Quantcast
Channel: BuzzFeed News
Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live

Obama: I Have The Juice

0
0

President tells reporters he can still do stuff. Except when he can’t.

Via: Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Early in his press conference Tuesday, President Obama got the "100 days" question. More than three months into his second term, ABC's Jonathan Karl asked, do the failed battles over the sequester and gun control mean the president is now powerless?

To put it Karl's way, "Do you still have the juice to get the rest of your agenda through this Congress?"

"As Mark Twain said, you know, rumors of my demise may be a little exaggerated at this point," Obama replied.

But at the same time, the president made sure the viewing audience knew that he can't get stuff done — and that it's the fault of Republicans that he can't. It's a tightrope the White House has walked for a while now: project strength and capability from the Oval Office, while keeping one finger pointed at Congress just in case things go wrong.

After the second-term defeats on gun control and the sequester — Obama appeared to concede that sequester politics have not gone his way at the presser, blaming a short-term focus in Congress ahead of 2014 — the president said immigration reform is where he'll get a victory.

"I feel confident that the bipartisan work that's been done on immigration reform will result in a bill that passes the Senate and passes the House and gets on my desk. And that's going to be a historic achievement," he said. "And I've been very complimentary of the efforts of both Republicans and Democrats in those efforts."

Some of Obama's allies say Obama hasn't used what juice he has effectively. After the White House got behind a bill passed by both parties of Congress that provided a fix for flight delays caused by sequestration, some in Congress and in Obama's base contended he had ceded the sequester fight. On Monday, Democratic Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut told a local paper he wished Obama had done more in the gun control fight. "I wish he had turned the screw harder," Himes said.

At the press conference, Obama rejected the idea that publicly opposing the flight-delays plan would have cajoled Republicans into coming back to the negotiating table.

"Frankly, I don't think that if I were to veto, for example, this FAA bill, that that somehow would lead to the broader fix," he said. "It just means that there'd be pain now, which they would try to blame on me, as opposed to pain five years from now."

In short, Obama isn't sure he has the juice when it comes to the sequester.

"I think there's a genuine desire on many of their parts to move past not only sequester but Washington dysfunction," Obama said, referring to some Republican senators he said have expressed a desire to work with the White House on sequestration. "Whether we can get it done or not, you know, we'll see."

The essential point Obama was trying to get across was that Congress is responsible for its own actions. But at the same time, he doesn't want to concede that he's out of the loop completely.

"I cannot force Republicans to embrace those common-sense solutions. I can urge them to," he said. "I can put pressure on them, I can, you know, rally the American people around those — you know, those common-sense solutions, but ultimately they themselves are going to have to say, we want to do the right thing."


MSNBC's South Carolina Debate Expert Might Not Have Watched The South Carolina Debate

0
0

Damn, bro.

View Video ›

Huck PAC director, and former Executive Director of the South Carolina Republican Party, Hogan Gidley appeared on MSNBC's Now to give his expert take on Monday night's debate in South Carolina between Mark Sanford and Elizabeth Colbert Busch. It wasn't pretty:

GIDLEY: "The fact of the matter is she missed huge opportunities to take apart Mark Sanford's professional record...the fact that our port (Port Charleston) was second in the world when he took over — I think it fell to 12th under his leadership because he refused to do anything about dredging down there."

The fact of the matter is that Colbert Busch did hit Sanford about dredging Port Charleston. Twice:

COLBERT BUSCH: "I'd like to make note that Mark Sanford, my opponent, voted against dredging the port, voted against the bridge, and voted against everything. And he was the only congressman to do that.."

later...

COLBERT BUSCH: "When we talk about the role of government, creating conditions and infrastructure to support that growth, I want to remind everyone again, and Mark, you voted against the bridge, you voted against the dredging, you voted against job training, and all of those things are needed for job creation.."

View Video ›

Joint Chiefs Chairman Says Military Force Might Not Work In Syria

0
0

“It's not clear to me” military intervention would fix Syria's problems, Dempsey says.

Gen. Martin Dempsey speaking to troops in Tokyo.

Via: Yuya Shino / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Tuesday that the military was prepared to take action in Syria after intelligence showed that the Assad regime may have used chemical weapons, but that he isn't convinced military intervention would produce the desired outcome.

"Whether the military effect would produce the kind of outcome that not just members of Congress but all of us would desire — which is an end to the violence, some kind of political reconciliation among the parties and a stable Syria — that's the reason I've been cautious, is the right word, about the application of the military instrument of power, because it's not clear to me that it would produce that outcome," Dempsey said at a lunch with reporters.

"That said, options are ready," Dempsey said. "If either it becomes clear to me, or I'm ordered to do, so we will act."

Dempsey, who just returned from a 10-day trip abroad to Asia, declined to specifically address what President Obama said on Tuesday about whether or not the United States will intervene in Syria; "I won't go into detail about what those options might be," for possible intervention, Obama said at a press conference. But Dempsey said that the military's posture on the issue has not changed.

"Nothing I've heard in the last week or so has changed anything about the actions we're taking in the military," Dempsey said. "We've been planning and we've been developing options. We're looking to determine whether these options remain valid as the conditions change."

Dempsey warned that the Syrian situation isn't quite analogous to Libya just before the fall of Moammar Qaddafi, because of the Syrian army's superior air force.

"The air defense picture in Libya was dramatically different than it is in Syria," Dempsey said. "In Syria there are five times more air defense systems, some of which are high end air defense systems. The US military has the capability to defeat that system, but it would be a greater challenge, take longer, and require more resources."

Dempsey sounded cautious about implementing the no-fly zone for which some members of Congress such as John McCain have argued, saying that there were several disadvantages to doing so.

"To be effective, a no-fly zone would have to have several elements," Dempsey said. "We would have to knock down some of the integrated air defense system of an adversary."

"They could in fact take exception to the fact that we were enaciting a no-fly zone and then act outside of their borders," he said.

"We're kind of the victims of our own success," he said. "We've made the very difficult look very manageable for a very long time."

Dempsey said he didn't recall when the initial intelligence about chemical weapons being possibly used by the Assad regime became available, and couldn't specify what the physiological samples were composed of. Like Obama, he said that the chain of custody on the weapons hadn't yet been established.

He didn't say whether the "red line" in Syria been crossed.

"I don't set red lines," Dempsey said. But, "I'm a member of the National Security Council so I do have the opportunity to express my personal judgments as these issues evolve."

23 Reasons Why John Stanton Should Be On The Hill's Most Beautiful People List

0
0

Let us count the ways.

He is 9 feet tall.

He is 9 feet tall.

He can pull off a golfers cap quite well.

He can pull off a golfers cap quite well.

He also looks great in a cowboy hat.

He also looks great in a cowboy hat.

He LOVES DC.

He LOVES DC.


View Entire List ›

Russ Feingold Being Considered For State Department Post

0
0

May become a special envoy to the Great Lakes region of Africa.

Via: Alex Wong / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold is being considered for a position at the State Department, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported on Tuesday.

Feingold, who served with now-Secretary of State John Kerry in the Senate, is in talks to become the special envoy to the Great Lakes region of Africa.

A source close to Feingold confirmed to BuzzFeed that the talks are occurring.

"I can confirm on background that the story is accurate, but don't have anything beyond what's in there," the source said.

Feingold, who has been out of the Senate since 2010, told the Journal Sentinel's Daniel Bice that "I would of course welcome the opportunity to work with Secretary Kerry and to serve my country and President."

Spokespeople for the State Department didn't immediately return a request for comment.

Kirsten Gillibrand Kicks Off Ambitious 2014 Fundraising Campaign In NY

0
0

The Democratic powerhouse is in New York City Thursday for Off the Sideline's kick-off funder. Gillibrand wants to double her 2012 haul for women candidates.

Via: Seth Wenig / AP

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, whose work on behalf of women candidates during last year's election cycle helped elevate the New York Democrat to the national stage, will host a kick-off fundraising event for her political action committee Thursday in New York City, according to her office.

Gillibrand's PAC, called Off the Sidelines, aims to recruit and help elect more women to higher office.

Last year, while she was running her own reelection campaign, Gillibrand also managed to raise $1 million for female candidates like Sens. Tammy Baldwin, Heidi Heitkamp, and Claire McCaskill, who received the largest share of funds — over $200,000 — for her tight reelection race in Missouri against former Republican Rep. Todd Akin.

For the 2014 midterms, Gillibrand hopes to double her haul, raising $2 million for the Off the Sidelines PAC, said the senator's spokesman, Glen Caplin.

Gillibrand has already been raking in cash for Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, the Democratic candidate running in the South Carolina special election — scheduled for Tuesday, May 7 — against former governor Mark Sanford. Through just three messages to her email list — which is said to be considerable in size — Gillibrand raised over $100,000 for Colbert-Busch, said Caplin.

Her fundraiser in New York City Thursday, held at the Rubin Museum of Art, will include a panel discussion with Gillibrand, actress Connie Britton, designer Diane von Furstenberg, Voto Latino head Maria Teresa Kumar, and Women's National Basketball Association president Laurel Richie. Tickets, according to a invitation for the event, run from $1,000 to $10,000 a head.

A glossy video focusing on female representation in Congress — an issue that Gillibrand has made her own since launching the Off the Sidelines group last sumer — will air at the start of the fundraiser.

"We can and will have at least half of the seats in Congress," Gillibrand is quoted in the video, embedded below. "We can and will have at least 25 governorships. we can and will have as many women executives as assistants. And we can and will make sure that a woman can earn a dollar for a dollar for the same work as men."

This is the PAC's first major fundraiser — billed by Gillibrand's office as a "launch event" — and is signal enough that the senator, widely thought to have national ambitions, plans on growing her Democratic power base.

View Video ›

Senate Democrats Eye Push For Gay Couples' Protections In Immigration Bill

0
0

“I hope it will receive a majority vote in the committee,” Judiciary Committee member Richard Blumenthal says of same-sex couples' immigration measure. “My hope is that Republicans who may be talking about this provision being a deal breaker will reconsider.”

Via: Curtis Tate/MCT

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee as soon as next week could insert new protections for same-sex couples into bipartisan immigration reform legislation quickly making its way through the chamber — injecting another contentious social issue into the already heated immigration debate.

Although the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" senators did not include language allowing Americans in same-sex relationships to sponsor their foreign partner for a green card in the base bill, Democratic lawmakers and aides alike said its inclusion during the committee markup, which begins next week, appears likely.

"I expect that it would be an amendment that could be adopted by the committee. … I hope it will receive a majority vote in the committee," Judiciary Committee member Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday.

Although Chairman Patrick Leahy is expected to offer the amendment, at least officially his office insists no final decision has been made.

"The Chairman believes that equality and family unification need to be a part of this legislation but he has not decided his amendment strategy yet," a Judiciary Committee aide told BuzzFeed. "All amendments must be filed by next Tuesday night (the 7th) at 5pm. Then members will decide what to offer in the Committee mark ups."

But staff for Democrats on the committee said a vote on the amendment, similar to language in the Uniting American Families Act, is likely a foregone conclusion.

"Frankly, the bill getting out of committee without the Uniting American Families language isn't really a possibility we've considered," said Ian Koski, a spokesman for Sen. Chris Coons, who also serves on the committee. Spokespersons for two other members of the committee, Sens. Al Franken and Sheldon Whitehouse, also voiced support for the provision.

The base immigration reform bill introduced by the Gang of Eight earlier this month did not include such protections, but LGBT advocates said at the time that they were hopeful such a measure would be added to the bill in committee. The Defense of Marriage Act's prohibition on the federal government recognizing same-sex couples' marriages mean that requests by such couples for green cards are not granted and have been denied in the past.

The measure to allow same-sex couples to be eligible for green cards has been introduced as the Uniting American Families Act for the past several sessions of Congress, and its absence from the base bill drew only muted criticism from supporters of the measure's inclusion at the time.

Assuming Leahy does introduce the amendment, it is all but certain to be accepted. "This Judiciary Committee has a strong and consistent record on matters of equality and we expect that this amendment will have equally strong support," Koski said.

All 10 of the Democratic members on the committee have expressed support for marriage equality and are considered reliable votes in favor of LGBT equality measures.

One Democratic aide, however, said the decision of whether the amendment will be offered and voted upon in committee once deliberations on the bill begin May 9 is up to Leahy.

A possible reason for Democrats' desire to keep from stating their plans unambiguously is the nature of the delicate coalition attempting to move immigration reform forward.

Sen. Jeff Flake — a Republican member of the Gang of Eight who also is on the Judiciary Committee — put the issue front and center in a statement provided to BuzzFeed. "There's a reason that this language wasn't included in the Gang of Eight's bill — it's a deal breaker for most Republicans. Finding consensus on immigration legislation is tough enough without opening the bill up to social issues," Flake said in the statement.

If the provision ends up being added into the bill, Republicans could be given an attempt to remove the provision on the floor, but it almost definitely would fail. At that point, the question would be whether Senate Republicans otherwise inclined to vote for the bill would be willing to give up those political gains in order to eliminate the potential for a gay-rights gain in the immigration reform bill.

Even if included in the Senate bill, the measure likely would not find its way into any House version of immigration reform, which would either lead to a conference committee or a situation similar to that faced by the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, when House Republicans balked at a more inclusive Senate version in the last session of Congress but relented and passed the Senate version earlier this year.

But Blumenthal dismissed that notion that the same-sex provisions could end up being a deal breaker. "There's no justification for that result. My hope is that Republicans who may be talking about this provision being a deal breaker will reconsider," Blumenthal said.

Jeff Flake Learns To Be Disliked

0
0

“Nothing like waking up to a poll saying you're the nation's least popular senator,” the Arizona Republican deadpanned on Facebook recently.

Via: The Daily Courier, Matt Hinshaw / AP

WASHINGTON — For Sen. Jeff Flake, it hasn't been easy leaving the comfortable confines of the House, where he spent a dozen years as one of the chamber's conservative superstars.

Once a popular, leading voice for fiscal conservatism in Arizona, in his his first few months in the upper chamber, Flake has been buffeted by the new and often unfamiliar political winds that come from representing not just one small congressional district but an entire state.

His vote against a tough new background check gun control measure tanked his popularity in Arizona — with a 32 percent approval rating, he ranks at the bottom of the Senate. And his involvement in the bipartisan Gang of Eight immigration reform group is threatening to unleash a storm of conservative criticism Flake isn't accustomed to.

"Nothing like waking up to a poll saying you're the nation's least popular senator. Given the public's dim view of Congress in general, that probably puts me somewhere just below pond scum," he wrote on Facebook Monday. "Now, notwithstanding the polling firm's leftist bent, I would assume that my poll numbers have indeed taken a southerly turn since my vote against the Manchin-Toomey background check proposal. It was a popular amendment, and I voted against it."

His time so far in the Senate has been a bit of a political crash course for Flake, who handily won re-election to his House seat six times. As a congressman, conservative groups celebrated Flake —and they still do. He was elected to the Senate in 2012 with the endorsements of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, and Sarah Palin. He was a vocal leader in the House when it came to banning earmarks, and a staunch fiscal conservative.

"I think his challenge, as it was in the Senate race, is that no one disputes his intellectual abilities, he's a likable smart guy — it's just can he dust off the kooky factor a little bit and not be a backbencher?" said Arizona-based GOP consultant Jason Rose. "While he's taken a role on immigration, he's certainly out of the mainstream on the gun issue. And the big criticism of him in Arizona was always, what are you going to do for your state? Are you going to be an ideologue? Or are you going to be intelligent about helping your state. I think the jury is still out on that."

Moving from the House to the Senate, Flake's votes come with a greater weight and more scrutiny. His vote against the background check bill comes with a bigger political price than it would have had in his House seat. How he navigates the immigration bill -- and if he can help sell it to skeptical conservatives — will help shape the career trajectory of the first term Senator.

"He's an ideologue that has to wrestle with a political evolution and I think he can evolve with out violating principles," Rose said. "I think if he does that we'll speak 30 years from now, talking about 5 term senator Jeff Flake."

His former House colleagues are so far impressed with his ability to balance principle and pragmatism.

"He's been tried in the fire there recently and I think he held up really well," said Rep. Trent Franks. "He has to represent a larger and more diverse constituency than he did, and I'm proud of him. "

Flake is a close personal friend of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head in Tucson in 2011 and personally lobbied Flake to support the background check bill. He even once wrote a letter to Caren Teves, whose son Alex was killed in Aurora, Colorado telling her "strengthening background checks is something we agree on."

Ultimately, Flake believed the Manchin-Toomey amendment went too far. Described by the New York Times as "despondent," Flake told the the paper he apologized to Giffords for the vote.

Flake spokeswoman Genevieve Rozansky said Flake "knows it was a difficult issue, but ultimately felt it was an infringement on second amendment rights."

Before the Senate vote, Mark Kelly, Giffords' husband, bluntly told Flake the bill would "absolutely save lives." Kelly has spoken openly about working to unseat Flake because of the vote.

Rozansky said that the Senator has "long felt that background checks need to be strengthened and he still feels this issue isn't done with. He hopes there will be more work done with regard to background checks."

Flake was not available for an interview for this story.

Flake's argument that his vote against background checks was principled, if emotional, may draw in some negative headlines but won't permanently damage among his constituents said Arizona Republican strategist Sean Noble.

"It won't hurt him at all," Noble said. "This is Arizona. Anyone in Arizona who says they don't have a gun is lying to you."

The outside criticism aside, Senate colleagues had nothing but praise for Flake's work so far.

"I like working with him, he's a great asset to the Senate. I hate to characterize people with labels, but he and I have a lot in common," said Sen. Rand Paul. "As I recall, he was a leader in trying to get rid of earmarks and was chastised for having an independent streak."

Flake and fellow Sen. John McCain have played a crucial role in crafting the Senate's immigration plan. Flake has been involved in the immigration debate stemming back to his work with Democratic Rep. Luis Guiterrez in 2006.

"He's been great. Usually they get a lobotomy when you go from one side of this building to the other," McCain said of Flake. "I haven't seen that yet."

Immigration is a fight that Flake has thrust himself into despite deep divisions within the conservative movement that he's called an ideological home.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been the conservative face of immigration reform — and has taken significant heat from activists on the right because of provisions in the bill providing an eventual pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented workers in the country.

So far, Flake hasn't faced the fury of conservatives, but that may not last.

"What the people in Arizona see is that he was elected to the Senate and has quickly become part of the ruling elite rather than remembering that he was elected to represent people," said Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin. "One of the big things that the Tea Party movement has pushed for is a more transparent process and fewer backroom deals and the immigration bill was concocted in backroom."

Noble, however, downplayed the likelihood of repercussions for Flake, noting that he has been ahead of the curve on immigration for a long time.

"He's led on it and the party has followed," he said.

Arizona Democratic Party spokesman Frank Camacho called Flake's role in the gang of eight "interesting and encouraging" to watch but didn't buy that Flake wouldn't fold to conservative pressure.

"The problem is this, and it's tied into his vote on the gun bill and you have to wonder whether he has the political fortitude to go forward … He goes and gives into the bullies of the NRA and in spite of all these good guy things he did, he turns around a votes against his so-called friends," Camacho said. "You gotta wonder if there are other pressures he may face with immigration, will Jeff Flake fold? His words don't reflect his actions and until they do you have to take what Jeff Flake says with a grain of salt."


Meet Colorado's First Same-Sex Couple To Get A Civil Union

0
0

Fran and Anna Simon had their civil union licensed in Denver at 12:02 a.m. local time Wednesday. A state constitutional amendment adopted in 2006 bans same-sex couples in Colorado from marriage.

Via: facebook.com


View Entire List ›

It's Sexy Time For Mark Sanford In South Carolina

0
0

In the final days of the special election he hopes will return him to Congress, Sanford gets trolled by Larry Flynt and AshleyMadison.com. Democrats are having fun watching, but are not going to turn the “endorsements” into ads.

Via: Randall Hill / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Politics 101: if you're running for Congress, you probably don't want Larry Flynt's endorsement.

But in the final week before next Tuesday's special congressional election in South Carolina, Republican candidate Mark Sanford got the honor anyway. Just a few hours after a company advertising extra-marital affairs made him its new public face (presumably against Sanford's will.)

Thanks to Flynt and AshleyMadison.com (which put up a giant billboard featuring Sanford's face in South Carolina) as well as his Democratic opponent Elizabeth Colbert Busch, Sanford's highly publicized affair and subsequent divorce are going to be part of the closing argument in South Carolina. Sanford's only option is to ask the public yet again for forgiveness.

Flynt not only publicly endorsed Sanford Tuesday, he also sent Sanford's campaign a check for $2,600, the maximum contribution allowed by law. In a statement, Flynt said he was helping Sanford out because his fellow Republicans in DC had abandoned him.

"No one has done more to expose the sexual hypocrisy of traditional values in America today. Sanford's open embrace of his mistress in the name of love, breaking his sacred marriage vows, was an act of bravery that has drawn my support," Flynt said. He also noted Sanford "is a liar."

But Flynt congratulated Sanford's remaining GOP supporters for standing by their man, or as Flynt called it, "tossing aside lifelong convictions" and "teaching their children the invaluable lesson that traditional values are nothing more than a scam."

The founder of AshleyMadison.com — who also erected a Pennsylvania billboard praising Newt Gingrich in 2012 and praised Bill Clinton after that — was kinder to Sanford in his "endorsement" posted to the site's blog.

"Mark Sanford has overcome a series of personal and professional hurdles to earn his place back in public service," Noel Biderman said. "While he recognizes the consequences of his actions, he maintains that his affair refined his life, but should not define it."

Colbert Busch has also referred to Sanford's affair in the closing days of the campaign, albeit slightly more subtly than Flynt or AshleyMadison.com. At a debate Monday night, she brought up Sanford's trips to Argentina while governor of South Carolina and said they were an example of his fiscal irresponsibility. He didn't answer the charge, saying he didn't hear it.

Later in the debate, though, Sanford citied Clinton and told the South Carolina voters it was time to move on.

"Do you think that President Clinton should be condemned for the rest of his life based on a mistake that he made in his life?" he said.

For now, Democrats are content to let Flynt and AshleyMadison.com keep Sanford's affair in the headlines in the final days of the special election race. A spokesperson for the Democratic House Majority PAC, which has spent big on TV ads bolstering Colbert Busch in the race, told BuzzFeed the group has "no plans" to turn the Flynt endorsement or the AshleyMadison billboard into an ad.

A national Democratic strategist explained that Democrats don't need to do anything with the endorsements — the fact that they exist will do the work for them. Besides, Democrats feel pretty good about the South Carolina special, and they think their existing closing arguments are enough.

"It's not necessary," the strategist said of using Democratic money to make the public aware of Sanford's new and unwelcome supporters. "It's also not needed."

Ad Wars Escalate In Montana Over Max Baucus's Gun Vote

0
0

Advocates on both sides of the gun debate see the outgoing Montana Democrat's vote still in play. “Now that you're retiring, please put Montana first.”

Via: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

If the fight over last month's failed gun bill in the Senate is over, someone forgot to tell the advocacy groups on both sides of the issue who have poured money into warring print and television ads in the last week over Sen. Max Baucus's vote.

The six-term Montana lawmaker was one of four Democrats to vote against the the Manchin-Toomey amendment that would have expanded background checks for gun buyers. The measure was thought to be lawmakers' best and only shot at significant gun control legislation in the wake of last year's mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. And because of Baucus's expected reelection battle in red-state Montana, advocates pushing the Manchin amendment didn't consider his vote in play.

But after Baucus announced last Tuesday to the surprise of Washington that he would not seek reelection in 2014, advocates on both sides of the gun control battle have flooded Montana with ads — a sign that they believe the Democrat, now free from the weight of reelection, could switch his vote on the bill that Sen. Joe Manchin has promised to somehow revive on the floor of the Senate.

The latest ad, from the national liberal group Progressive Change Campaign Committee, hit the airwaves Wednesday morning on broadcast and cable channels in major Montana media markets — Helena, Missoula, and Billings — and on cable in Washington, D.C. The $50,000 ad buy will run for one week.

The 30-second spot, embedded below, features a Claire Kelly, a gun-owning Montana voter, who urges Baucus to change his vote, citing a poll by the Michael Bloomberg-headed gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, that shows 79 percent of Montanans support background checks for gun sales.

"Senator Baucus, now that you're retiring, please put Montana first," says Kelly in the ad, which was featured Tuesday night on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show.

The TV buy follows a $100,000 print campaign by the same group. A full-page advertisement condemning Baucus's vote on the Manchin bill — "Senator, Baucus, it was WRONG to vote 'no' on stopping gun violence" — ran in 20 Montana newspapers last week.

But gun control groups aren't alone in targeting Baucus. The National Rifle Association, the leading gun lobby in Washington, released a full-page ad in Montana newspapers thanking Baucus for his no-vote. "You're freedom is under attack...but Senator Max Baucus is fighting back," the ad reads. "Call Senator Baucus. Thank him for putting Montanans first."

That the NRA piped up to thank the Democrat for his vote is a sign that Baucus's vote is considered vulnerable to change, and that his position in the gun control fight moving forward will be closely watched by advocates on either side if the Manchin bill returns, as the West Virginia senator has promised.

As one Democratic political operative told BuzzFeed last month, "If you want background checks, lock on to Max Baucus and do not let go."

But Baucus — a longstanding ally of the NRA with an "A+" rating — would not go easy. He was "decidedly uninterested" in the bill when the Gabby Giffords-headed group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, met with him in advance of the Senate vote last month. And in a statement on his decision to vote "no" on the bill, Baucus said, "Montanans have told me loud and clear that they oppose any new gun controls. And I very much respect that — I agree."

It is also unclear whether all the talk about re-upping the gun control legislation will be matched with serious action, and whether Senate leadership would be willing to engage in yet another fight over the contentious issue.

PCCC spokesman Matt Wall, though, said the group will continue to focus on Baucus, tapping into its one million members — 3,300 of whom live in Montana — to continue the campaign with online fundraising. And Adam Green, the PAC's co-founder, made clear in a statement that Baucus's vote will be the target of their efforts.

"Another vote will happen in the Senate. Max Baucus needs to choose whether he stands with the overwhelming majority of Montanans who support background checks or the gun manufacturers that profit by selling guns to criminals," Green said.

The 30-second ad spot, funded by a progressive political action committee, will run in major cities in Montana and Washington, D.C., for one week.

Via: boldprogressives.org

The NRA's full-page ad, featured in Montana newspapers last week, thanks Baucus for voting against the Manchin amendment to expand background checks on gun sales.

Via: washingtonpost.com


View Entire List ›

Five Obama Administration Sequester Warnings That Didn't Pan Out

0
0

Some agencies have dealt with budget cuts by shifting money and cutting back. Other predictions were outright false.

Cuts to Small Businesses That Didn't Happen

Cuts to Small Businesses That Didn't Happen

What the Obama administration said: "Small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs in America, and instead of helping small businesses expand and hire, the automatic cuts triggered by a sequester would reduce loan guarantees to small businesses by up to $902 million." The White House added these cuts would be "constraining financing needed by small businesses to maintain and expand their operations and create jobs."

What actually happened: According to the Associated Press, Small Business Administration head Karen Mills has said, "We are not slowing down giving loans to anyone."

Mills stated that demand for one type of loan, the 504 loan, was going to fall this year, making it so the SBA could meet demand for its other loans. Mills said furloughs were avoided by cutting staffers through early retirement.

Via: Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images

TSA Furloughs That Didn't Go Into Place

TSA Furloughs That Didn't Go Into Place

What the Obama administration said: "The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would reduce its frontline workforce, which would substantially increase passenger wait times at airport security checkpoints. TSA would need to initiate a hiring freeze for all transportation security officer positions in March, eliminate overtime, and furlough its 50,000 officers for up to seven days.

What actually happened: In an April 18 hearing hosted by the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the deputy administrator of the TSA, John Halinski, told members that the agency would be able to avoid furloughing employees and doesn't anticipate any reason to do so in the future. Longer wait times have yet to materialize.

Via: Mario Anzuoni / Reuters

Justice Department Furloughs That Didn't Materialize

Justice Department Furloughs That Didn't Materialize

What the Obama administration said: President Obama specifically cited FBI agents receiving furloughs in a March 1 press conference. In another speech, the president said, "FBI agents will be furloughed."

Attorney General Eric Holder said there would be furloughs for nearly 3,570 Bureau of Prisons staff, according to ABC News, and that 2,300 federal agents and corrections officers would be laid off, according to The Wall Street Journal.

What actually happened: In March, Holder said he was able to avoid the daily furloughs of federal prison staffers by moving $150 million from other Justice Department accounts to stop the unpaid days off.

In April, Holder added in a memo to Justice Department employees that he was able to avoid all Justice Department furloughs in this fiscal year, but did not rule out possible furloughs next year.

Via: Mark Wilson / Getty Images

The Pay Cut for Janitors That Wasn't Real

The Pay Cut for Janitors That Wasn't Real

What the Obama administration said: At a press conference in March, President Obama said, "All the folks who are cleaning the floors at the Capitol — now that Congress has left, somebody is going to be vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage — they're going to have less pay." The president continued, adding, "the janitors, the security guards, they just got a pay cut, and they've got to figure out how to manage that. That's real."

What actually happened: Right after the president spoke back in March, the superintendent of the U.S. Capitol Building and the Capitol Visitors Center, Carlos Elias, was forced to email his employees to tell them it was not true, according to CBS News.

"The pay and benefits of EACH of our employees WILL NOT be impacted," he wrote to Capitol staffers. "I request that you please notify all of our employees about the importance of ignoring media reports."

A White House spokesman, Bobby Whithorne, told BuzzFeed back in March
that the president was discussing overtime pay.

"If you receive income from hourly overtime work and they cut your overtime, you're going to get paid less. As the president said, 'They're going to have less pay.' Folks who are getting paid hourly aren't breaking up their paycheck to say, well, technically this portion of my paycheck came from my overtime pay, so I'm not going to actually count that toward my income. They rely on that overtime, and they pay their bills with that income."

Via: Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP


View Entire List ›

Daily Mail Author Stands By Saudi Claim

0
0

An unusual byline on a controversial story.

Via: dailymail.co.uk

WASHINGTON — The author of a story in the Daily Mail claiming a Saudi official warning the U.S. government about Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev says the paper is confident in the piece.

"We stand by the story. Thanks," David Martosko, the former executive editor of the Daily Caller, now the U.S. politics editor of the Mail Online, said in an email. Martosko declined to elaborate further on how he got the story, which is co-bylined with the American Media Institute, an organization run by conservative journalist Richard Miniter.

"Sorry. Can't help you with that," he said. "I'm sure you understand."

Martosko's final bylines at the Caller were attached to intensely contested stories claiming Senator Robert Menendez hired prostitutes in the Dominican Republican; a woman later said she was paid to make that claim, and it was false.

Martin Clarke, the editor of Mail Online, didn't immediately return a request for comment.

The story cites a "senior Saudi government official" with knowledge of a letter sent from Saudi Arabia to the American and British governments warning them of Tsarnaev. The story also says Saudi Arabia denied a visa for the Hajj to Tamerlan in 2011.

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Council, and the Saudi government have all flatly denied the story.

"DHS has no knowledge of any communication from the Saudi government regarding information on the suspects in the Boston Marathon Bombing prior to the attack," a DHS official told BuzzFeed.

The Saudi Embassy in Washington also denied in a statement that Tsarnaev had applied for a visa to make the pilgrimage to Mecca.

"The Saudi government had no prior information about the Boston bombers. Therefore, it is not true that any information, written or otherwise, was passed to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or any other US agency in this regard. The Saudi government also does not have any record of any application by Tamerlan Tsarnaev for any visa to Saudi Arabia," the embassy said in the emailed statement through its public relations agency.

A British journalist deeply familiar with the country's media scene, who spoke on the condition of anonymity said he thought the paper had done excellent work before this on the Boston bombings, including widely discussed reporting on Tamarlan Tsarnaev's wife, but that most of that work had been done by a staff reporter, Daniel Bates.

Bates is "not ideologically driven and it's in the kind of classic British door-knocking shoe leather sort of tradition," the journalist said. "Martosko as far as I can tell has never covered national security at all.... This seems like it's coming from Miniter, and Martosko got the Mail to run it."

"The thing about this is it's the Mail Online, not the paper, and there's much less rigor with it," he said.

Miniter didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

FWD.us Breaks Its First Promise: To Be Different

0
0

The start-up world's first public attempt to influence policy is giving up before it even gets started.

Josh Miller is a cofounder and CEO at Branch.

As a start-up founder, former senatorial intern, and director of an amateur documentary about racial inequality in public schools, I cannot tell you how excited I was to hear about Mark Zuckerberg's FWD.us — a 501(c)(4) lobbying organization. It is the start-up community's first earnest attempt at organizing in public for political progress, and I had high hopes for what our industry's insistence on innovative approaches could bring to Washington.

However, my interest quickly turned to disappointment after learning more about the organization during a luncheon with FWD.us president Joe Green. In service of noble causes, FWD.us is employing questionable lobbying techniques, misleading supporters, and not being transparent about the underlying values and long-term intentions of the organization. More discouragingly, the leaders of the technology industry (and of FWD.us) have built their careers on bringing meaningful change to the world. They should be doing the same in Washington.

FWD.us' lobbying strategy, though pitched as "pragmatic" and "smart" by Beltway insiders, is typically only practiced by large pharmaceutical companies, gun manufacturers, and the like. It works like this: You approach key representatives who are on the fence about voting for comprehensive legislative reform and finance advertisements that portray their stance on any other issue of their choosing. In other words, FWD.us effectively bribes politicians by saying, "Vote with us on this controversial issue, and we'll remind your constituents why you're great on some other issue they care about — any issue." Thus, the Keystone XL debacle was not an accident — it's the strategy. Supporters of this lobbying technique defend it by saying, "It's the way Washington works." But given that Mark Zuckerberg and the other technology pioneers who are behind FWD.us have risen to prominence by spearheading disruptive innovations, reverting to such traditional lobbying tactics seems like a missed opportunity for meaningful change. Technology companies live and die by how innovative their products are, our organizing and lobbying tactics should be no different.

More importantly, it feels misleading to FWD.us' supporters. Though the organization is transparent about these lobbying tactics in private (when wooing potential donors and technology leaders), nothing on the FWD.us website, or on any other publicly available marketing materials, acknowledges this strategy. So while the call to action on the FWD.us website is to "Join the tech community in passing immigration reform," and the site outlines "The Need For Comprehensive Immigration Reform," folks who support FWD.us under the pretense of supporting immigration reform are inadvertently providing support for other issues with which they likely disagree. At our luncheon, for example, there was a founder who is from Newtown, Connecticut, and cares deeply about gun control. If he persuaded his friends, families, and colleagues to donate to FWD.us, they would likely (unknowingly) be financing the creation of anti-gun control advertisements. That doesn't seem right. No, it is downright misleading.

In addition to transparency about lobbying tactics, the values and long-term intentions of FWD.us are also opaque. Other than a brief mention in Mr. Zuckerberg's op-ed, FWD.us goes to no great lengths to mention that the organization will eventually advocate for other, non-immigration-related issues. Only two bullet points, on a secondary web page, are dedicated to this point — and when this intention is communicated, it is done so in incredibly vague terms. Although you would be hard-pressed to find a technology founder who doesn't believe we need meaningful immigration reform, education — one of the other issues that is near and dear to FWD.us' heart — is much more controversial. Does FWD.us believe in charter schools? Standardized testing? We don't know, because the organization's stance is never mentioned. And it's definitely not clear that when I sign-up to support "comprehensive immigration reform," I'm also associating my name with an organization that will eventually lobby for yet-to-be-defined stances, on yet-to-be-defined issues.

To Mr. Zuckerberg, I would say this: One gets the sense that you are approaching FWD.us in the same way venture capitalists invest in start-ups. You put money and support behind a smart team tackling massive problems, with the faith that they will figure out the details along the way. However, that lack of introspection is ultimately harmful in the world of public policy. FWD.us is dealing with peoples' principles, pocketbooks, and ultimately, livelihoods, so I urge you to take a more thoughtful, transparent approach — not to "Move Fast and Break Things." Specifically, I would encourage you and the other FWD.us leaders to do the following:

1. Decide whether FWD.us is an organization dedicated to immigration reform, a lobby for the technology industry, or an advocacy group lobbying for like-minded individuals (à la the Sierra Club). The distinctions are meaningful.

2. If it's one of the latter two, more granularly outline the organization's guiding principles, beliefs, and stances on key issues that it will be lobbying for. The fact that the economy has moved from an "Agrarian" to a "Knowledge" one is an astute observation but it is not a legislative agenda, and it does not inform whether or not FWD.us believes charter schools are a good idea.

3. Leverage the collective intellect of FWD.us' prominent supporters, and technology industry at-large, to formulate a more progressive approach to legislative lobbying. You changed the world from your dorm room and can do better than the tactics used by the pharmaceutical and weapons manufacturing industries. Let's be responsible for meaningful reform, but in a way that is true to the progressive, innovative nature of our industry.

Finally, I would like to say thank you. Though some have questioned your intentions, I applaud the fact that you are pushing for comprehensive immigration reform — not just policies that will help Facebook hire foreigners — and I commend you for taking the initiative to "build a movement in the tech community." Despite being the CEO of a publicly traded company, you clearly haven't lost your entrepreneurial roots. Let's just find a way to revolutionize the way we communicate with Washington in the same you revolutionized the way we talk to each other.

This West Wing Spoof That Aired in 2000 Was Awesome


Feds Investigating Possible Human Trafficking At Saudi Diplomatic Compound In Virginia

0
0

Two women were removed from a compound that the Saudi embassy says belongs to the Saudi armed forces. The Department of Homeland Security is looking into it.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security is investigating a possible case of human trafficking at a Saudi Arabian diplomatic compound in McLean, Virginia, a DHS official confirmed to BuzzFeed on Wednesday.

"I can confirm that DHS did remove two potential trafficking victims this morning," said Brandon Montgomery, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "

The incident was first reported by the local NBC affiliate, which also reported that Fairfax County records show that the building is owned by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. NBC reports that "one woman reportedly tried to flee by squeezing through a gap in the front gate as it was closing."

"We don't know anything about that," said a spokesperson for the Saudi Embassy when reached by phone on Wednesday. "The report that we got is that the house belongs to the Saudi armed forces, like the military office."

No one answered the line for the Saudi defense attaché on Wednesday afternoon.

Montgomery said that DHS could not comment on who owned the house and that the agency uses a "victim-centric approach — the moment we get any reliable information that trafficking is happening, we will go in and rescue women from that, and then start an investigation. It's still early on."

He declined to give any more information about the women involved due to "privacy concerns." Montgomery also said that "other agencies" were involved, but declined to specify which agencies.

A spokesperson for the State Department said he was checking for more information on this.

The Time Terry McAuliffe Left The Delivery Room For A Washington Post Party

0
0

Another time: “We got to the dinner and by then Dorothy was in tears, and I left her with Justin and went inside.” But he raised a million bucks.

Source: youtube.com

Former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe launched his first television ad in the 2013 Virginia governor's race Wednesday. The positive ad focuses largely on his family and upbringing, citing his personal story as part of the reason why he knew it was important to create jobs for the state.

"My wife Dorothy and I have lived in Virginia for over 20 years and here we've raised five children our own," the ad says while showing b-roll footage of McAuliffe at the birth of one of his children. "I know nothing is more important to Virginians than creating good jobs that will support a family," the ad continued showing more home video of McAuliffe and his family.

McAuliffe also wrote about the birth of his children in his 2007 book What A Party, noting on one instance he left his wife at the hospital to attend a party for Washington Post reporter Lloyd Grove before the birth of his daughter Sarah.

"We got there a little after noon and spent the whole afternoon in her room. I was trying hard not to appear restless, but I am not one to sit still for long and soon I was going stir-crazy, which drove Dorothy nuts. 'Isn't there something you need to do?' she finally said. I told her The Washington Post was having a party that evening for Lloyd Grove, who wrote the 'Reliable Source' column. 'Go!' she said. 'You're like a caged animal here. I'll call you if I need you.' I went flying out the door and drove to the party. I kept calling Dorothy to make sure she was fine. I made the rounds at the party and ran into Marjorie Williams, who was writing a story on me for Vanity Fair, magazine. She was shocked to see me at the party. 'Isn't Dorothy having a baby today?' she asked. 'That's right,' I said, 'but she threw me out the room.' Marjorie just couldn't understand how I left Dorothy alone. I almost told her about the night I was born and how my mother wanted my father to stay at home to watch Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, but decided against it. I went back to the hospital after the Washington Post party and at 3:33 A.M. little Sarah Swann McAuliffe was born."

In another section of his book, McAuliffe writes about stopping to go to a fundraiser on the way home from the hospital with his wife, an aide who was driving his car, and a newborn baby Peter. McAuliffe noted the fundraiser, a "Sons of Italy" dinner hosted by United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters President Marty Maddaloni, raised "a million bucks for the Democratic Party."

Dorothy was starting to well up in the backseat. She was having trouble understanding how I could be taking my wife and newborn baby to a fund-raiser on our way home from the hospital. We got to the dinner and by then Dorothy was in tears, and I left her with Justin and went inside. Little Peter was sleeping peacefully and Dorothy just sat there and poor Justin didn't say a word. He was mortified. I was inside maybe fifteen minutes, said a few nice things about Marty, and hurried back out to the car. I felt bad for Dorothy, but it was a million bucks for the Democratic Party and by the time we got home and the kids had their new little brother in their arms, Dorothy was all smiles and we were one big happy family again. Nobody ever said life with me was easy.

A spokesman for McAuliffe declined to comment on record.

The Video Howard Kurtz Doesn't Want You To See Discussing What Is Arguably His Worst Column Ever

0
0

The host of CNN's Reliable Sources tried to call out the media's positive coverage of the first openly gay NBA player. He failed.

View Video ›

The Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz made this vlog about Sports Illustrated's Jason Collins story unavailable to the public on YouTube after The Atlantic's David Graham spotted a grievous error in his reporting. Kurtz based the video on his Daily Beast article claiming Collins had concealed his past relationships with women.

Says Kurtz in the video, which is no longer available on his Daily Download YouTube channel:

"If you leave out the fact that you dated this woman for eight years and that you were engaged to be married, then you have not told the whole story and I think this really muddies the whole plotline."

But here's what Collins told Sports Illustrated: "When I was younger I dated women. I even got engaged."

The 11 Best Daily Download Videos On The Internet

0
0

Multimedia media critic Howard Kurtz and his trusty sidekick Lauren Ashburn are attempting to conquer the internet one YouTube video at a time.

Are You And Other Newsbabes Dressing Sexy for Ratings?

The Howard and Lauren discover Snapchat.

Should Washington Post Be Spotlighting Michelle's Big Butt?

Why Do Crazy Reporters Stand Out in Rain?


View Entire List ›

LGBT Rights Groups Say Same-Sex Couples "Must" Be A Part Of Immigration Reform

0
0

“The LGBT community will not stand for Congress placing the blame of their own dysfunction on our shoulders,” Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin says.

Via: David McNew / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — After a day of debate over whether to include protections for same-sex couples in immigration reform efforts, the nation's largest LGBT rights group issued a blistering statement Wednesday afternoon — likely aimed at putting Democrats on notice about the group's expectations in the weeks ahead.

Under the headline, "HRC: Congress MUST Pass Inclusive and Comprehensive Immigration Reform," HRC president Chad Griffin said in the statement:

The idea that lesbian and gay couples are the barrier to a bipartisan immigration reform agreement is an offensive ruse designed to distract attention away from the failings of Congress – a body that refuses to come together on popular and common-sense solutions to a host of our country's problems.

When examining the facts, it is clear that LGBT equality is not the controversial, hot-button issue that a handful of legislators portray it to be. Marriage equality continues to advance in the states and polls show super-majority support for everything from workplace non-discrimination laws to anti-bullying protections. Moreover, a broad coalition of religious groups, labor organizations, businesses and civil rights groups support the inclusion of same-sex bi-national couples in a comprehensive reform bill.

This bluster is nothing more than a political maneuver designed to divide the pro-reform coalition and at the same time appease a small but vocal group of social conservatives that will do anything to stop progress for lesbian and gay couples. The LGBT community will not stand for Congress placing the blame of their own dysfunction on our shoulders.

Earlier in the day, several other LGBT groups issued a similar statement. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLAAD, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, United We Dream, and Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project stated:

Our primary goal is to pass a commonsense, compassionate immigration reform bill that puts our nation's undocumented men, women and children on a pathway to citizenship. That pathway would provide at least 267,000 LGBT undocumented people the opportunity to become full participants in our economy and our democracy.

We do not believe that our friends in the evangelical faith community or conservative Republicans would allow the entire immigration reform bill to fail simply because it affords 28,500 same-sex couples equal immigration rights. This take-it-or-leave-it stance with regard to same-sex binational couples is not helpful when we all share the same goal of passing comprehensive immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship.

Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images