers inject a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into the bedrock to release oil and natural gas reserves. The most serious of these legislative efforts is the FRAC Act. First introduced in 2009, the act would require EPA regulation of the industry and would force fracking companies to disclose the chemicals that they inject under high pressure into the ground. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill are stalled in committee.

Continue Reading »

Credit:

CHART: These Members of Congress Are Bankrolled by the Fracking Industry

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on CHART: These Members of Congress Are Bankrolled by the Fracking Industry

Is Darrell Issa Becoming an Albatross to the Republican Party?

by Diana A. Kincaid Posted on November 14, 2013

Mother Jones

Let’s talk about Darrell Issa. He’s a Republican attack dog, and that’s fine. Every party has people like that. But Issa is now the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, which means (in practice) that he’s the guy charged with harrying and annoying the Obama administration with maximum effectiveness. The problem is that he keeps misfiring. He has a habit of releasing partial transcripts that look incriminating but turn out to be nothingburgers once the full transcript comes out. He continues to press ludicrously overwrought theories that he simply can’t prove. Yesterday he got caught out once again when an administration witness flatly contradicted one of his latest wild charges. Steve Benen has the deets.

So here’s my question: Is Darrell Issa effective? My instinct is to say no: Republicans would be better off with someone who builds careful, methodical cases and scores some genuinely damaging points. But then, you’d expect me to say that, wouldn’t you? I’m the kind of person who appreciates careful and methodical cases.

Alternatively, the answer is that politics ain’t beanbag, and keeping up maximum pressure at all times is an opposition party’s best bet. If 99 percent of the mud you throw doesn’t stick, who cares? Shake it off and throw some more. Eventually you’ll find something damaging, and in the meantime all the mud really does have an effect. Low-information voters see a constant drip of spectacular charges and vaguely decide that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. They may not quite know what’s wrong, but it sure feels as if something is wrong.

So which is it? I can’t help but think that Issa really is hurting himself here by shredding his credibility on an almost daily basis. On the other hand, he’s been doing this stuff for three years now, and the press continues to eagerly lap up everything he says. No matter how many times he does it, they seem to be afraid that this time he might really have something, so they’d better play along.

I dunno. Issa’s ego is huge, but he’s no dummy. He obviously has reason to believe he can get away with this stuff forever. After all, during his Whitewater attack-dog days, Dan Burton pulled the same partial transcript trick that Issa loves, and it seemed to cause him no more than some momentary embarrassment. Maybe there really is method to his madness.

Original link: 

Is Darrell Issa Becoming an Albatross to the Republican Party?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Darrell Issa Becoming an Albatross to the Republican Party?