Today's edition of quick hits:
* Israel: "The head of the militant wing of the Palestinian Hamas movement and at least five others were killed as Israel launched a series of airstrikes in Gaza Wednesday, officials said."
* Syrian officials ordered airstrikes once again "close to the tense Turkish border on Wednesday, and said a French decision to recognize and consider arming a newly formed Syrian rebel coalition was an 'immoral' act 'encouraging the destruction of Syria.'"
* So much for the conspiracy theory: "Former CIA director David H. Petraeus has agreed to testify to Congress about the Sept. 11 attack in Libya, keeping appointments made before he resigned in disgrace over an extramarital affair."
* A well-deserved rebuke: "Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted's last-minute order shifting the burden from the poll worker to a voter for marking what type of identification was used by a voter casting a provisional ballot violated a prior court order, Ohio law and the U.S. Constitution, a federal judge found Tuesday."
* Abuse report: "Already reeling from an embarrassing sex scandal involving former Army General David Petraeus, the U.S. military on Wednesday will release a report on widespread sexual abuse of women recruits at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas."
* Heartbreaking: "The debate over legalizing abortion in Ireland flared Wednesday after the government confirmed that a woman in the midst of a miscarriage was refused an abortion and died in an Irish hospital after suffering from blood poisoning."
* Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) blocks legislation to promote research on the deadliest cancers.
* A top Republican official in Wisconsin believes Mitt Romney "absolutely" would have won the state if Wisconsin had been allowed to suppress the vote with a voter-ID scheme. Hmm.
* And Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) today nominated disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to replace current House Speaker John Boehner. No one seconded the nomination, and it's unclear what in the world Gohmert was thinking.
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Leave a Comment:
Once again, Tom Coburn appears to be 'Mr. no Science!' That is scary coming from a doctor. I think Rachel needs to get Bill Nye back on to give Uncle Tom a lashing........
Where did he get his M.D.? Dominica?
Coburn’s concerns about the measure, as well as similar ones expressed by the head of the National Cancer Institute, have not deterred supporters of the bill, and they return to Capitol Hill this week with a renewed sense of purpose.
From what I read from the link,Mr.Coburn a three time cancer survivor, does want to continue with the bill. The bill was originally about pancreatic cancer and now they want to include lung cancer. I have high hopes that something good will come from this.
My mother and uncle died of pancreatic cancer. It's a cancer that will take you down fast. I don't think Mr.Coburn is playing politics here.
Would be nice if Rachel would do a comprehensive piece that covered the major frauds associated with pharmaceutical legislation.
People have known pot cures cancer since the 1960s. Reagan and Bush #1 offered university funding to burn that research.
The National Cancer Institute is the only institution that refuses to comply with Reagan/Bush censorship.
In February 2007, DEA administrative law judge Mary Ellen Bittner ended the cannabis research monopoly that had allowed private companies to conduct marijuana research but banned US universities.
Glad that Rachel FINALLY did a piece on cannabis last night.
This issue has killed millions prematurely.
I had initially read Mr. Benen's headline and thought it was another case of stupid GOP obstructionism. However, after reading the article, I think Mr. Coburn's concerns may have some weight.
My father died of Multiple Myeloma, whose 5-year survival rate falls well below 50%, but probably doesn't hit the 300K/year fatality rate. So placing a "minimum death" standard into the law could force the NCI's hand to abandon promising research (since a treatment for a rarer form of cancer might lead to treatments for more common forms of cancer).
I hope Mr. Coburn works to get his concerns addressed, rather than letting this procedural blockage cause this valuable bill to due before the end of the session?
Please don't bring Newt back. He is seriously crazy. Seriously.
I totally agree!
The proofs in the history, check it out!
Dubmocracy
Gohmert is a clown of the highest order. It's worth noting here that he didn't go to Washington until 2005, six years after Gingrich left. So he never served on the Hill with the Newtster.
Those people up in East Texas must be so proud.
But he didn't bother to line up someone to second the nomination.
It indicates a lack of seriousness. He was just throwing a mudball and didn't care that he would come off looking like a fool.
Newt Gingrich is one of many, old and new, Republican leaders who thinks that money, itself, runs this country and subtracting money from certain people’s income levels is the only way to fix the economy, if running on money itself does not work.
Gingrich, like Romney, treats our government as though it were a business to run and not the managed public service operation that it is, and something for only ‘them and certain others’ to make a profit ’from’, while they force the rest of us to act as ‘the workers’ of the business, to take less of the economic cut. (Do you remember, in the primary, when Gingrich said our schoolchildren should act as school janitors to get an education? This was his proposal in opposition of the ‘rich people ’funding educational programs with their taxes, while Gingrich calls himself everybody’s ‘boss’.)
Newt Gingrich may have worked with President Clinton on compromising back in the ninety’s but, he only gave himself, his party and the nations money credit for it, and gave little credit to our government, itself, the people and the workers who ‘earned’ our surplus. That is probably why Republican leadership could not build on the surplus, they could not give respect and appreciation to what made it.
I agree with John, there is a lack of seriousness in this leader who nominated Gingrich as Speaker of the House. It probably goes along with the GOP's leadership with their hypothetical tax break theories inspiring magical thinking from their constituents.
That is a splendid reply Mr. Speaker! Sometimes you listen more with your heart and sometimes more with your brain - Louie isn't a "brain" kind of guy. Gohmert has just done everyone the favor of isolating himself - as well as calling into question his own mental stability. Poor Louie, always was a bit of an icehole.
Andy-2932454 & Frank, from Detroit: if memory serves (and i'm getting along, so maybe not) newt only "worked with" clinton after he shot himself in the head a few times (missed his foot). trying to shut-down the government to make a point comes to mind.
a lot of republicans who worked with gingrich didn't very think highly of him so gohmert's adoration is probably driven by his consumption of fux news.
as to disrespecting and devaluing someone not of their "class," i couldn't agree more.
This is why I will NEVER be a Republican. Sure Democrats aren't saints but I am done with the Republican party all together. They are literally the evil that their "bible" says they do not want. Their cling to abortion like their very life depends on it, makes reality such as death of the mother so much more distant from their reality. All they think is "OMG A YOU JUST KILLED A ZYGOTE, BABY MURDERER!!!! or ALL THEY WANT IS ABORTION ON DEMANDS" without thinking about any other scenarios in which can happen to cause an abortion. You know what, they are now the Taliban of America. That's it. These religious mongering freak shows are anything but christian because Jesus was for the POOR, the sick and the needy and here they are belittling everything their Jesus stood for. I'm done with that party.
Am I the only one waiting for the mainstream media to apologize to America, for their negligence in challenging the GOTP's campaign of lies that could have elected Mitt Romney?
I think that that the mainstream media is a disgrace not only in the lack of campaign info but also explaining to people facts on other issues like health-care.
The media has shifted from providing facts to more of a infotaiment style.
I have given up on the mainstream/corporate owned media.
I do feel bad for the reporters sometimes. I was amazed when I caught the interview with Grover Norquist/incubus. Nora O'donnell(sp) actually corrected him, and told him that Pres. Obama did not call Mitt a poopy head. And she seemed a little irritated with him.
But overall I do not watch network news anymore, I would not expect them to apologize.
(I do not consider TRMS network news though she is corporate owned. I think MSNBC is biased but I hope I can see it.)
Your moniker is nomoremagicalthinking...and you are waiting for what?
/:)/
Husted and the court ruling against him.
This is one of the things that drives me nuts about these types of things.
The damage has already been done. What if the outcome of the election would have swung to Romney because of this.
Simply ruling against Husted is NOT ENOUGH!!
Isn't a contempt of court citation worth anything in this country anymore? They should throw his sorry butt in jail, or rulings like this are worthless.
The damage has only been partially done, if at all. The provisional ballots in Ohio had not yest been counted. Husted's directive had been not to count those which didn't have the *voter's* statement which ID he/she was using, even though attesting to the validity of the ID it was supposed to be the poll workers' responsibility. What he judge has ordered was that the provisional votes should be counted, even if the voter had not filled out that section of the provisional ballot.
If the damage had been well and truly done, Husted wouldn't be appealing the judge's decision.
Do Gohmert and thinking belong in the same sentence?
Yes, absolutely.
I'm "thinking" that "Gohmert" is an idiot.
OK.
That alone is reason to not vote republican.
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, in his news conference today, Obama put the kabash on any kind of carbon tax- not to help slow consumption of fossil fuel, not to pay the $50 billion dollar bill and similar extreme weather expenses directly caused by our consumption of fossil fuel.
This is insanity.
He enumerated all the right statements about climate change, but then concluded by saying the political climate is not conducive to doing anything decisive about it except window dressing measures. We must half the rate of CO2 emissions by 2050 if we are to hold global warming to an increase of 2 degrees, but if we continue at the rate we are today, CO2 emissions are on track to more than double (260% current levels).
Germany's IWR reported that the increase just the year was 2.5%. (bloomberg)
But not to worry, because our children will have jobs, and that is what everybody is concerned about.
Jobs picking through the rubble.
first you put a toe in the water. this past campaign was the first winning democratic campaign that even mentioned climate. the voters never really embraced the topic and with margins as thin and fragile as they were it might have tipped the scales given the number of low information voters out there.
now you point to new jersey, new york, west virginia and every other place that's been, or will be, hit by 100-year events for the next two years. you gently remind folks that this is serious business. you run on this as an issue during the mid-terms and if it wins, or is even neutral, you can push it.
i realize, as do you, that this is a serious issue that must be addressed sooner rather than later. unfortunately there are a lot of folks who think that saving the economy is more important, particularly in the short term. they don't realize that there will be no economy left to save if we have to evacuate a large portion of our coasts. think tens of millions of refugees from our largest cities.
unfortunately, i foresee a lot of clear evidence coming in the near future that will be able to convince voters to address this problem. meanwhile we disseminate all the hard evidence we can to as many people as we can. NASA, NOAA and USGS have done some really solid work here along with some well respected universities. now we just have to get people to ignore the anti-science crowd and get them motivated.
Regarding Husted and his fellow travelers in efforts to bias elections across the nation...
The feds should offer to pay state costs of running elections for federal election days contingent upon the state mailing a standardized federal absentee ballot to each registered voter in the state at least 2 weeks prior to the election.
This way the political hacks of Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere will be unable to suppress the vote. Also, if the state includes state and local ballots in the mailing, no one will need to stand in line or hunt for a moved polling place on election day.
It can't be the Fed. It has to be a non-partisan third party, optimally one with no vested interest in US elections.
How about delegates from the Caymans?
Our time and obviously the needs of the women who so courageously serve us in the military, would be way better served if we gave just half of the coverage the Gen. Petraeus story has received, to the absolutely unacceptable systematic sexual abuse within the US military. If anyone hasn't already seen it, I highly recommend you check out “The Invisible War.” A powerful and extremely relevant documentary.
I have read a couple of articles on the Benghazi Embassy crisis stating that the Republican Congress cut Embassy Security funding twice in the budgets by the hundreds of millions in the past two years. Could that have played a part in the crisis? Have many of our Embassy’s around the world complained about a lack of security since those cuts?
What options would the U.S. State Department and The White House have to respond to complaints of a lack of foreign security? How would the government differentiate between which certain Embassy’s might receive more security if funding might be a problem?
Did the Republican House include options on how the government, our intelligence agencies and our military might protect our Embassy’s, otherwise, with their budget cuts?
Perhaps current Republican leadership ‘needs’ an intelligence debate all by their selves as to how cutting Embassy protection funding might be an intelligence problem? Would Fox News consider that one level up from an intelligence debate about certain Republican political leaders wanting to cut funding to hold any foreign security lapses against the Obama Administration, while also complaining that the administration did not simply ‘borrow’ the money to protect all our Embassies so they could complain about that, too?
Dear Rachel Maddow, LOVE YOUR SHOW!! I created this politically driven video that I know you would appreciate and would be a great segment for your show!! I would love any input from you!!
DUBMOCRACY
Husted needs to keep hearing how unAmerican his voting ideas are. They are not conducive to his job, which he said is make voting process smooth.
Seriously, they are often inhabitants of "opposite land". This kind of person should not be involved in the voting process anywhere, I mean nowhere near it. The states have been infiltrated by people with an agenda. Their agenda does not include MANY of the people in their district or state.
I actually (for the first time in the history of the world) agree with Coburn on this one. The description given above isn't really accurate - the bill doesn't "promote" pancreatic cancer research, it specifically dictates NCI take a particular approach to it. There are people at the NIH specifically working on pancreatic cancer - it's not being neglected. If NCI needs to be micromanaged as badly as this bill suggests it does, we have MUCH bigger problems than pancreatic cancer research.
It's also worth noting that if Congress doesn't work out the fiscal cliff, NIH is one of the branches of government that will take significant cuts - something that, I promise you, will not be good for cancer research. If Congress wants NCI to devote more resources to pancreatic cancer, those resources have to be taken away from something else, and that will only get harder with sequestration.
The name Gohmert conjures up the name Gomer, but what a slight that is to the character brought to life by Jim Nabors, whose lack of acuity was more than made up for by pureness of spirit and kindness of heart.
Grant us more Gomers, please, and one less Gohmert.
I wonder, if John Edward’s were in the public eye during this Benghazi review, if he would say that our appointed Diplomat’s overseas deserve as much security, and funding for security, as elected Republican leaders get and give their selves for their own security, if not more.
Mr.Benen I saw somewhere today that health care insurance will have the lowest premium increase in 15 yrs. Anything to do with the ACA? If you read these comments, how about digging a little deeper on this.
Regarding the subject of Israel and the developing situation after the US election, I recently read an observation from someone who sounds "inside" regarding Obama's second term, potential goals, and the missing solution to the Mid East Conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Here is an excerpt of that piece:
"Obama is the first U.S. president to declare the settlements illegal and even he refused to back a UN resolution condemning the settlements that essentially mirrored his own policy toward the settlements. Yes, a resolution to the conflict is a national security interest of the U.S. and the world. However, "reality" appears much different to the Obama administration today than it did at the start of Obama's presidency.
With all the changes in the Middle East (Arab Spring, Iran's nuclear progress, etc) and Asia (China's growing assertiveness, etc), not to mention Obama's personal preference to tackle domestic issues rather than foreign policy, Israel-Palestine is probably not nearly as high on Obama's priority list as it was at the start of his presidency.
As much as I would like to believe Obama will invest the great energy needed to push for a resolution of the conflict, unless he sees a true opening I don't think he will. A true opening might be along the lines of a centrist or left-leaning coalition being formed in Israel after the elections and/or the neutralization of the Iranian threat (whether via negotiation or militarily). Both of those scenarios seem unlikely."
To that sorry "kick-the-can-down-the-road" suggestion, I would like to reply:
It's a damn good thing that FDR didn't wait for Nazi Germany to elect a kinder, gentler, more-progressive government before acting. He knew time was of the essence, ethnic cleansing and genocide were on the table, and waiting would be a death sentence for thousands, if not hunderds of thousands of people.
Likewise, if Obama waits for Israel to elect a kinder, gentler, more-progressive government, he may KILL the very last opportunity for a two state solution. We cannot allow him to do that.
The election is out of the way. Nothing worth doing can be attained without risk of failure. The true test of a leader is that he TRIES, TRIES, and TRIES again, -not that he aims low and attains nothing with success. Seriously, what is it going to take to make Obama move on this? Like today?
It is no coincidence that governments of Arab states in the region surrounding Israel have all been toppled in what has been called the Arab spring. My opinion is the USA and Israel are both involved in these events. My fear is that Israel intends to create "Arab democracies" in those states where Palestinian refugees might find refuge after Israel drives them out of occupied territory.
IF this happens, it would be a war crime with a scope on par with Hitler's Final Solution. I pray that Obama is not complicit in such a plan, but I worry because I have witnessed his actions at the UN, which seem to fit this agenda. Specifically, Obama's veto of a Security Council resolution condemning unilateral Israeli Settlement construction in occupied territory CONTRAVENED both the Road Map Agreement and Obama's stated position on the issue. That resolution mirrored Obama's previous statements on Settlement construction, and he vetoed his own words. WHY would he do that?
Kiev Ukraine....I echo your comments. Obama is obviously ditching our Israeli friends and embracing their enemies. Why doesn't he have the time to meet with the only, steady U.S. ally that we've have in the Middle East over the past 60 years? I do not agree with everything Israel does (settlement expansion into lands they won in 1967 does nobody any good). But the U.S. financially supporting the "new" Egypt, headed by a Muslim Brotherhood president, which, at minimum, loosely, supports Hamas, doesn't do any good either.
The best thing for all (including for Israel and it's intended identity as a Jewish state) would be a UN-brokered peace agreement now with agreed land swaps for two viable states living in peace. I do expect some special arrangements would be made in East Jerusalem to ensure religious sites would remain under appropriate jurisdiction and available to worshipers of all faiths. The Clinton Parameters covered most of this.
Water rights were the main problem with the last peace offer. Israel's offer didn't include any sovereign water rights for the Palestinians. That offer would not produce a viable state, as Israel retained the right to cut off it's water. Hopefully the next agreement (if it is negotiated publically) will address such needs. Even Hamas has claimed they would support a peace agreement that was approved by all Palestinians through a referendum vote.
http://www.boston.com/news/odd/2012/11/14/boat-needed-one-minneapolis-voting-
Minneapolis precinct: Ward 10, Precinct 3B, was in a lake.
no mermaids to vote.
precinct/iikyPBgr2WQRluHbkRF2kI/story.html
"Anything to add? Consider this an open thread."
You stay classy, Mitt Romney (via the Washington Post):
"Romney says Obama won re-election by promising 'gifts'
to blacks, Hispanics and young voters"
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is telling top donors that President Barack Obama won re-election because of the "gifts" he had already provided to blacks, Hispanics and young voters and because of the president's effort to paint Romney as anti-immigrant.
"Sexual assault and harassment are part of the mentality of the Air Force."? What kind of people is the Air Force recruiting now?
They say absolute power corrupts absolutely. If there is any place where power is absolute by design it is the military. Let us hope this is a sign that such abuse of power and general depravity will no longer be tolerated!
LOL.