US Politics: And this has been your Ft. Lee traffic report. Back to you!

[Eira Seren]

Random news out of Congress:

Deal on UI extension falls apart:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-deal-jobless-aid-crumbles

The GOP decides they haven't persecuted gays enough:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/government-oversight/195056-gop-looks-to-limit-federal-recognition-of-same-sex

Ahh, more big surprises.

We got a real kick out of the Gov's dog show Wednesday (the pony having been fired). Today we got a bigger kick out of FOXY news finally taking up the story. Somebody stayed up to watch Rachel Maddow so they could find something to say and then spin it. Like the kid who waits around until class starts, then begs their neighbor to let them copy the homework.

Best of all, this is probably one of the first of many smear campaigns in the republican free-for-all leading up to election time. Which means that Scott Walker's turn will come. *wolfy grin* Two tickets, please!

[Ormond]

I wonder what the Log Cabin Republicans would have to say about this.

I don't know, but I think having only 28 Republicans sponsor this in the House out of 233 (12%) is actually another sign of just how mainstream same-sex marriage has become for most of the country.

[thecryptile]

Abortion!

But that's business as usual right? Did we expect them to learn any lessons from last election?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/house-gop-kicks-off-2014-_n_4563303.html

I don't think enough people on the Right are aware of the Guttmacher study. If they're right, Pro-Lifers should just keep quiet and let Obamacare erode abortion coverage.

Efficient Bulbs are Tyranny!

The hell? Why would you do this except to be stupid and contrary?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/energy-environment/194908-gop-takes-one-last-shot-at-repealing-light-bulb-ban

To save people money. Sure, you have to change them more often, but it's still cheaper to use the old bulbs. That's why the old bulbs retained a 65% market share.

The push to switch to "environmentally friendly" energy efficient bulbs comes because the profit margin on them is much higher than the old fashioned kind.

It's doubtful that any energy is actually saved. Since the bulbs are cheaper to leave on, people leave them on longer than the older models. The new bulbs aren't really environmentally friendly either, they are filled with mercury and are very hazardous. If you break one of the old bulbs, you don't need to worry about being poisoned. You do with the new ones. Good thing Big Brother is looking out for the environment.

Child Labour!

Wait, what? Fucking seriously?

http://www.pressherald.com/politics/LePage_says_children_should_have_work_option.html

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/gop-rep-jack-kingston-sad-call-child-labor-sparked-partisan-hysteria

This shit makes me laugh. There are lots of twelve year olds working legally already in these Great United States- and it doesn't destroy their lives. On the contrary, it helps them build character and skills while putting some spending money in their pockets. I guess all you city boys and foreigners are unaware of the numerous agricultural exemptions to child labor laws.

I don't know why the Loony Lefties think children working always has to be something out of Oliver Twist, or a Third World sweat shop. The fact is a lot of young teens would be better off in some sort of paid apprenticeship program learning a valuable trade than they are stuck in a classroom being drilled for standardized tests.

So...to be fair, Christie didn't know about this as much as Holder didn't know about Fast and Furious, Rice and Clinton knew it was a YouTube video that caused the Benghazi attack, and the Obama Administration didn't know the IRS was targeting Tea Party groups.

It's easy for me to believe that Christie is just as ill-informed and incompetent as Obama.

[TrackerNeil]

I don't know, but I think having only 28 Republicans sponsor this in the House out of 233 (12%) is actually another sign of just how mainstream same-sex marriage has become for most of the country.

Oh definitely. However, I am irritated with claims by the LCRs that they have somehow contributed to the cause by working "inside the system." They really can't claim any specific policy victories, because the simple fact is that every legislative marriage equality victory has been achieved through the actions of Democrats. The single exception is the New York state senate, and there I think Governor Cuomo is due much of the credit and not the Log Cabin Republicans.

Also, I'll never forget that the LCRs endorsed Mitt Romney, who at the time endorsed the marriage amendment. They're slimeball sellouts, in my view.

[Sturn]

In less then 48 hours of news coverage, the big 3 news agencies devoted 44 times more coverage of a bridge closure scandal involving a maybe, possibly, future presidential candate then their coverage of an IRS political scandal in the past 6 months. 88 minutes in less then 2 days compared to 2 minutes in 6 months.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/01/10/deluge-44-times-more-network-coverage-christies-traffic-scandal-last

[TerraPrime]

Re: Tracker

I wonder what the Log Cabin Republicans would have to say about this.

You do? Is that a rhetorical question?

Re: Ormond

I don't know, but I think having only 28 Republicans sponsor this in the House out of 233 (12%) is actually another sign of just how mainstream same-sex marriage has become for most of the country.

Alternatively, one can also see this as the GOP leadership still allowing such laws be proposed. It's better than, say, 50 representatives signing on, for sure. But that's really cold comfort isn't it, especially for the LBGT constituents who live in those districts. Chances are the bill will go nowhere and it's just red meat for their base voters (in all senses of the word base).

Re: Sturn

In less then 48 hours of news coverage, the big 3 news agencies devoted 44 times more coverage of a bridge closure scandal involving a maybe, possibly, future presidential candate then their coverage of an IRS political scandal in the past 6 months. 88 minutes in less then 2 days compared to 2 minutes in 6 months.

Maybe because there's not much of a scandal with the IRS, at all? I know, it's heresy, but just putting it out there for you to consider.

[Sci-2]

In less then 48 hours of news coverage, the big 3 news agencies devoted 44 times more coverage of a bridge closure scandal involving a maybe, possibly, future presidential candate then their coverage of an IRS political scandal in the past 6 months. 88 minutes in less then 2 days compared to 2 minutes in 6 months.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/01/10/deluge-44-times-more-network-coverage-christies-traffic-scandal-last

There's probably been even less coverage on the various illegal and underhanded activities of the banks, just a line or two about fines. I think things like "increased IRS scrutiny" similarly just don't have people tuning in. People believe it or disbelieve it and then move on.

Christie isn't just a candidate, he's already someone who is polarizing (within his own party no less) and has gotten national press before. And people like seeing those they perceive as bullies squirm.

[Lightysnake88]

In less then 48 hours of news coverage, the big 3 news agencies devoted 44 times more coverage of a bridge closure scandal involving a maybe, possibly, future presidential candate then their coverage of an IRS political scandal in the past 6 months. 88 minutes in less then 2 days compared to 2 minutes in 6 months.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/01/10/deluge-44-times-more-network-coverage-christies-traffic-scandal-last

Maybe because the bridge scandal is actually real and wasn't invented like the IRS one. Oh, no. the IRS was doing its job. The horror

[Sturn]

Re: Sturn

Maybe because there's not much of a scandal with the IRS, at all? I know, it's heresy, but just putting it out there for you to consider.

Are you kidding? Closing a bridge vs. targeting of citizens by the government based on politics? Which seems more important? Someone's already been fired for the first, lesser, incident. Obama vowed to right the wrong in the IRS scandal while stating, "I've reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog's report, and the misconduct that it uncovered was inexcusable." A year later an Obama donor has been named to investigate. Still, the news media devotes 44 times more attention to the bridge in 2 days versus 6 months. I wonder why? Not really.

Maybe because the bridge scandal is actually real and wasn't invented like the IRS one. Oh, no. the IRS was doing its job. The horror

I guess you should call up the President and inform him of such, since he apparently disagrees with you. Of course you might be more in the know then him?

[Sci-2]

Still, the news media devotes 44 times more attention to the bridge in 2 days versus 6 months. I wonder why? Not really.

You're presenting one reason as the definitive, when other plausible explanations exist. Simply citing the coverage as proof, without context and data on other stories, isn't convincing.

Which is not to say you're wrong or paranoid, but it's not enough data.

[Inigima]

In less then 48 hours of news coverage, the big 3 news agencies devoted 44 times more coverage of a bridge closure scandal involving a maybe, possibly, future presidential candate then their coverage of an IRS political scandal in the past 6 months. 88 minutes in less then 2 days compared to 2 minutes in 6 months.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/01/10/deluge-44-times-more-network-coverage-christies-traffic-scandal-last

I have personally watched more than the alleged two minutes of coverage of the IRS thing than that, and I don't watch very much TV news. Am I missing something?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

In less then 48 hours of news coverage, the big 3 news agencies devoted 44 times more coverage of a bridge closure scandal involving a maybe, possibly, future presidential candate then their coverage of an IRS political scandal in the past 6 months. 88 minutes in less then 2 days compared to 2 minutes in 6 months.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/01/10/deluge-44-times-more-network-coverage-christies-traffic-scandal-last

The IRS scandal happened in May, and was thoroughly covered at the time. So comparing coverage starting from July is pretty patently dishonest and misleading.

[Shryke]

Also, as pointed out, the IRS scandal turned out to be bullshit whereas the Bridge closure scandal is getting legs because it's turning out to be true.

There's also the nature of the scandals in that the IRS issue was simply some bad policies by low-level people and the bridge issue is the direct targeting of the public for retribution by a politician. This isn't even as defensible as, like, being against abortion. There is no possible excuse for this action beyond fucking people over.

[SkynJay]

Can we give up on the media having any agenda other than selling ad space? Christie is a larger than life personality caught in a scandal from a cartoon. People eat this up. A media outlet is either going to cover it or loss the ratings game.

[Shryke]

Can we give up on the media having any agenda other than selling ad space? Christie is a larger than life personality caught in a scandal from a cartoon. People eat this up. A media outlet is either going to cover it or loss the ratings game.

No because Fox News. Or CNBC.

[TrackerNeil]

Re: Tracker

You do? Is that a rhetorical question?

I was being a bitch there, I admit. I'm tired of hearing LCRs assert how they're working within the party when their damned party is the source of most contemporary anti-gay policy.

[TerraPrime]

I was being a bitch there, I admit. I'm tired of hearing LCRs assert how they're working within the party when their damned party is the source of most contemporary anti-gay policy.

I agree.

Yet, we must also consider the possibility that they did serve to moderate the anti-gay stuff coming out of the GOP. It's scary to contemplate a more anti-gay agenda from the GOP, but I do not yet have a bottom for the expectation on how much they hate gay people. I suppose only a GOP insider will know just how much effect the Log Cabin has on tempering the anti-gay agenda, but right now I'd at least give them the benefits of the doubt.

[TrackerNeil]

I agree.

Yet, we must also consider the possibility that they did serve to moderate the anti-gay stuff coming out of the GOP. It's scary to contemplate a more anti-gay agenda from the GOP, but I do not yet have a bottom for the expectation on how much they hate gay people. I suppose only a GOP insider will know just how much effect the Log Cabin has on tempering the anti-gay agenda, but right now I'd at least give them the benefits of the doubt.

I guess it's possible the LCRs are having a moderating effect, although I have yet to see any hard evidence of said moderation. I suspect that the primary reason the GOP is not even more anti-gay is that there's no payoff. This isn't 2004, after all; these days most Americans support ENDA and same sex marriage. (Which, by the way, the Republican Party still opposes.) Sure, this or that congressman can spew hatred to his red-state constituents and reap an electoral reward, but that doesn't play on the large scale anymore.

[Lightysnake88]

Are you kidding? Closing a bridge vs. targeting of citizens by the government based on politics? Which seems more important? Someone's already been fired for the first, lesser, incident. Obama vowed to right the wrong in the IRS scandal while stating, "I've reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog's report, and the misconduct that it uncovered was inexcusable." A year later an Obama donor has been named to investigate. Still, the news media devotes 44 times more attention to the bridge in 2 days versus 6 months. I wonder why? Not really.

I guess you should call up the President and inform him of such, since he apparently disagrees with you. Of course you might be more in the know then him?

I suppose Shirley Sherrod is a white hating bigot, and ACORN was a corrupt, evil institution given the former lost her job in precisely the same manner and the latter ceased to exist. Before it came out Breitbart/O'Keefe conveniently doctored evidence.

These groups were applying for a certain tax exemption: 501©(4) organizations are supposed to have "social welfare" as their primary function, not politics. The statute actually says "exclusively," but the courts have interpreted that as "primarily" social welfare. But if a group is mostly active in politics, they are violating the law. Tea Party groups-politically active ones, were cropping up all over the place and actively participating in politics.

Also? Social welfare" nonprofits don't actually have to apply to the IRS as tax-exempt organizations. In other words, all of this fury over the IRS scrutinizing their applications is absurd, since they can simply incorporate and raise and spend money, without asking for IRS approval. Most such agencies apply, because the recognition helps with their fundraising. (Would you give to an unregistered group?) But they don't have to. In fact, a number of "Tea Party" and "Patriot" groups have not applied. They just have to file the correct tax return.

In short, these groups don't pay taxes, and they don't have to disclose donors. But they are also forbidden from participating in partisan activities, like endorsing candidates. And OH LOOK what the Tea Party groups were doing!

And they scrutinized groups with 'patriot' in their name? Good. http://www.splcenter.org/home/2013/spring/the-year-in-hate-and-extremism#.UZLJI7XvuSo

The Southern Povery Law Center noticed over 1,300 politically anti-government groups with that word. Should all of them simply be given tax-exempt status, because, they choose to use the same word in their name as many Tea Party groups? How do IRS investigators do their job – which is, in part, to determine the difference between legitimate tax-exempt groups and anti-government hate groups without searching for them?

Citizens United decision caused hundreds of right wing political groups to pop up almost overnight, so they could attempt to swing the 2012 elections. Liberal groups weren’t creating tax exempt organizations in droves, unfortunately, so of course IRS investigators were more likely to look at right wing groups.

Oh, and given you support a party that's for the disenfranchisement of black folks, forcing women to stay pregnant against their will, prohibiting gays from being socially accepted citizens, and oh yes, used the IRS to target Muslim groups and the NAACP in the past, any complaining about this rings kinda hollow to me.

If anything, the party of deficit whining should be praising the IRS for making sure tax exempt groups fit with the law. Want to do something productive? Make easy rules to follow for the IRS. I sincerely doubt you'll bother to rethink your position here, Sturn, but maybe someone else'll learn something.

[Suttree]

Are you kidding? Closing a bridge vs. targeting of citizens by the government based on politics?

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't it been shown that groups on both ends of the spectrum were targeted and it was simply a case of an overworked office?