Yesterday Ed Schultz Died And Trumpanzee Finally Fired Pruitt

Ed Schultz died yesterday, age 64. I used to love watching him on MSNBC. I lost track of him since they fired him, although I stumbled onto a YouTube of his recently on that Russian propaganda network he was working for-- and I was appalled. It's better not to mention what I saw. Instead, let's remember that MSDNC fired him because he had planned live coverage of Bernie's announcement of his presidential campaign in 2015. He was at Bernie's headquarters with a crew, preparing for a remote, when he was told by phone to cancel the live coverage and cover something inconsequential. He was fired soon after that. As for the Russian propaganda thing... everyone's gotta make a living, I suppose. It's just that when you feel you "know" and trust someone from the mass media, you have expectations which are painful to see shattered. Trump isn't shattering any of his fans' expectations. The moron from the TV show is the moron they voted for and the moron the rest of us-- and the world-- are all stuck with. Speaking of which...

Where were you when you first heard Trump had finally pulled the plug on Pruitt? Our friend Skip Kaltenheuser had some mixed feelings about the news: "Actually, I’m disappointed to see Pruitt go," he told me. "It’s not often one gets a neon sign spelling venality." How about you? Were you reading Trump's twitter feed? I think Evan Halper of the L.A. Times got the story out first, although he referred to it as a resignation rather than a firing, more Beltway dishonesty that fool no one but fools. The "scoop," though, was just a report on Trump's tweet: "Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, one of the most scandal-plagued Cabinet officials in U.S. history, is leaving the agency, President Trump tweeted Thursday."

The good news is that Pruitt is gone and the bad news is that Andrew Wheeler, his deputy, take over Monday, as acting administrator. Trumpanzee: "I have no doubt that Andy will continue on with our great and lasting EPA agenda. We have made tremendous progress and the future of the EPA is very bright!"

Wheeler is a former coal-industry lobbyist. Jeff Turrentine, back in April: "If you’re hoping Wheeler could represent some sort of departure from Pruitt’s (literal) scorched-earth agenda, he wouldn’t. While it may be impossible to imagine anyone worse than Pruitt to lead our nation’s environmental policy, plenty of individuals could be just as bad. And as he’s shown us on numerous occasions, President Trump has a sixth sense for ferreting these people out and putting them on the executive-branch payroll. So who is Andrew Wheeler? And what is it about his particular career trajectory that makes the White House, energy-company executives, and assorted climate deniers think he’s a perfect fit for the Trump-era EPA?... In his spare time, Wheeler serves as the vice president of the Washington Coal Club, a powerful yet little-known federation of more than 300 coal producers, lawmakers, business leaders, and policy experts who have dedicated themselves to preserving the uncertain future of our dirtiest fossil fuel."

The departure of the anti-regulatory crusader ends a bizarre and tumultuous chapter of the Trump administration that puzzled even some of the president’s staunchest supporters.

The spendthrift EPA chief has been a political liability for the White House for months, drawing the attention of federal investigators with scandal after scandal, many of which were linked to his lavish spending of taxpayer money and the use of his position to enrich his family. Pruitt leaves the post the target of more than a dozen official probes.

The transgressions span from Pruitt’s deal with the wife of a top energy lobbyist for deeply discounted housing, huge raises he gave friends against the instructions of the White House and his penchant for flying first class. Pruitt used his office to try to secure his wife a Chick-fil-A franchise and also enlisted aides to try to help her land lucrative work elsewhere. He had a $43,000 phone booth installed in his office.

“Scott Pruitt’s corruption and coziness with industry lobbyists finally caught up with him,” said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, an environmental advocacy group. “ We’re happy that Pruitt can no longer deceive Americans or destroy our environment.”

The executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington issued a one-word statement: “Good.”

Though President Trump initially backed Pruitt and prominent conservatives had lobbied to keep him in place, the scandals eventually made Pruitt too much of a liability for the administration.

Pruitt has been seen by conservatives as among Trump’s most effective Cabinet members, aggressively dismantling clean water and air rules, working from the inside to weaken the agency’s authority and rolling back the Obama-era climate action loathed by fossil fuel companies.

The latest Cabinet shuffle reflects a remarkable turnabout for Pruitt, once a rising GOP star. The EPA position was seen by Pruitt’s allies as a launchpad for bigger ambitions, such as a run for the Senate or Oklahoma governorship, and possibly even the presidency.

But that political future has been thrown into doubt amid investigations into behavior the White House was unwilling to defend, such as the unauthorized purchase of the soundproof phone booth meant to deter eavesdroppers.

The departure is a blow to anti-regulatory activists eager to see the rules of the Obama era scrapped. Several of the battles Pruitt launched against regulations, such as the aggressive fuel economy standards championed by California and the federal Clean Power Plan aimed at reducing electricity plant emissions, are likely to endure for years. The Trump administration already was sprinting to get the rules rewritten and through court challenges before the next presidential election.

The shake-up could slow that work and give environmental groups and the coalition of states fighting Pruitt’s agenda an advantage.

Still, in his short time at the EPA, Pruitt managed to do more to undermine the environmental protection work of its career scientists, analysts and enforcement officers than any leader of the agency since the early days of the Reagan administration. And the appointment of former coal industry lobbyist Wheeler as acting head ensures the Pruitt agenda will endure. Former agency chiefs-- including some who served GOP presidents-- expressed alarm at Pruitt’s climate denialism and his hostility toward many bedrock environmental rules.

“I have no doubt and complete confidence [Wheeler] will continue the important deregulatory work that Scott Pruitt started while being a good steward of the environment,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), adding Wheeler worked for him for 14 years.

Pruitt often was unabashedly at war with his own agency, alleging it was under the control of activist bureaucrats working in tandem with environmental groups to impose a radical agenda. When his ethics problems became insurmountable, he blamed his troubles on those same forces, accusing them of manufacturing controversy to thwart his deregulation push.

But concern about Pruitt’s ethics issues ultimately reached the White House, where Trump advisors worried his spending habits and management undermined Trump’s vow to “drain the swamp” of government waste and corruption. Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, a Trump ally, said in June that Pruitt “is about as swampy as you get.”

The housing arrangement, which Pruitt likened to “an Airbnb situation,” allowed him to stay in a condo a block from the Capitol for $50 a night, paying only for nights he was in town-- far below market rates for such a room.

Pruitt also helped two of his confidants secure giant pay raises against White House instructions. After getting turned down by the White House, the EPA granted the raises by invoking a provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act that allowed Pruitt to make up to 30 hires without White House or congressional approval. The salary of one of the aides was boosted to $164,200 from $107,435. The other saw a salary increase from $86,460 to $114,590.

As the housing and salary hike controversies emerged, Pruitt already was battling fallout from his tendency to fly first class for government travel, and also arranging his taxpayer-funded trips so he could spend weekends at his home in Oklahoma. Pruitt said security concerns demanded he fly in the luxury cabin, but it was a clear departure from the practice of past EPA leaders. A member of his security detail said flying in coach exposed him to angry members of the public.

Reports that Pruitt sidelined EPA staffers who objected to his requests for special treatment didn’t help his case. The Pruitt requests that caused staff to bristle, according to the New York Times, included the blaring of government vehicle sirens to cut through traffic on routine trips, his first-class plane trips and a security detail three times the size of that of his predecessors. There also was a request for a bulletproof vehicle with tires resistant to gunfire.

As Pruitt struggled to explain it all, more scandals kept emerging. Emails obtained by the Sierra Club revealed how Pruitt had his staff schedule a meeting with the CEO of Chick-fil-A, with the goal of landing his wife a franchise. Reports emerged that he tasked them with such things as acquiring a used mattress, tracking down the luxury skin lotion he prefers and using their personal credit cards to cover his hotel bills.

By July, it was clear that even some of Pruitt’s most loyal aides would no longer protect him. They detailed for congressional investigators more of the agency chief’s questionable conduct, including tasking aides with finding his wife a job. The White House communications staff had long since stopped defending Pruitt, and so had many conservatives.

Yet Trump continued tweeting his praise. Now, it seems, even the president has had enough of the turmoil Pruitt added to his administration.

Elizabeth Warren was more to the point. "I'm glad that Scott Pruitt resigned," she wrote moments after Trump tweeted the announcement. "A man who doesn’t believe in climate change never should have been in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency in the first place. And a government official that corrupt should have been fired by the President of the United States 28 scandals ago. But let’s get real: Donald Trump’s cabinet is full of people who have no business running their agencies. Betsy DeVos at the Education Department. Steve Mnuchin at Treasury. Jeff Sessions at the Justice Department. Mick Mulvaney and his part-time work at OMB and the CFPB. And now Scott Pruitt’s temporary replacement at the EPA is a longtime Washington insider and corporate lawyer who’s done the bidding of fossil fuel companies for decades. The only way to stop Donald Trump from filling his cabinet-- and the courts-- with people who work against the interests of the American people is to take back control of the Senate this November."

And, Now... Something Crazy From The Fringe-- And My Best Wishes To Robert Mueller

Almost everyone and every organization has a wikipedia page, right? But not James George (Jim) Jatras and not the American Institute in Ukraine which he claims to be Deputy Executive Director of. And not Anthony T Salvia, the Executive Director of the American Institute in Ukraine. (I did find an Anthony T La Salvia, who in 2014 was an unsuccessful Democratic primary judicial candidate in Maricopa County. It can't be the same guy-- at least I don't think so.) More recently he served as a stooge for then-President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine who he wrote deserved a Nobel Peace Prize.

It's hard to find much about Jatras but I have a feeling he's a pretty well-known figure on some of the fringes of the pro-Putin extreme right. Like Paul Manafort, he was a Yanukovych partisan, paid to oppose NATO, the EU and the West. Eventually Yanukovych was overthrown and fled to Russia, where he still lives. Manafort is in prison awaiting trial and/or pardon. I don't know anyone who's quite sure where Jatras is but this is what he told Kremlin propaganda and disinformation organ, Sputnik last October:

[F]ederal authorities in our country today can throw anybody today in jail they want. They simply have to pile on some charges, try to catch you in some inconsistencies and they can bring criminal charges against you. It's generally assumed that this is being done to put the squeeze on somebody else; maybe they want to throw Manafort in jail, but what they really want is for him to divulge some sort of information about the campaign that they think he may be hiding... But the question is where Mr. Mueller wants to go with this, and I think a lot of people suspect that there is a partisan thrust to his investigation, that he has a lot of very partisan Democrats on his team and the real target is President Trump, not Mr. Manafort or General Flynn.

...Sputnik: Hard evidence of any real collusion is something that's been lacking right the beginning has it not, and do you think we're likely to see it by the end of this investigation, which is something that Russia has been asking for, for some time?

Jim Jatras: I don't know that we will, and the way the American media operates, I don't know if anyone expects them too-- it's enough for them to engage in speculation and hyperbole and say Russia this and Russia that-- when there is no real Russian connection at all.

And when you raise these points, it only appears in outlets like Sputnik or like RT or in the alternative media like Antiwar.com or Zerohedge, and this is almost like samizdat-- it's almost like it doesn't exist here because it's not on CNN or in the mainstream media.

Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? Yesterday Jatras had a guest post at Zerohedge. A little info on him that hasn't been covered up. He was born (somewhere) in 1955, claims to have gone to Penn State and to have gotten a law degree at Georgetown. He also claims to have worked in the U.S. consulate in Tijuana from 1979 through 1981 and as a foreign service officer for Russian affairs from 1981 to 1985 and then a policy analyst for always unnamed Senate Republicans until 2002. He's all over YouTube-- often on Russian propaganda outlets-- as a "former diplomat," which appears to be a major exaggeration of what he really was. Like this:



In 2015 Paola Chavez and Madison Jaros interviewed Jatras for ABC News: Meet the Man You’ve Never Heard of Who Desperately Wants to Be Vice President. Trump didn't pick him but it's an interesting interview. Jatras is anti-Choice, anti-LGBTQ, pro-NRA, anti-immigrant and, as he puts it, "anti-phony 'free trade' deals."

Yesterday's Zerohedge post could have been written by Trump, if Trump could write, or by a Putin propagandist (although, apparently it was)-- It's Time For America To Cut Loose Our Useless So-Called "Allies".

Let’s get one thing straight: the United States has no real allies. There are countries we dominate and control, more properly termed client states or even satellites. (True, given Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s lock-stock-and-barrel ownership of the American political class, it seems rather that we are their clients, not the other way around...) Conversely, on an almost one-to-one correspondence, countries that are not satellites are our enemies, either currently (Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria) or prospectively (China).

But do we have any actual allies-- that is, countries that provide mutual security for the United States, and whose contributions actually make us Americans safer and more secure in our own country?

Try to name one.

Let’s start with the granddaddy of our alliances, NATO. How does having a mutual defense pact with, say, virulently anti-Russian Poland and the Baltic States make America more secure? How does, say, tiny corrupt Montenegro, contribute to US security? Are these countries going to defend America in any conceivable way? Even if they wanted to, how could they possibly?

For that matter, against what ‘threat’ would they defend us? Is Latvia going to help build Trump’s Wall on the Mexican border?

‘Our NATO allies help out in Afghanistan,’ we are told.  NATO-Schmato-- it’s Americans who do almost all the fighting and dying. It’s our treasure being wasted there. Maybe without the fig leaf of an alliance mission, we might long since have reevaluated what we still are doing there after 17 years.

But comes the answer, ‘Russia!’ Except that Russia isn’t a threat to the United States. Despite their hype even the most antagonistic Russophobic countries in NATO themselves don’t really believe they’re about to be invaded. And even if they were, that still doesn’t make Russia a threat to us-- or wouldn’t except for the very existence of NATO and a forward American presence on Russia’s borders and in the Black and Baltic seas littorals. How does gratuitously risking conflict with the one country on the planet whose strategic arsenal can annihilate us make Americans safer?

As Professor Richard Sakwa has observed, ‘NATO exists to manage the risks created by its existence.’

Let’s look at other supposedly valuable alliances.

Why do we need South Korea and Japan? ‘China!’ But except for a nuclear stockpile much smaller than our intercontinental deterrent China doesn’t present a military threat to us. ‘Yes, but Beijing poses a danger to South Korea and Japan.’ Maybe, maybe not. But even if that is so why is it our problem?

Why do we need Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and bunch of other Middle Eastern countries? We aren’t dependent on energy from the region as we arguably were when Jimmy Carter proclaimed a vital national interest there four decades ago. ‘Well then, Iran!’ But the Iranians can’t do anything to us. ‘Yes, but they hate Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc.’ Again, what’s that got to do with us?

In each case the argument of a US interest is a tautology.

The US ‘needs’ allies for the sole purpose of defense against purported threats not to us but to those very same allies. It’s a self-licking ice cream cone.

It would be bad enough if these faux alliance relationships were only detrimental in terms of getting embroiled in quarrels in which we have no interest, wasting money and manpower in areas of the world where our security is not at stake. But there’s also a direct economic cost right here at home.

Jatras and Kislyak

Based on the claimed need for “allies” US trade policy since World War II could almost have been designed to undermine the economic interests of American workers and American producers. Starting with Germany and Japan, our defeated enemies, we offered them virtually tariff-free, nonreciprocal access to our huge domestic market to assist with their economies’ recovery from wartime destruction; in return, we would take their sovereignty: control of their foreign and security policies, as well as their military and intelligence establishments, plus permanent bases on their territory.

This arrangement became the standard with other countries in non-communist Europe, as well as some in the Far East, notably South Korea. As much or more than puffed-up claims of military threats (and companies that benefit from inflated military spending) lopsided trade is the glue that keeps the satellites in place. In effect, our “allies” cede geostrategic control of their own countries and are rewarded at the expense of domestic American economic interests. Already of questionable value in its heyday, this pattern not only survived the end of Cold War 1 but continued to grow, contributing to the rise of Cold War 2.

Put into that context, this is where Trump’s tariffs dovetail with his other blasphemies, like expecting the deadbeats to pony up for their own defense. He challenges them to reduce tariffs and barriers to zero on a reciprocal bilateral basis-- knowing full well they won’t do so because it would spoil their cozy arrangement at the expense of American workers. He threatens the sanctity of the North Atlantic Treaty’s vaunted Article 5 obligation of mutual defense on whether countries meet a two percent of GDP level of military spending-- knowing that few of them will since they don’t in fact face any external military threat and would rather keep the money.

In his own unvarnished, zigzaggy way, Trump is doing what he said he would: putting America and Americans first. As he has said, that does not mean hostility towards other countries, whose leaders have aduty to put their countries and peoples first as well. It means both stopping our allies’ sandbagging us, while restoring to them their unsought-for-- and for many of them, undesirable-- sovereignty and independence.

In the final analysis, what the likes of Rick Wilson are really afraid of is disruption of a decades-old, crooked racket that has been so lucrative for countless hangers-on and profiteers. As James P. Pinkerton, former aide to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, describes it:

‘[T]he basic geopolitical foundations of the last seven decades are being challenged and shifted-- or, as critics would prefer to say, being subverted and betrayed. Yet in the meantime, even as his myriad foes prepare their next political, legal, and punditical attacks, Trump is the man astride the world stage, smiling, shaking hands, signing deals-- and unmistakably remaking the old order.’

Let’s get on with it.

Into the Swamp by Nancy Ohanian

Why Democratic Voters Stay Home for Elections -- Ed Schultz Eloquently Discusses a Prime Reason

Of the three pipelinies that have burst in the last two weeks, the latest was in West Virginia. The state's nominally "Democratic" U.S. senator, Joe Manchin, was one of nine "Democrats" who voted for the Keystone XL Pipeline.

by Noah

Shortly after the November elections that resulted in a disaster for the so-called Democratic Party, I asked Howie if he thought the Democrats in Congress would ever wake up. It was a rhetorical question. His answer was the obvious "No."

This past Thursday was a sad day for progressives and, really, all Americans, if they thought about it. On Thursday, the United States $enate voted to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, a project that would seize private property from American-citizen landowners through the heartland of our country. Many landowners have turned down offers of very large six-figure sums of money from oil interests to allow the companies to build the pipeline across their property and over the nation's largest aquifer. Think about that. What could go wrong?

 Oil companies and their bought-and-paid-for minions in Congress -- who, unlike real Americans, never saw even a single dollar, let alone six figures, they wouldn't gladly pocket -- tell us that carting the world's dirtiest, Canadian oil through the pipeline will be safe and that carting it by train is not always safe. On Thursday, the $enate voted to approve the pipeline, by a margin of 62 to 36, ignoring the fact that three pipelines have burst in the past two weeks. The most recent broken pipeline is in West Virginia.

Of course, trains do derail, sometimes horribly, but how does that justify risking permanent pollution of the nation's largest aquifer, the aquifer that grows our crops? And how does that justify seizing land that families have, in some cases, owned for generations? We expect republicans to talk about things like rights of private ownership while backing their Big Oil masters and screwing the public. To republicans there is no piece of land on Earth that should not be a target for a nice coating of crude. But in this case, nine democrats agreed.

As much as anything, this issue should be seen as not just a pollution and climate-change issue, but also one of individual property rights. What's going on amounts to land theft.
The end result of Thursday's vote is that when it comes to our private-citizen property rights vs. the rights of oil companies that are already subsidized with our taxpayer money and don't pay taxes themselves, we are not a two-party system. Instead, we have republicans that call themselves democrats and republicans that call themselves republicans. In one sense, the republicans who actually call themselves what they are seem more "honorable" than the republicans that pretend to be democrats. And yet, Democratic Party leaders wonder why they couldn't get people to vote for them in the recent midterm elections.

Here is the list of the Democratic $enators who sold us out:

Bennet (Colorado)
Carper (Delaware)
Casey (Pennsylvania)
Donnelly (Indiana)
Heitkamp (North Dakota)
Manchin (West Virginia -- that pipeline bursting in his own state didn't matter)
McCaskill (Missouri)
Tester (Montana)
Warner (Virginia)

They even sold us out for oil that isn't even for us. It's Canadian oil headed for China and India. Some of them will have no problem lying about the pipeline construction creating "thousands of great jobs," just like newly minted $en. Joni Ernst (R-IA) did in her recent snake-oil response to the president's State of the Union speech.

Now, Canada could have built the pipeline over Canadian land to the Pacific, but apparently Canadians didn't want that. Funny how nearly all of the U.S. media, who run oil-company commercials all day, can't bring themselves to mention things like this. Money doesn't talk, it swears, very loudly.

It isn't a long list, the Keystone Nine, but when it comes to overriding a presidential veto, if President Obama does decide to veto the pipeline, it's a very significant list. It's also significant that Harry Reid could not or would not keep these nine fake democrats in line.

It takes a two-thirds majority to override. Are five more phony democrats lurking in the weeds, maybe just a visit from the K Street Bribery Squads away from joining with the real republicans? If we're lucky, Reid was just letting the Keystone Nine vote to approve for other reasons. To do that, he would have to be very confident that a presidential veto will eventually be sustained, but meanwhile the message sent to democratic voters overall is not a good one. Unlike the republicans, the democrats, as illustrated by the Keystone Nine, do not stay together in lockstep. The time to start doing that was years ago. The democrats need to show voters that they will stand up for them and not capitulate. Their continued and continued and continued Vichy-style politics will not motivate voters.

Here's Ed Schultz. He sees this issue as so important that he devoted the first 20 minutes of his Thursday show to the issue of the Democratic Party needing to grow a pair and stand up for the people who voted for them. It's no small thing that things are so dire in Washington that, in the clip, even an untrustworthy conservadem corporatist like Rep. Steny Hoyer comes across as being on the correct side.



Schultz gets very eloquent and very fiery around the 7:44 point of this clip. If you don't have time for the full 20 minutes, start there, but it's all worth it. Among other things, he makes a call to "end the purchasing" and to "draw the line" for us, not for Big Oil, and certainly not for the Republican Party. No more talk about supporting the middle class without action to match; no more deals, cave-ins, and compromises; no talk of "tinkering" with Social Security; etc. It's time to give repugs a big dose of their own medicine. He'd make a hell of a football coach at halftime, but I'd be surprised if any of the players in Washington are listening. Past is prelude.

"If you're not willing to fight for me, how in the hell do you expect me to line up and fight with you?"

#

Crackpot Utopia: The Year in Republican Crazy, Part 2

• Repugs wonder why normal people call them racists
• Sean Hannity wants to self-deport
• And the First Annual Mr. Burns Award

Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 2 --
The Rockin' Racist, Ted Nugent

Crackpot Utopia: A dream world as envisioned by republicans; a manifestation or expression of the deranged, warped alternate universe inhabited by republicans, at least in their minds. See also: Bachmannism, Boehneresque.

by Noah

1. And Republicans claim to wonder why normal people call them racists (featuring Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 2: the Rockin' Racist, Ted Nugent)

I always tell them that the best way to stop being thought a racist is to stop saying and doing racist things.

As promised in Part 1, here's the Rockin' Racist, Ted Nugent, vying for his Republican Crazyspeak of the Year Award. Ted is a very commercially successful recording artist, and, like most successful recording artists, he has a way of expressing the thoughts of his constituency; in this case, his fellow republicans. There's a reason why he's a star on FOX. Even Anderson Cooper, on FOX-Lite CNN, enjoys having him on as a guest from time to time.

I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame, enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community-organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America.

Nugent was just warming up.

A lotta people call that inflammatory speech. Well, I would call it inflammatory speech when it's your job to protect Americans and you actually look into the television camera saying what difference does it make that I failed in my job to provide security and we have four dead Americans. What difference does that make? Not to a chimpanzee or, a, to Hillary Clinton. I guess it doesn't matter.

Yep. "Subhuman," "mongrel," "chimpanzee." When republicans talk like this about our first African-American president, they are still, no doubt, seething with frustration that they can't just scream out the N-word from the rooftops. A couple of years ago I posted a list of 30 or so words that republicans use because they can't scream the N-word. I hadn't thought of "subhuman mongrel" or "chimpanzee." Maybe those were just too old-fashioned to make the list.

I also missed out on "thug," but so did Ted. "Thug" is the new N-word. It's become the latest buzzword on FOX. If viewers were watching FOX and playing a drinking game where one took a shot of booze every time some cretin on FOX spat out the word "thug," they'd be dead of alcohol poisoning in no time. Note to repugs: Please play the drinking game!

The Rockin' Racist even managed to mention ACORN and the other new FOX buzzword of the year, "Benghazi." Never mind that the real Benghazi cover-up is the fact that it was the Republican Congress that stripped away the money ($79 million) for our embassy security, thus enabling the murder of those four Americans in Benghazi. It's all about the misdirection game.

One wonders where Nugent and his fellow FOX vermin were when 6o Americans died in 12 similar attacks under Bush's watch. Not much calling for hearings then, eh? Gee, Ted. You also forgot "secret Muslim."

Yeah, we've all met republicans that claim to not be racists, that they know some African-Americans, etc. I've heard people say that Sean Hannity isn't a racist because he sometimes has black people on his show. But that's like the KKK saying it isn't racist because they once booked the great Solomon Burke to provide the entertainment at one of their famous twilight picnics. That, however, was accidental. They had thought he was white, but they had him sing anyway, as all the guests arrived in full KKK garb. How nice of them. They even paid him. See, no racism!


When they were somehow hired by the KKK, Solomon Burke and his band played "Down in the Valley" (as they do here at Norway's Notodden Blues Festival in 2005) for "at least 45 minutes," wondering, "Are we gonna get out of here alive?"


2. Sean Hannity wants to self-deport

From The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Jon and the gang pulled out all the stops to implore Sean H to "Stay, Mr. Hannity, Stay."

Almost a year ago now, Sean Hannity went on a semi-literate rant about how he didn't like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. He finished up by threatening to self-deport to Florida or Texas.

Hey, I don't like Andrew Cuomo either. He's cut from the Conservadem cloth and has tried his best to ruin New York's famous drinking water by letting his Big Gas buddies frack all over the state. Eventually, he got the message, after New Yorkers managed to tell him where he can stick the idea, no matter how much was being paid in "campaign contributions" to push it.

Hannity's problem with Cuomo? He doesn't like paying state taxes. Like any republican, he'd rather be a freeloader. Hence, the proposed move to the "taker" state of his choice. Go ahead, make our day, you whining, crap-stirring buffoon! In Texas they don't have state taxes, but what they do have is an ever-growing mountainous shortfall that's so serious, they are literally letting many of their paved roads revert to dirt roads.

I suggest Sean choose Florida. May he be gobbled up by a sinkhole or one of the state's huge constrictor snakes. If he chooses Texas, someone should get him high, dress him up as a stereotype Mexican mariachi musician and leave him along the highway to play frogger with a bunch of bigoted Texas truck drivers bearing down on him. Benghazi that, moron!


3. The First Annual Mr. Burns Award



An award given not just for being an insensitive assclown -- the winner must also exhibit extreme callousness, a dangerously low IQ, and, a measure of contempt for humanity that, at the, borders on psychopathy. At this time, I would like to nominate one Kevin O'Leary, one of the "sharks" of ABC's Shark Tank.

When told, on the CBC's Lang and O'Leary Exchange (which he cohosted with Amanda Lang from 2009 until his departure this past August), that the wealth of the world's 85 richest people was equal to the wealth of 3½ billion of the world's poorest people, venture capitalist O'Leary revealed his insanity, his Romneyesque contempt for others, and his downright psychopathic tendencies by stating:

It's fantastic! And this is a great thing because it inspires everybody, gets some motivation to look up to the 1 percent and say, "I want to be one of those people. I'm going to fight hard to get up to the top." This is fantastic news, and of course I applaud it.

Knowing he wasn't being very convincing, he paused while viewers and on-air partner Amanda Lang cringed, then added:

What could be wrong with this?

I'm surprised he didn't say the poor should kiss his feet too. This is why I should have a button on my remote that inflicts instant migraines or dumps buckets of blood à la Carrie on such "people" when they appear on my TV. How long can this world tolerate not having a fair and legal remedy for people like Kevin O'Leary? I'd put this assclown on one of those big rotating wooden wheels that circus knife-throwers use. Then, after fastening him securely, I would declare it "Amateur Night" and invite throwers from the studio audience to come on up to the stage.


TOMORROW IN PART 3: Using fear, loathing, and paranoia to sell stuff; Arizona legalizes crack!; and the next Crazyspeak of the Year nominee (an old reliable)

NOAH'S 2014 IN REVIEW --
Crackpot Utopia: The Year in Republican Crazy

Part 1: Princess Liz Cheney tries for the Smoothie of the Year Award; "Miss Beck regrets" -- Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 1: Glenn Beck; and the Crackpot Party reacts to President Obama’s State of the Union speech [12/19/2014]
Part 2: Republicans wonder why normal people call them racists; Sean Hannity wants to self-deport; and the First Annual Mr. Burns Award, to ABC "shark" Kevin O'Leary [12/20/2014]
Part 3: Using fear, loathing, and paranoia to sell stuff; Arizona legalizes crack!; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 3: Bill O’Reilly [12/21/2014]
Part 4: A celebration of Michele Bachmann: Pray away the crazy?; What "War on Women"?; and the "Obama angle" on Malaysian Flight 370 [12/22/2014]
Part 5: The GOP and the kiss heard 'round the world; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 5: Joe the Plumber [12/23/2014]
Part 6: A word about South Carolina; Pat Robertson and his magic asteroid; and I'll have a pack of Twizzlers and an IUD to go, please [12/24/2014]
Part 7: And so it begins: The running of the buffoons; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 7, George Will has no idea what rape is; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 8, Rick Wiles calls for a coup [12/29/2014]
Part 8: Things to come: Forward into the past! (11 Presidential Dream Tickets); Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 9: Former republican VP nominee Paul "Crazy Eyes" Ryan; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 10: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association [12/30/2014]
Part 9: Pompous Blowhard of the Year Award: Bill O’Reilly; FOX "News" announces new spinoff: the "FOX Benghazi™" Shopping Channel!; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 11: DiGiorno Pizza [12/31/2014]
Part 10: Newsmax -- Beyond Drudgery; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominees Nos. 12 and 13: Michele Bachmann, Kimberly Guilfoyle [1/1/2015]
Part 11: GOP and FOX whip up the hate over a POW exchange; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 14: Iowa asylum escapee Rep. Steve King [1/3/2015]
Part 12: Arizona Republican protests busload of YMCA campers; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee(s) No. 15: the Impeachment Variations (group nomination); Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 16: NM Rep. Steve Pearce [1/4/2015]
Part 13 (and last): TV for Dummies: Sarah Palin launches her own channel; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 17: Arizona schools superintendent John Huppenthal (rhymes with Neanderthal); and the final Crazyspeak of the Year nominee -- and also the winner! [1/5/2015]

NOAH'S 2013 IN REVIEW --
A Prayer to the Janitor of Lunacy

For listings and links, see Part 1 of this year's series.

#

Why Steny Hoyer Should Never Be Speaker Of The House

Hoyer: Two portions for K Street, drippings for working families

Members if Congress tell me if Hoyer ever gets the gavel every single bill will go through K Street for revision and nothing worthwhile will veer get done. Hoyer is the worst kind of centrist and has always fought for his wing of the Democratic Party-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. This week he was doing just what you would expect some old, out of touch white guy to do-- campaigning against progressive efforts to end marijuana prohibition. Even while his own state's dynamic, progressive gubernatorial hopeful, Heather Mizeur, is taking a lead on the issue, Hoyer is leading in the other direction-- backwards.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday he does not support efforts to legalize marijuana in Maryland, saying it is a “threshold drug” and leads to the use of more harmful substances.

“I’m not a proponent of legalization of marijuana,” Hoyer said during an interview on C-SPAN’s Newsmakers.

…Bills to legalize marijuana are expected to be introduced in both chambers of the Maryland General Assembly.

National polls have shown increasing public support for legalization. Colorado began selling marijuana legally on Jan. 1.

I contacted on congressmember yesterday and asked what he thought. After I persuaded him I would never give him away he said, "Hoyer's an asshole and I pray to God he retires before Nancy does… Leave it to him to oppose these kinds of cultural issues and try to us like a party of fucking troglodytes." Worse yet, just as progressives were rallying against their incredibly unpopular Obama-Boehner schemes to balance the budget on the backs of the working poor, Hoyer is working with the Republicans to embrace their reactionary agenda.

Democratic senators are pleading with President Obama to abandon his proposal to trim Social Security benefits before it becomes a liability for them in the midterm elections.

The president proposed a new formula for calculating benefits in his budget last year, in hopes that the olive branch to Republicans would persuade them to back tax increases in a broader fiscal deal.

But Democratic lawmakers say Obama should shelve the idea now that they are facing a difficult midterm election where they need to turn out the liberal base to preserve their Senate majority.

“I’m not sure why we should be making concessions when the Republicans show absolutely no willingness to do the same,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

Democrats acknowledge it may be awkward for Obama to rescind his proposal, but say it would unwise of him to repeat the offer in the budget that is due out next month.

“I think it’s difficult for the president to pull it back after he already floated it but I would love to see it shelved until Republicans show they’re actually going to do something on their side of the ledger,” Murphy said.

Obama proposed nearly $1 trillion in spending cuts in his budget, including a switch to using the Chained Consumer Price Index (CPI), which liberal policy experts estimate could cost seniors thousands of dollars in benefits over their lifetimes.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, projected that most future beneficiaries would see a 2 percent reduction in benefits during the course of retirement.

Supporters of chained CPI argue it is a more accurate measure of inflation, and say the reduction in federal spending would ease the deficit over time.

Obama said he made the proposal to get Republicans to the negotiating table, but the move rankled Democrats on both sides of the Capitol.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), a liberal independent who caucuses with Democrats, said lawmakers have told White House chief of staff Denis McDonough to drop chained CPI from this year’s budget proposal.

“We have talked to his chief of staff and made that very clear,” said Sanders, who is co-founder of the Defending Social Security Caucus.

Watch Sanders discussing this with Ed Schultz on MSNBC Friday:



So where's Hoyer as all this is unfolding? Playing footsie with his K Street and Wall Street pals and his cronies across the aisle. He's ready, he said, to accept another $9 billion in food stamps cuts. Magnanimous, huh? He bragged this week that he's rounding up enough votes to pass Republican plans to further starve poor people to death. You can watch him on that same C-Span program today braying that "If that is the figure, and if other matters that are still at issue can be resolved, I think the bill will probably pass, and it will pass with Democratic-- some Democratic-- support. Not, certainly, universal Democratic support. … But I think it will pass."

Bipartisan negotiators from both chambers are said to be nearing a deal on a farm bill that would include roughly $9 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps.

The deal would break a yearslong impasse over a five-year renewal of the farm bill that had centered largely around the parties' widely different approaches to SNAP funding. While House Republicans have pushed for a $39 billion cut to the program over a decade, Senate Democrats had proposed $4 billion.

Hoyer said he doesn't support the $9 billion cut, per se, but is "inclined to support it" to enact the larger package.

"I don't like the fact that we went further on the [SNAP] cuts," he said. "But that's over 10 years, so it's not as bad as it could have been, and much better, frankly, than we could have expected."

Hoyer's backing of the $9 billion figure is significant, as House GOP leaders are expected to lose the support of a number of conservative Republicans who feel that anything much less than the $39 billion cut is a nonstarter. The GOP opposition means that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will almost certainly need Democrats to get the bill over the finish line.

It won't be easy winning Democrat support. While the $9 billion cut is much closer to the Democrats' figure, it still represents a significant reduction in SNAP funding and is sure to be opposed by liberal Democrats already criticizing the Senate's $4 billion proposal.

Hoyer predicted that "the majority of Democrats may feel that they cannot support it because of the SNAP cuts."

The savings come by making it tougher to receive enhanced food stamp payments through the federal home-heating assistance program. Under current law, some beneficiaries can receive additional SNAP benefits, if they receive as little as $1 per year through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.

Hoyer said the deal that farm bill negotiators are considering would raise that threshold to $20-- a provision contained in the House GOP proposal.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) has been a vocal critic of the SNAP cuts. Still, the California liberal this week remained open to supporting a $9 billion SNAP reduction as part of a broad farm bill agreement, something she said “we very much want."

“I look forward to seeing it and how they arrive at that figure and what their timetable is on it,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday in the Capitol.

“I’ve been very concerned about the food stamp and nutrition cuts that are in the bill," she added. "[But] we very much want a farm bill and hope that the final formulation will be acceptable.

In between promulgating bad policy for his New Dem and Blue Dog allies to get behind, he's out campaigning for the most conservative fake Democrats Steve Israel has managed to dig up-- like anti-Choice/anti-gay fanatic Jennifer Garrison in Ohio and Chained CPI zealot Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky in Pennsylvania. Hoyer and his cronies-- Steve Israel and Joe Crowley, each of whim he was able to install into caucus leadership positions-- taking over the House Democratic party will spell doom for the Democratic Party as remotely plausible alternative to Republican conservatism.

Student Loan Rates-- Who's To Blame?

Only 4 New Dems voted for the Republican plan to tie student loans to market mechanisms that won't just double them, but could actually triple the rates-- all in the name of their deranged ideology of Greed and Selfishness! And, with the help of the corporate media-- and a few very wealthy, bumbling conservative Democrats in the Senate-- it's another situation where "both sides" are getting the blame by the public. Look at the simple chart up top that shows the Democratic plan and the Republican plan side by side. Enough said?

Elizabeth Warren's original plan-- charging students the same rate that the biggest banks pay for their loans from the Fed-- 0.75%-- is easily the best solution, but way too bold for Washington's conservative consensus. So now a bunch of millionaires in the country's most exclusive club are coming up with a compromise that will impact the futures of the sons and daughters of Americans who these senators will never be able to understand or relate to. Senator Warren was furious at corporate whores in her own party-- Joe Manchin (WV), Tom Carper (DE) and Angus King (ME)-- for their eagerness to help the Republicans further confuse the situation-- and, more importantly, burden working families with more outrageous debt by pegging the loan rate to 10-year Treasury notes... which are right on the verge of big increases. The Senate Democratic plan-- a compromise between Warren's proposal to lower the rates and the GOP/Manchin plan to allow "the market" to jack them up-- is to freeze the rates at 3.4% for another year.

“Elizabeth came out very strong against Manchin,” said a Democratic senator who requested anonymity to discuss the exchange. “She said, ‘They’re already making money off the backs of students, and this adds another $1 billion.’”

...Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, stood up to announce to colleagues that a fact card passed out by Manchin summarizing his proposal contained two mistakes.

Harkin disputed Manchin’s claim that, under the bipartisan proposal, the interest rates for new Stafford loans would be 3.66 percent. Harkin said that claim failed to reflect that under the Manchin proposal, the rates on undergraduate Stafford loans would hit 7.1 percent by 2019.

Under the law that expired on July 1, the rate for subsidized Stafford loans was 3.4 percent. It has jumped to 6.8 percent and will remain at that level until Congress acts.

Harkin also hit Manchin for claiming the bipartisan plan places a cap on interest rates.

The bipartisan proposal in the Senate would cap student loan rates at 8.25 percent, but only for consolidated loans, not individual ones.

Manchin and his allies, Carper and King, pushed back against the pressure. They took the rare step of holding a competing press conference with reporters in the Ohio Clock corridor while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) touted a separate Democratic proposal to reporters. That plan, sponsored by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), would freeze the rate for subsidized Stafford loans at 3.4 percent for another year.

The bipartisan plan endorsed by Manchin and the others would set interest rates for undergraduate Stafford loans at the 10-year Treasury rate plus 1.85 percent. It would set the rates for unsubsidized graduate Stafford loans at the 10-year Treasury rate plus 3.4 percent.

It would reduce the deficit by $1 billion over 10 years, which Warren and other liberals have characterized as balancing the budget on the backs of students.

...While Manchin, Carper and King stood only a few yards down the ornate corridor outside the Senate chamber, Reid drew a line, declaring he would only back a plan that guarantees student loan rates will remain below the current 6.8-percent rate.

“I’ve told my caucus, I’ve told individual senators, if you can explain to me why doing something is better than doing nothing, then we’ll do it,” he said. “All the proposals, within two years, at the outside three years, make the rate more than 6.8 percent.”

Backers of tying the loan rates to Treasury bonds point out that it would result in lower rates now, but Reid said that interest rates are just now beginning to rise from all-time lows, with nowhere to go but up.

“We have the lowest interest rates we’ve had in the history of this country,” he said. “Interest rates are going to go up, and who’s going to suffer from that? Students.”

In an OpEd published just before today's vote, Senator Warren was joined by Jack Reed (D-RI) is advocating on behalf of students and working families and against the Greed and Selfishness mentality of conservatives on both sides of the aisle.

First, we must deal with the immediate problem by implementing a one-year patch to keep student loan rates at their previous level of 3.4 percent. This legislation is an investment in college students that keeps them from being hurt while Congress negotiates a long-term solution. The lower interest rate is fully paid for by closing a single tax loophole that provides inordinate benefits to the wealthiest.

Second, we will use the next year to reform our student loan system: eliminating profits from student loans, stemming the rising cost of college and alleviating the burden of student debt on existing borrowers through refinancing and better consumer protection.

This plan gets to the core of the college affordability problem, looking at all of its facets rather than focusing solely on interest rates for new loans.

Unfortunately, some senators are backing a bill that would cause interest rates on student loans to drop for a few years before they rise sharply, with no cap on interest rates, leaving students vulnerable to skyrocketing costs. They are asking students to focus on the low rates they'd possibly get in the first year or two and ignore the long-term consequences.

In the world of mortgages, this was called a teaser rate - and this is the kind of mortgage deal that nearly crashed our entire economy.

The student loan program already reaps big profits for the federal government. This year alone, student loans will bring in an estimated $51 billion in profits - money that comes straight from the pockets of college students and their parents.

If you're wondering why the federal government is generating mega-profits off of a program that is supposed to help our students, you're not alone. And yet that's exactly what this group of senators proposes: more of the same.

Their bill, the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, makes an additional $1 billion in profit from our college students. That's in addition to the $184 billion the new federal student loans already are set to bring in over the next 10 years.

At a time when borrowers are already carrying $1 trillion in student loan debt, this is bad economics. The Federal Reserve warned in March that student loan debt threatens America's economic recovery. And it's bad for our long-term prospects too: At a time when our economy's stability depends on having a highly skilled workforce, we should be investing in our students, not profiting from them.

It boils down to this: The Senate has two different plans on the table. One keeps making profits off outstanding student loans and boosts profits on new ones while enticing students with a couple of years of low interest-- risking an economic calamity. The other puts us on a responsible path, keeping rates low on new loans and working to end the profits the government makes on outstanding loans.

Today, Senate Republicans filibustered the Democratic proposal to keep the student loan rates at the same low rate. The attempt to end the filibuster failed 51-49, all the Republicans voting NO. And, disgracefully, they were joined in their filibuster by Manchin (WV) and King (ME). Don't people send their kids to college in West Virginia and Maine? These were Senator Warren's remarks right after the GOP filibuster doomed students to higher rates: "I’m frustrated the GOP has once again blocked a sensible compromise proposal to keep interest rates on student loans from doubling. The federal government continues to make billions of dollars in profits off the backs of our students-- producing higher profits than any Fortune 500 company-- but the GOP’s proposal would make another billion on top of that, continuing to squeeze our students to cover other government costs. It’s unbelievable that Republicans would demand $40 billion for a new border fence, yet refuse to invest a single dime in a better future for our kids and our economy."

The short video below has Bernie Sanders explaining the whole problem to Ed Schultz last weekend-- before Manchin, Carper and King went over to the Republican side and before today's disastrous vote:

Every Homophobe I Ever Heard From In South Carolina Is Interested In Sex With Men. What About Chris Culliver?

Chris Culliver

I never went to an NFL game in my life and I doubt I've even done a post about football before. But I lived in San Francisco for the better part of two decades and the 49ers football news did manage to seep through the Hagel nomination battle noise. I was sad to read at AmericaBlog that the 49ers have disavowed the anti-bullying "It Gets Better" video they made-- and now say they were "tricked" into making. Two of the players, Ahmad Brooks and Isaac Sopoaga, were uncomfortable being part of the video project.

When four members of the San Francisco 49ers made an anti-bullying video in August for the "It Gets Better Project," they were hailed as trail blazers-- big, strong athletes in a game bathed in testosterone and homophobia, who were prepared to take on the narrow minds of the NFL locker rooms.

But two of the players who took part in the video-- linebacker Ahmad Brooks and nose tackle Isaac Sopoaga-- strangely denied making the video. Then, when shown the video, they said they didn't realize the aim of the production was to fight the bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teens.

The players were asked about the video Thursday because teammate Chris Culliver made derogatory remarks about gays in a media day interview with radio personality Artie Lange. At first, Brooks and Sopoaga, approached by USA TODAY Sports, denied being part of the project.

"I didn't make any video," Brooks said. "This is America and if someone wants to be gay, they can be gay. It's their right. But I didn't make any video."

Culliver... that the guy whose photo is up-top. Handsome dude, don't you think? And sexy. Someone who looks like that and makes derogatory remarks about gay people-- and this all in San Francisco-- in all likelihood has some personal experiences they don't want to publicly discuss. Thursday the 23 year old South Carolinian apologized for his homophobic remarks in the hopes it will all go away and not ruin his career.

San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver said Thursday morning he would accept a gay teammate as he apologized for homophobic comments he made earlier this week on a national radio show's podcast.

"Everyone is treated equally in our locker room," Culliver said.

Culliver previously told radio host Artie Lange that gay players would not be welcome in the 49ers locker room.

"Ain't got no gay people on the team. They gotta get up outta here if they do. Can't be with that sweet stuff," he said in the interview taped on Tuesday's media day at the Superdome.

Culliver was swarmed by reporters at the 49ers' media availability Thursday morning, a day after his statements went viral. He said he spoke with head coach Jim Harbaugh, other 49ers coaches and general manager Trent Baalke on Wednesday and told his bosses that he would "learn and grow" from the experience.

Culliver said he made the comments in a "joking" manner.

"I was really not thinking. Or, something I thought, but not something that I feel in my heart," Culliver said. "I'm sorry that I offended anyone. They were very ugly comments, and that's not what I feel in my heart. Hopefully, I can learn and grow from this experience and this situation. I love San Francisco."

Culliver said he did not see the reaction to his comments on Twitter, nor did he talk about them or the backlash with teammates.

"I'm not trying to bring any distraction to the team. We're trying to win a Super Bowl," Culliver said.

I'm rooting for The Ravens this time round-- and for the Harvey Milk International Airport.

A Case For Natural Disaster Vengeance?

Republican Congressman Peter King was correct when he said New York and New Jersey donors would be crazy to contribute campaign money to Republican candidates. "Anyone from New York or New Jersey who contributes one penny to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee should have their head examined," he raved to CNN. "It was absolutely disgraceful. People in my party, they wonder why they're becoming a minority party... They're going to have a hard time getting my vote, I can tell you that. Turning your back on people who are starving and freezing is not a Republican value."

In the video above, MSNBC populist host Ed Schultz suggests that northerners may make it tough on states like Missouri, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama when, inevitably, their states next come to the federal government to help them with disaster relief. Wrong states. Yes, hypocrites Roy Blunt (R-MO), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Jeff Sessions (KKK-AL) voted against aid for Sandy survivors. But Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) wisely voted for aid.

Were there any states with both senators who voted against aid? Of course there were... and their constituents are going to-- at the very least-- be forced to wait a little longer for disaster relief reimbursement. Or maybe Democrats will ask that aid be offset with an increase in taxes on millionaires or be offset by closing loopholes on Big Oil. Which states better hope they don't need federal help soon?

• Wyoming- John Barraso (R)- NO and Mike Enzi (R)- NO... and Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R), Wyoming's only Congressmember- NO
• Texas- John Cornyn (R)- NO and Ted Cruz (R)- NO... as did 23 of Texas' 24 Republican congressmembers
• Georgia- Saxby Chambliss (R)- NO and Johnny Isakson (R)- NO... as did all the Republican House Members
• Oklahoma- Tom Coburn (R)- NO and Jim Inhofe (R)- NO
• Idaho- Mike Crapo (R)- NO and Jim Risch (R)- NO... as did the state's 2 Congressmen, Raul Labrador and Mike Simpson
• Nebraska- Deb Fischer (R)- NO and Mike Johanns (R)- NO... as did the state's 3 congressmen
• Arizona- John McCain (R) and Jeff Flake (R)- NO... as did all 4 GOP congressmen
• South Carolina- Lindsey Graham (R)- NO and Tim Scott (R)- NO... as did all 6 of the state's 6 GOP congressmen
• Utah- Orrin Hatch (R)- NO and Mike Lee (R)- NO... as did all 3 of the state's GOP congressmen
• Kentucky- Miss McConnell (R)- NO and Rand Paul (R)- NO
• Kansas- Jerry Moran (R)- NO and Pat Roberts (R)- NO... as did all 4 of Kansas' congressmen

So... best-- purest-- targets are Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska and Kansas... 100% states against aid. And then there's Georgia... Adairsville, Georgia, birthplace of Pretty Boy Floyd, sits exactly on the boundary between the 14th and 11th congressional districts in northwest Georgia. The 11th, which holds most of the town of 4,648, is represented by GOP Rape Caucus loon Phil Gingrey. The 14th is represented by equally crazy and extremist Tom Graves. Today God raised His hand against the poor folks in Adairsville and smote it-- probably to send a clear message to Gingrey, Graves and the two right-wing Georgia senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, all 4 of whom voted against aid to Sandy victims. The storm also hit Nashville, Tennessee, where Jim Cooper distinguished his Blue Dog self as the only Democrat to vote against aid for the natural disaster in New York and New Jersey.

At least two people are dead after a series of powerful storms and tornadoes pummeled much of the South Wednesday.

Whole swaths of Georgia and Tennessee spent the day under siege, already battered by high winds as the storm front began its deadly march last night.

Outside of Nashville residents heard a deafening roar and had only seconds to react.

Storms rip through south