Malacandra.me

Latest Posts

Do Not Go Gently into That Goodnight by David Atkins

Do Not Go Gently Into That Goodnight
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

If you're well enough informed to be reading Hullabaloo, then you probably already know that a debt ceiling deal is apparently in the works. And it's bad. Very, very bad.

  • $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
  • The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
  • The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
  • If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn't happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
  • No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee's deliberations.

Needless to say, this is a truly horrible deal. $2.8 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending. An unaccountable "super committee" that will probably recommend cuts and "adjustments" to Medicare and Social Security. No new tax revenue of any kind.

It's hard to imagine how it gets much worse than this. If this deal goes through, it would represent nothing less than a capitulation on the part of the President and the Democratic Senate to economic terrorism on the part of the Republican caucus, and would set a major precedent for more accountability-free hostage taking in the future. Grover Norquist seems pretty happy about it, and why not? The gameplan for drowning the government in the bathtub is obvious from here. It's clear that the Democrats won't do a thing to get in the way, because there's no hostage the Democrats will be willing to shoot--or even threaten to shoot--when the GOP takes one, nor will the media abandon its postmodern "both sides are just as bad" shtick no matter how asinine the GOP becomes.

None of which even touches the fact that the discretionary spending cuts and bipartisan commission to recommend entitlement cuts are right in line with what President Obama has repeatedly said he wanted, anyway. We're certainly not going to get any help to stand up to this atrocious "compromise" from the President: he actively wants most of what is in it.

The only saving grace here is that some reports suggest that this might be a trial balloon: i.e., that the reaction from the rank-and-file on both sides might affect the ultimate acceptability of the bill. This is true on general principle, of course: the bill would still have to get through Congress, regardless of what Obama, Reid, McConnell and Boehner may have hammered out behind closed doors.

This is ultimately where the rubber meets the road. The only way to stop this "deal" at this point is to lobby Congress to oppose it.

Call (202)224-3121 and ask to speak to (or leave voicemails for) your Representative and Senators--particularly if they're Democrats. Tell them you don't want massive cuts to spending that will throw us even deeper into recession even as corporations are making record profits but not hiring Americans.

It may not be much, but it's worth a shot. It's certainly more valuable than screaming helplessly into the online ether even as austerity mania consumes the nation alive. Do not go gently into that goodnight.

comments

Saturday Night At The Movies—- Double Feature: Cowboys, Aliens, Sinners & Saints

Saturday Night At The Movies


Double Feature: Cowboys, Aliens, Sinners & Saints

By Dennis Hartley














Deadwood? Meet Torchwood: Cowboys and Aliens


Ah, summer. The high season of high concept films, pitched to the Hollywood higher-ups by people who are really, really, high. Hey now! Consider Cowboys and Aliens, the newest film from Iron Man director Jon “Vegas, baby, Vegas” Favreau. The title is the pitch. That’s probably all it took: “Cowboys. Aliens. Daniel Craig. Harrison Ford.” And, BAM! Green-lighted. Done deal. It’s almost eloquent, in its masterful conceptual brevity. OK, there have been precedents, vis a vis the mash-up of the Old West with sci-fi. The Valley of Gwangi is one film that immediately springs to mind-a guilty pleasure from 1969 that featured cowpokes wranglin’ a purple stop-motion T. Rex (Barney with teeth!) for a Mexican circus. Gene Autry’s Phantom Empire movie serial dates all the way back to the 1930s, which has the Singing Cowboy mixing it up with robots and denizens hailing from the underground city of ‘Murania’ (Queen Tika!). Back to the Future, Part III would fit in that theme park. Westworld and The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension sort of count. And then there’s…well, others. It would be cheating to include TV, so I won’t mention The Wild, Wild West, the odd Twilight Zone or Star Trek episode, or “Gunmen of the Apocalypse” (Best.Red.Dwarf.Episode.Ever.).


The film opens, appropriately enough, with a Mystery. Actually, it opens kind of like Hangover 3. A rangy 1870s gunslinger (Daniel Craig) wakes up in the middle of the Arizona desert with a cauterized wound, an empty holster, a non-removable, anachronistic hi-tech device affixed to his wrist…and amnesia. An absence of empty tequila bottles in the immediate vicinity would appear to indicate that there could be an interesting story behind all this. He isn’t given too much time to ponder, as he (Jake, we’ll call him) is soon set upon by some gamey ruffians with human scalps hanging from their saddles. Sizing up his wound and assuming his unusual bracelet is a kind of shackle, the boys figure Jake might be worth reward money (not only do these fellers spout authentic Western gibberish, but they ain’t none too bright). Imagine their surprise (and Jake’s) when he instinctively springs into action and expertly takes ‘em all out, Jason Bourne style. So we (and Jake) have discovered one thing right off the bat-he’s a badass.


Cut to the requisite “Man with No Name rides into dusty cowtown” Leone homage scene (you thought they’d forgotten?). Meet our crusty yet benign saloon keeper (Sam Rockwell). Say “hey” to our crusty yet benign town sheriff (Keith Carradine…again). And I want to give a special shout out for the preacher man who ain’t afeared to handle a shootin’ iron (Clancy Brown, with his huge Lurch head). And no 1870s cowtown would be complete without its resident posse of drunken asshole bullies, a whoopin’ and a hollerin’ and recklessly shootin’ up the place, led by the spoiled, arrogant son (Paul Dano) of the local cattle baron (Harrison Ford) who “owns” the town. Daddy’s little angel makes quite a scene terrorizing the good townsfolk until Jake decides to take him down a notch. The situation escalates to a point where the sheriff has no choice but to arrest them both. Junior petulantly warns all that his Daddy will be very cross-and he’ll make ‘em all pay. Daddy does eventually ride in, and the whole powder keg is set to explode, when everyone gets sidetracked by an alien invasion (just in time, too-because the attack occurs as they are on the verge of runnin’ plumb out of wild West film clichés).


There’s not much point in synopsizing the remainder of the narrative, because despite the fact that I just saw the movie last night, and it’s allegedly still fresh in my mind, I’ve already forgotten a lot of what happens next. But I don’t think it really matters, in the grand scheme of things. I do remember lots of explosions and gooey strands of fleshy alien viscera hanging off the cacti like so much tinsel on a Christmas Tree. Oh, and there’s something about a magic ring, and the end of the world (no, not really, I’m just checking to see if you’re still paying attention to this ridiculous film review). But if you really must pry (“I must! I must!”), I will tell you that what does ensue is basically a remake of The Searchers, with Harrison Ford’s character standing in for John Wayne, and alien abductors substituting for the Native American kidnappers in John Ford’s film. Oh (he said, attempting to appear casual)…there is the lovely Olivia Wilde, who plays the one person who could possibly help Jake “remember” how he got in the state we found him in at the beginning of the film. To extrapolate further about her character would constitute “spoilers”, so I’ll leave it there. Did I mention Olivia Wilde was in this?


Is it worth seeing? That depends. If you’re a sci-fi “purist” you probably want to steer clear (too many potential tirade-inducing logic holes in the narrative for you Spock types). If you demand coherent story lines in your movies…you might not want to bother either (the film has six credited writers-‘nuff said). But if you’re in a popcorn mood, and ready for big, dumb, loud fun, with lots of action, serviceable special effects and a few decent chuckles-then you may want to take a peek (even if you don’t remember any of it the next day). Cowboys. Aliens. Daniel Craig. Harrison Ford…what more do you want?

Previous posts with related themes:

Iron Man














Give me a sign, Lord: Salvation Boulevard


Salvation Boulevard is precisely the type of black comedy cum social satire cum noirish morality play that the Coen brothers really excel at. Unfortunately, the Coen brothers didn’t direct it. Or write it. However, I will hand it to writer-director George Ratliff-it does take a special kind of skill to so effectively squander the potential of a cast that includes Pierce Brosnan, Greg Kinnear, Jennifer Connelly, Marisa Tomei and Ed Harris.


Kinnear plays ex-Deadhead Carl, a member of a megachurch who has traded the tie-dye and Thai Stick of hippiedom for the sackcloth and ashes of born-again Christendom. Well, maybe not completely (is there really such a thing as an “ex”-Deadhead?), because you get the impression that his wife Gwen (Connelly) is the one who really wears the piety in the family. Gwen is slavishly devoted to the edicts of the church’s charismatic leader, Pastor Dan (Brosnan), a slick hustler with ambitions to build his own “city on a hill” (more as a monument to himself, than to the Lord-one suspects). Their teen daughter (Isabelle Fuhrman) is apprehensive about Mom’s push to psych her up for taking her “vows” at an upcoming “purity ball”. Meanwhile, malleable Carl just goes with the flow.


One evening, following a televised debate at the megachurch between Pastor Dan and guest speaker Dr. Blaylock (Harris), a famous atheist writer, Carl ends up driving the pastor to the doctor’s home for a nightcap. In the midst of a conversation about the possibilities of the two men co-authoring a book, Pastor Dan accidently shoots Dr. Blaylock in the head while handling an antique pistol (oops!), leaving the writer alive, but in a coma. Carl, of course, wants to do the right thing and call the police immediately; but the silver-tongued pastor persuades him to hold off until they get back to the church (you see what’s coming, don’t you?). Yes, Carl is being set up to be the fall guy-and by the time he realizes it, Pastor Dan (with no shortage of worshipful toadies at his disposal) has the upper hand. No one believes Carl’s side of the story, even Gwen (she chalks it up as a “hallucination”-maybe a relapse to his druggie DFH past). He finally finds a sympathetic ear in a female church security guard (Tomei) who bonds with him as a fellow Deadhead.


Once the pair (seemingly the only two sane and likable characters in the story) hit the highway in a VW van, with the evil heavies from the church in hot pursuit, you would think that you are now in for a darkly amusing “road movie”, chockablock with wacky vignettes fueled by the colorful characters encountered along the way. You would think. But it is at this point in the film that Ratliff (and his co-writer Douglas Stone) make a fatal mistake. Well, two. First, Tomei’s character gets dropped like a rock-which is too bad, because the only time the film really came alive for me was when she was onscreen (as much as I admire her fine dramatic work in recent years, I have always found her to be particularly skillful in comedic roles-she’s sort of our modern Judy Holliday). Secondly, from the moment Carl is abruptly kidnapped by a Mexican drug lord (don’t ask) the whole narrative gets hijacked as well, grinding the entire film to a thudding halt.


It’s been a while since I have found myself remaining so stone faced through a “comedy”. I’m not sure what happened here; but most of the cast (with the exception of Tomei) sleepwalk through the film (and these are excellent, reliable actors). Bad direction? Not enough direction? Weak script? All of the above? Sometimes it’s hard to pinpoint. Whatever the root cause, the end product is forced and flat; it’s like a lame network sitcom making a futile attempt to be as hip as, say, Weeds. I had also greatly anticipated the re-pairing of Brosnan and Kinnear, who made a perfect tag team in the 2005 black comedy, The Matador. But alas, it was not to be. Another unpardonable sin-the megachurch phenom is so ripe for a satirical takedown, and that opportunity is blown as well. So I am afraid I have to say: “Praise the Lord and pass the multiplex” on this one.


Previous posts with related themes:

Religulous


.


comments

Very Serious

Paul Krugman lauds Jonathan Chait's jeremiad against the "establishment" for using the debt ceiling as an excuse to slash spending. It's certainly true that they did that and it was obviously a bad decision, which many of them are now regretting.

But this from Chait is nonsense:

When Republicans first proposed tying a debt ceiling hike to a measure to reduce the deficit, President Obama instead proposed a traditional, clean debt ceiling hike. He found this position politically untenable for many reasons, one of them being that deficit scolds insisted that using the debt ceiling to force a fiscal adjustment was a terrific idea, and that connecting the deficit debate to a potentially cataclysmic financial event was the mark of seriousness.

I know it's unpleasant to think about, but I'm afraid that the President is one of those serious people. It's true that they came to believe that it was "politically untenable" to hold fast for a clean debt ceiling, but it's important to acknowledge why that is. Elizabeth Drew reported:

The question arises, aside from Obama’s chronically allowing the Republicans to define the agenda and even the terminology (the pejorative word “Obamacare” is now even used by news broadcasters), why did he so definitively place himself on the side of the deficit reducers at a time when growth and job creation were by far the country’s most urgent needs?

It all goes back to the “shellacking” Obama took in the 2010 elections. The President’s political advisers studied the numbers and concluded that the voters wanted the government to spend less. This was an arguable interpretation. Nevertheless, the political advisers believed that elections are decided by middle-of-the-road independent voters, and this group became the target for determining the policies of the next two years.

That explains a lot about the course the President has been taking this year. The political team’s reading of these voters was that to them, a dollar spent by government to create a job is a dollar wasted. The only thing that carries weight with such swing voters, they decided—in another arguable proposition—is cutting spending. Moreover, like Democrats—and very unlike Republicans—these voters do not consider “compromise” a dirty word.

The President proposed at least two modest plans for stimulus spending, someone familiar with all these deliberations told me, “but he’s not as Keynesian as before.” This person said, “If the political advisers had told him in 2009 that the median voter didn’t like the stimulus, he’d have told them to get lost.” By 2011, in his State of the Union address in January he moved from jobs creation (such as the stimulus program) toward longer-term investment.

The speech Obama gave on April 13 marked his conversion to fiscal centrism; to being the fiscally responsible Democrat. In that speech he stated that he wanted to reduce the debt by $4 trillion—thus aligning himself with the Republicans—but also asked for revenues to partly offset that reduction. It was all about reelection politics, designed to appeal to this same group of independents. “And that’s why,” I was told by the person familiar with the White House deliberations, “he went bigger in the deficit reduction talks; bringing in Social Security is consistent with that slice of the electorate they’re trying to reach.” This person said, “There’s a bit of bass-ackwardness to this; the deficit spending you’d want to focus on right now is the jobs issue.”

And we also know that he came to see this as an opportunity to make his long desired Grand Bargain. How do we know this? Because he told us so, over and over again.

And he and John Boehner worked together for months to get it done:

Only a President, elected to serve all the people, can do certain things — including reach out and lift up a friend or rival into the heady temple of Executive power. "I'm the President of the United States," Obama told Boehner. "You're the Speaker of the House. We're the two most responsible leaders right now." In case you were worrying overmuch about the Senate kabuki, this should set your mind at ease:

Even Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who had promised to use all parliamentary procedures at his disposal to slow approval of any plan with a balanced-budget provision, said Friday that he was still mulling his strategy in coming days.

“I don’t know what I’m going to do,” he said, indicating he would take into account an appeal from McConnell to allow an expedited process, if a compromise were reached. “I’m certainly going to listen — we’re playing up against a pretty important deadline here, and I don’t want to fool with that.”

I wonder if DeMint knows what he's in for:

Tea Party leaders from the Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Founding Fathers, and United West are targeting their hero Rep. Allen West (R-FL) and three other GOP freshman for supposedly trading in their Tea Party principles to support House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) debt ceiling plan. Chaffing under his new title of “Tea Party defector,” West scoffed at his supporters’ derision this morning on the Laura Ingraham Show. “If [Tea Party] folks, one minute they are saying I’m their Tea Party hero and three, four days later I’m their tea party defector, that kind of schizophrenia I’m not going to get involved in,” he said.

Trouble in Tea-a-dise?

comments

Happpy 6th Bloggiversary to Batocchio


Who is noble and true, a fine and insightful writer, a great lunchtime companion and raconteur, and raises welts on all the right people.

Last seen looking in vain for Bagel Street.

Go over and wish him well.
comments

And how did you like the kabuki dance, Mr Lincoln?”

In case you were worrying overmuch about the Senate kabuki, this should set your mind at ease:

Even Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who had promised to use all parliamentary procedures at his disposal to slow approval of any plan with a balanced-budget provision, said Friday that he was still mulling his strategy in coming days.

“I don’t know what I’m going to do,” he said, indicating he would take into account an appeal from McConnell to allow an expedited process, if a compromise were reached. “I’m certainly going to listen — we’re playing up against a pretty important deadline here, and I don’t want to fool with that.”

I wonder if DeMint knows what he's in for:

Tea Party leaders from the Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Founding Fathers, and United West are targeting their hero Rep. Allen West (R-FL) and three other GOP freshman for supposedly trading in their Tea Party principles to support House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) debt ceiling plan. Chaffing under his new title of “Tea Party defector,” West scoffed at his supporters’ derision this morning on the Laura Ingraham Show. “If [Tea Party] folks, one minute they are saying I’m their Tea Party hero and three, four days later I’m their tea party defector, that kind of schizophrenia I’m not going to get involved in,” he said.

Trouble in Tea-a-dise?

comments

Student Labour Wasted at Ales Stenar [Aardvarchaeology]

It's that time of the year again when little usually happens and Sweden's loudest and most aggressive amateur archaeologist likes to get in the news. As mentioned here before, Bob G. Lind has managed to get my otherwise respected colleague Wladyslaw Duczko to join him and dowsing-rod geologist N-A. Mörner for some fieldwork near a lovely standing-stone ship in Scania, the famous Ales stenar, built in the 7th century AD. Duczko's involvement solved the problem previously alluded to here, that when local bodies give Bob funding for fieldwork, they're betting on a horse that can't actually get a fieldwork permit.

The merry three believe, against all dating evidence from this and similar sites, that the monument dates from the Bronze Age. They are digging with Duczko's Polish students within sight of the stone ship, but not close enough to harm it. Nor, indeed, close enough for their results to have any relevance for the dating and functional interpretation of the monument. They're on a spot where there's faint remains of a trackway down the erosion scarp above the seashore. Such an erosion scarp moves inland over the centuries. This means that the stone ship was much farther from the sea when it was built than it is now.

The placement of the track is contingent on where the scarp is currently located, and so the track can't be very old. But Duczko & Co assume that the track was used to pull the stones to the site of the ship. So they want to date the track. If they can date it to a period before the Late Iron Age, their reasoning goes, then this will date the stone ship. This is really lame. Even if the track were Mesolithic in date, even if it were early post-glacial, then nothing would keep people in the Late Iron Age from plonking a monument down on or near the track. And there is nothing to suggest that the stones of the ship were really brought up the scarp along the track.

So what has the fieldwork shown? Touchingly, Duczko & Co emphasise that they have not found anything to date the track to the 1st millennium AD, as if this were an important result. Have they, then, been able to date it to the Bronze Age? No. The track remains undated and functionally unrelated to the stone ship.

I feel really sorry for the students who waste their time on this project. Scania is an extremely rich archaeological province, and there are so many amazing sites where these young people could contribute to new exciting discoveries, make useful contacts and learn something. Instead they've been lured onto a pointless dig devised by a crank with whom not one Scanian archaeologist is willing to collaborate.

The TT news agency called me about this and wrote a nicely understated treatment that made it into various papers: DN, SvD, GP. They got one thing wrong though. I didn't say that every known large stone ship has been dated with radiocarbon. I said that those that have been dated thus have given consistent late-1st millennium dates.

Read the comments on this post...

Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Inside the Outbreaks on the ScienceBlogs Book Club


comments

DNA-based artificial neural network is a primitive brain in a test tube (video)

Neuron and DNA
Many simpler forms of life on this planet, including some of our earliest ancestors, don't have proper brains. Instead they have networks of neurons that fire in response to stimuli, triggering reactions. Scientists from Caltech have actually figured out how to create such a primitive pre-brain using strands of DNA. Researchers, led by Lulu Qian, strung together DNA molecules to create bio-mechanical circuits. By sequencing the four bases of our genetic code in a particular way, they were able to program it to respond differently to various inputs. To prove their success the team quizzed the organic circuit, essentially playing 20 questions, feeding it clues to the identity of a particular scientist using more DNA strands. The artificial neural network nailed answer every time. Check out the PR and pair of videos that dig a little deeper into the experiment after the break.

Continue reading DNA-based artificial neural network is a primitive brain in a test tube (video)

DNA-based artificial neural network is a primitive brain in a test tube (video) originally appeared on Engadget on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:36:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Discovery News  |   | Email this | Comments
comments

“No Liars” Pledge Gains Momentum



James Wolcott lauds Lawrence O'Donnell for his decision to banish " a congenitally lying Tea Party Republican phony (a multiple redundancy, I know) from his program's guest list" and then asks the four trillion dollar musical question:
When did Sean Hannity get elected to anything and become the cryptkeeper of the Reagan legacy?
Good question, Mr. Wolcott, and many thanks for the link.

So Mr. Wolcott continues using his Vorpal sword to great effect, and Mr. O'Donnell has stepped up. And, as readers know, Dr. Paul Krugman is already doing yeoman's work for the cause.

So what about you, Jill Abramson?

What about you, Tina Brown?

What about you, Betsy Fischer?

What about you, Mistah Kurtz?

This nation can no longer survive half-Fox and half-free.

So which side do you choose?





comments

Cult of centrism, or right-wing media?

Cult of centrism, or rightwing media?
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

Digby and I have both been emphasizing Krugman's point lately about the media's cult of centrism, the relativistic postmodern approach to truth that sees everything as mere "perspective" rather than factual reality.

But on second thought, that analysis may merit some questioning. Consider the following thought experiment:

Suppose there were a bill coming up to fund, say, money for troop pay. Or the existence of the base in Guantanamo. Or Pentagon black ops budgets for monitoring potential nuclear terrorism threats. Fairly essential things Republicans care about.

Suppose that bill came up fairly regularly and passed completely without incident under GOP and Democratic administrations alike.

Now suppose Democrats controlled just the Senate, but a Republican who won election in a landslide held the White House and the Speaker's gavel lay in GOP hands as well.

Now suppose Senate Democrats decided that they simply weren't going to allow the troops to be paid at all unless we returned to Reagan-era 50% marginal tax rates on the wealthy and a 35% capital gains tax rate. Suppose that the Republican President and the Speaker totally capitulated on the essence of these demands (I know, stop laughing for just a moment to read on) but said that they would only accept a 40% marginal rate and 25% capital gains rate. Suppose the Republican President put on the table wholly unrelated closures of other corporate tax loopholes and an end of oil drilling subsidies as a cherry on top in a "Grand Bargain", but only in exchange for some fairly minor and inconsequential cuts to discretionary spending that most reasonable people on both sides felt to be wasteful.

Now suppose that Senate Democrats rejected that deal, threatening to withhold pay for the troops/Guantanamo/nuclear terrorism funding on general principle, arguing that their not getting the money at all might be a good thing, because starving the beast might force the Republican President to defund the military-industrial complex entirely. Suppose Congress could not come to a deal as the Democratic Senate remained intransigent on this point, and the Senate Majority Leader's job were under fire as Democrats excoriated him for also daring to allow funding for troop body armor in the bill because after all, what do they need that for? (And yes, stop laughing again at the fact that in the real world, it's Democrats who work to give the troops body armor and Republicans who vote against it.)

How would the modern media treat that scenario? Would it be a postmodern "both sides do it" mishmash of weary journalistic malaise?

Of course not. Every "liberal" columnist from Joe Klein to Dana Milbank would spend every waking moment tut tutting the crazy, unreasonable Democrats. Regular newspaper articles would breathlessly characterize Democratic actions as hostage-taking, replete with stories about the danger being placed on America and how much regular folks in the heartland hate those awful Democrats. And the howling on the Right? Well, take the regular over-the-top screaming, and amplify the Drudge flashers and Fox News chyrons by tenfold. You would almost almost certainly see physical violence Democratic legislators.

The point of this exercise, of course, is that we don't really have a cult of centrism in the media. We just have a right wing media. Period.

Some of it is right wing by choice. The rest of it is scared into the position by pressure from conservative advocacy groups, or fear of losing their jobs. But we should really call it what it is. "Cult of centrism" really doesn't do justice to what has happened to media in this country.

comments

Even the lunatics aren’t crazy enough for the kooks

In case you were worrying overmuch about the Senate kabuki, this should set your mind at ease:

Even Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who had promised to use all parliamentary procedures at his disposal to slow approval of any plan with a balanced-budget provision, said Friday that he was still mulling his strategy in coming days.

“I don’t know what I’m going to do,” he said, indicating he would take into account an appeal from McConnell to allow an expedited process, if a compromise were reached. “I’m certainly going to listen — we’re playing up against a pretty important deadline here, and I don’t want to fool with that.”

I wonder if DeMint knows what he's in for:

Tea Party leaders from the Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Founding Fathers, and United West are targeting their hero Rep. Allen West (R-FL) and three other GOP freshman for supposedly trading in their Tea Party principles to support House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) debt ceiling plan. Chaffing under his new title of “Tea Party defector,” West scoffed at his supporters’ derision this morning on the Laura Ingraham Show. “If [Tea Party] folks, one minute they are saying I’m their Tea Party hero and three, four days later I’m their tea party defector, that kind of schizophrenia I’m not going to get involved in,” he said.

Trouble in Tea-a-dise?

comments

‹ First  < 2984 2985 2986 2987 2988 >  Last ›