We are well and truly fucked

What the actual fuck?

So we now learn that the CIA confirmed that Russia wasn't just trying to undermine confidence in the election, they were actively trying to get Trump elected. Most people with half a brain could see this already, but of course, this confirmation didn't come out before the damn election.

According to the article, they secretly briefed a bipartisan group of Congressional leaders in September, but "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to officials present." Well no shit he would! And now his wife has been chosen by Trump to be the next Secretary of Transportation. The motherfucker decided to put party before country. What a surprise! And, because President Obama refused to release this information without bipartisan support, it's only coming out now. (Sorry, Obama. You should have brought on the drama with this one.)

There was also that report by David Corn in Mother Jones on October 31st:

Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer's conversations with Russian sources, noted, "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him." It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls." 

The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was "shock and horror."

This was published just a couple of days after Comey's letter apprising Congress of new emails "that appear to be pertinent" to the investigation of Hillary Clinton. A letter which broke with all tradition, and the law, regarding the FBI interfering with elections. And, we know now, that while Comey had no problem slinging mud Clinton's way, the FBI and CIA were investigating Trump on far more serious matters -- like being a goddamn Manchurian Candidate!

So fuck this whole 'It's all Hillary's fault for fucking up with white working class males' meme. She had the Russians and our FBI actively fighting against her...and she knew it. And she still got 2.8 million more votes than Trump...and counting.

Fuck Мистер Trump. Fuck Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republicans. Fuck Putin and the KGB. Fuck Comey and the FBI. And fuck the certain set of so called progressives who said it didn't matter if it was the Russians who were behind the hacked emails, it was more important that some things in those emails could hurt Bernie's feelings, and then cried 'red baiting.'

I don't even know what country this is anymore.

Spokoynoy Nochi

How The GOP Lies

Subtly, very subtly.

Take a look at this from Talkingpointsmemo:

Mitch McConnell’s re-election campaign is touting his support for the Violence Against Women Act — even though the Republican Senate minority leader has a consistent record of voting against the anti-domestic violence legislation.

Um, what?  How can they possibly do that honestly?

Here's how:

A press packet that McConnell’s spokeswoman distributed to reporters at a Friday event titled “Women For Team Mitch” features testimonials from Kentucky women. One of them caught the eye of Joe Sonka, a reporter for the Louisville-based LEO Weekly, who posted it on Twitter.

The quote, attributed to a woman named Angela Leet in Jefferson County, read, “Mitch was the co-sponsor of the original Violence Against Women Act- and continues to advocate for stronger policies to protect women. I am proud to call him my senator.”

You'll note the word "original" in the tweet.  That's how they get to say that the guy who's consistently voted against VAWA gets to look like he supports it.

A few more things to note about McConnell's support of the bill.  According to this page from Thomas, the principal sponsor of the bill was a certain Senator from Delaware: Joe Biden.

Yes, the same Joe Biden who's now President Obama's Vice-President.

Gee, that being the case, I wonder why didn't the McConnell campaign say he "co-sponsored Vice-President Joe Biden's original Violence Against Women Act"?

By the time the bill was reintroduced - in 1993 with a Democrat in the White House, (a coincidence, no doubt), McConnell voted against it.

This is how they get to lie.

Tracking Teh Crazie - 22nd Amendment

I've seen this pop up in a few places and so I am assuming you have, too.

Here's teh crazie from la maison de crazie, WND:

Before President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to his third and fourth terms in office, U.S. presidents had honored the limit established by George Washington that a president should serve no more than two.

And after, the 22nd Amendment formally restricted service in the Oval Office to two terms.

But now, U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., and a supporter of President Obama, has introduced House Joint Resolution 15 to repeal the 22nd Amendment and thus abolish presidential term limits.

The title of the piece, incidentally, is:

Democrat plan lets Obama run for 3rd term

So we all know it's a "Democrat" plot to "let" Obama rule for another 4 years - can't trust them lib'ruls, can you?  Can't trust 'em not to change the Constitution to suit their radical socialist agenda, can you?

Except this is not the first time Serrano has introduced this.  Nor is he the only one.  Indeed, there's a whole mess of details that WND left out.  Let's start with their very next paragraph:

Serrano has attempted this before, in 2003, 2009 and 2011 with little luck. H.J.R. 15 would require a two-thirds majority vote in favor in both the House and Senate and a majority of support from state legislatures.

Actually, according to snopes.com:

Rep. Serrano has introduced the very same proposal to Congress every two years since 1997 (a total of nine times), regardless of which party was currently occupying the White House...[Emphasis added.]

That's two resolutions for Clinton the philanderer, four for Bush the torturer, and now three for Obama, the guy who's letting Bush get away with the torture.

But I digress.

Here's the text of Serrano's resolution:

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘Article--
   ‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’. [Italics and Bolding in original.]

Did you know the current leaders in the Senate (McConnell and Reid) co-sponsored a very similar bill in 1995?  Word for word similar.

Did you know who said this?

...in thinking about it more and more, I have come to the conclusion that the 22nd Amendment was a mistake.

This person was also quoted as wondering whether the 22nd Amendment interferes with "the democratic rights of the people" Adding:

They can elect a Senator for 40 years or a Congressman—something of this kind—for as long as they want to. Why don't they have the right to vote for whoever they want to vote for?

Do you know who said that? That would be the 40th President of these United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan. And do you know when he said that?  You'd think, considering the frame teh crazie wants you to use, that it was when the Gipper was a Democrat.

You could think that, but you'd be wrong.

He said both those things in 1986 - during his second administration.  The first in an interview with Barbara Walters and the second during an interview with the Washington Post.

So yea, Serrano's resolution is a Democrat Plan to let Obama rule some more.

Tracking Teh Crazie.

Contrasts

First, President Obama at a campaign event in Sandusky, Ohio:

At one point, he consoled a crying woman, Stephanie Miller, who was telling him a story.

President Barack Obama, right, talks to Stephanie Miller after speaking at an ice cream social at Washington Park in Sandusky, Ohio, Thursday, July 5, 2012. Miller's sister, Kelly Hines, died from colon cancer four years ago. She could not afford proper health insurance, had no employer-provided coverage, and "even after she was diagnosed with cancer, she was told her income was too high for Medicaid," Miller said. Miller thanked Obama for the getting the Affordable Health Act passed.

Miller, reached by phone afterward, said her sister, Kelly Hines, died from colon cancer four years ago because she could not afford proper health insurance. She had no employer-provided coverage

"Even after she was diagnosed with cancer, she was told her income was too high for Medicaid," Ms. Miller said. "I thanked him for the getting the Affordable Health Act passed," she said.

And now, Senator Mitch McConnell on, of course, Fox "News":

Pressed by Chris Wallace to say what he would do to insure the 30 million people who will get insurance under Obamacare, McConnell at first dodged the question, instead launching into a litany of complaints about the law. He repeated the debunked claim that it would cut $500 billion from Medicare. Asked the question again by Wallace, McConnell actually laughed, and said he’d “get to it in a minute,” before claiming the best thing we can do for the health system overall is to get rid of the law and all of its “cuts” to health providers. He labeled Obamacare a “monstrosity” and vowed that there would not be a “2,700 page” Republican reform bill.

Asked a third time how Republicans would insure those 30 million people, McConnell said: “That is not the issue. The question is how you can go step by step to improve the American health care system.”

Allowing a few people to die so that the GOP "improvements" can be implemented step-by-step - that's the plan.

This from the pro-life party.

Another Lesson - The Right Wing Attack Machine

Congressman Mike Doyle uses the "hostage/terrorist" metaphor and the right wing doesn't like it. The editorial board at the Tribune-Review gets the story wrong:

Lance: To U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills. No effort to "walk back" his inexcusable comparison of tea party members to "terrorists," uttered during a closed-door caucus meeting on Monday, can change the fact that he said what he meant and meant what he said -- or cover the gross ignorance of basic economics betrayed by tax-the-"rich" rhetoric he used in trying to contain the damage.

In reality, he wasn't talking about "tea party members" but the members of Congress who were (to extend the metaphor) using the economy as a hostage to get what they want politically.

Can I point out at this point that the very very conservative Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, approves of the tactic of political "hostage taking" for political gains? From the Washington Post:

“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,” [McConnell] said. “Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done.”

Not "shooting" the hostage, of course. Just threatening to. But as they say, it's ok if you're a Republican and Mitch McConnell is a republican so it's OK to threaten to take the economy hostage - as long the political payoff is favorable to the Republicans.

For Congressman Doyle, however, the metaphor (even though they got it wrong) is "inexcusable."

But this is all set-up. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Look at what the Trib does in its editorial and how it does it. The second half of the braintrust's criticism of the Congressman's outburst come from Allegheny Institute for Public Policy's Jake Haulk.

The same Allegheny Institute for Public Policy that gets about 87% of its grant money from foundations controlled by Tribune-Review owner Richard Mellon Scaife.

This is how the right wing attack machine works. The Scaife-owned paper needed a quote to attack a political adversary and it conveniently found it at a Scaife-funded right wing think tank.

And there's never ever any mention of the millions Scaife's poured into the Allegheny Institute.

Compromise, Civility??

Huffingtonpost has some analysis:

Barely an hour after President Barack Obama invited congressional Republicans to post-election talks to work together on major issues, the Senate's GOP leader had a blunt message: His party's main goal is denying Obama re-election.

In a sign that combat and the 2012 elections rather than compromise could mark the next two years, Sen. Mitch McConnell on Thursday called for Senate votes to repeal or erode Obama's signature health care law, to cut spending and to shrink government.

"The only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things," McConnell said in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The Senate Republican leader's confrontational tone was in sharp contrast to the posture Obama took Wednesday in the face of a new GOP-controlled House and Republican gains in the Senate. Obama followed up Thursday morning by inviting Republican and Democratic congressional leaders for talks on Nov. 18 and challenging his own Cabinet to make Washington work better.

Look at who's being compromising and who's being civil. As it had been for two years.

And look where it's got the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile:

[Tom Donohue, President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce] intends to spend his new political capital by reconfiguring the country's economic policies the same way that large corporations have always wanted to: by cutting taxes, slashing regulation, forging trade deals with foreign countries, and reducing the deficit.

He'd like to start by chipping away at the President's legislative achievements such as health-care and financial reform, which must still be implemented at the regulatory level. In short, the battles between the chamber and the White House are far from over. "Oh, hell no," Donohue laughs. "They are in the second inning."

How does Obama compromise with a party that wants nothing more (and nothing less) than to see him out of office in January, 2013? A party where 4 out of 10 think he's Constitutionally ineligible to be President in the first place?

They're not gonna compromise, Mr President. You may want to live according to Luke 6:27-31, but they're treating you according to Psalm 109.8.