Why Hillary? Why Bellagio? (Follow the $.)

After so much anticipation and so much "controversy", it finally happened. And surprise, it raised money for UNLV! Who could have guessed?

Oh, yes. That's right. We've been saying all along that the Hillary Clinton UNLV fundraiser will raise money for UNLV. And whaddya know, the event itself turned in at least a $10,000 profit for the UNLV Foundation. In addition, the announcement was made of a $12 million gift to the school outside the Bellagio fundraiser.



Of course, speculation is running rampant today about why Hillary Clinton came and what she will be doing next time she returns to Nevada. Ironically, hardly anyone is talking about the reason why this event occurred in the first place.

Why, oh why, did UNLV (Foundation) have to pay Hillary Clinton to show up at some fancy Bellagio fundraiser? Look no further than Governor Brian Sandoval (R), Former Governor Jim Gibbons (R), and the severe budget cuts that UNLV endured in 2009 & 2011. And even before then, UNLV and the other public colleges in Southern Nevada were underfunded.

So what are public colleges supposed to do when confronted with severe state budget cuts? Ironically, they've been turning to private donors to try to fill as many gaps as possible. And due to rising tuitions and dwindling financial aid resources for poorer students, we're seeing a growing education gap exacerbate the already alarming inequality crisis.

Keep this in mind today as you read commentary from certain media pundits on the "optics" of last night's UNLV Foundation fundraiser. If you hear from someone who's "disturbed" by Hillary Clinton's visit, ask that someone if one truly believes public institutions of higher education should serve the public. If so, then shouldn't those institutions receive better public support? If so, shouldn't our public colleges receive better finding from our state & federal government?

If UNLV could count on better public funding, it wouldn't have to do so many of these private fundraisers.

Scandalmania Redux

(We've been hearing a whole lot lately about all sorts of scandals: some somewhat legitimate, some totally not. So while we're enduring yet another round of "Scandalmania", we might as well jump into the Nevada Progressive archives and revisit this piece from May 2013 on the most dangerous scandal of our time. Why aren't we having any grueling House hearings on this?)

This should really be obvious. Yet because too many in the Republican Party are taking their queues from the 21st Century Know Nothings instead of reality, we'll have to explain this yet again. No, wait, I'll let Jamelle Bouie explain this.

As time progresses and these scandals begin to die down, the odds that Republicans will capture some advantage diminish. Moreover, there’s a chance this scandal fever will backfire and harm the GOP’s standing. Already, Republican officials are warning against scandal overreach, and conservative elites are warning that these controversies — even if they’re substantive — aren’t a substitute for an actual plan to govern. “Democratic scandal does not take the place of a Republican agenda,” writes the National Review, “a purely negative message, however justified, will not produce the governing majority Republicans should be aiming for in the next two elections.”

Republicans should heed this message, because it’s exactly correct. Odds are good Americans won’t remember this eighteen months from now, and so — instead of trying to keep it floating as long as possible — Republicans should work to offer a real, workable policy agenda alternative to the public. As evidenced by the current impasse over immigration and the budget, it’s clear that the GOP still has a lot of work to do on that front.

As we discussed yesterday and again this morning, far too many Republicans in Congress seem quite comfortable with the idea of using the latest haute faux scandals as (even more) excuses to kill comprehensive immigration reform this year and destroy whatever possibility is left of them actually trying to govern at all. It's still too early to determine whether this actually happens on Capitol Hill. But now, it's definitely entering the realm of possibility as the G-O-TEA base seems hellbent on repeating the follies of 1998.

Yet while Scandal-mania continues to approach a fever pitch on Capitol Hill, the real scandal continues to torment our planet and our people. Earlier today, the world's top climate scientist spoke to BBC Radio 4 on the greatest global security threat of our time. And yes, it's not going away any time soon.

Suggestions that global warming has stalled are a "diversionary tactic" from "deniers" who want the public to be confused over climate change, according to the world's best-known climate scientist. Professor James Hansen, who first alerted the world to climate change in 1988, said on Friday: "It is not true that the temperature has not changed in the two decades." [...]

Prof. Hansen said the focus by some on "details" was a smokescreen. "This is a diversionary tactic. Our understanding of global warming and human-made climate change has not been affected at all," he said. "It's because the deniers [of the science] want the public to be confused. They raise these minor issues and then we forget about what the main story is. The main story is carbon dioxide is going up and it is going to produce a climate which is going to have dramatic changes if we don't begin to reduce our emissions." In 2008, scientists anticipated an upcoming slowing in temperature rises.

Prof. Hansen, who recently stepped down from his NASA post after almost 50 years to focus on communication, said the forecast impact of climate change was little affected by the recent slowdown in the rate of rising temperatures.

"Climate is a complicated system but there is no change at all in our understanding of climate sensitivity [to carbon dioxide] and where the climate is headed," he said. "Our understanding of sensitivity is based on the Earth's history, not on climate models, and we have good data on how the Earth responded in the past when carbon dioxide changed. So there is no reason to change the forecast for the long term." On 9 May, a new study of lake sediments from a remote meteorite crater in Siberia showed temperatures in the region were 8C higher the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today. Last week, atmospheric CO2 concentrations reached the milestone 400 parts per million [ppm], for the first time in millions of years.

If anything, recent developments in the Arctic region and the horrifying broken 400 ppm milestone point to accelerating climate change. And that should frighten all of us. This is the real scandal that threatens humanity, not the petty bullshit dominating Congressional hearings and Beltway punditry circle jerks right now.

This week, we've also been reminded that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is human induced. It's not that often when 97% of scientists agree on anything. So yes, this is a huge deal.

And that's today's reminder of reality brought to you by the Department of the Completely Fucking Obvious. Oh, and in case any one is still wondering why this matters, here's another reminder from Mother Nature (& the USGS).

A new U.S. Geological Survey study finds, “Warmer spring temperatures since 1980 are causing an estimated 20 percent loss of snow cover across the Rocky Mountains of western North America.” The USGS explains, “The new study builds upon a previous USGS snowpack investigation which showed that, until the 1980s, the northern Rocky Mountains experienced large snowpacks when the central and southern Rockies experienced meager ones, and vice versa. Yet, since the 1980s, there have been simultaneous snowpack declines along the entire length of the Rocky Mountains, and unusually severe declines in the north.” [...] What’s most worrisome is that we now have three major trends driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases that threaten to significantly worsen drought and water problems in the West and Southwest: Less precipitation in many areas Less snowpack, as the USGS studies have found Hotter temperatures

Last November, we observed the havoc climate change is already causing Rural Northern Nevada as farms & ranches are forced to confront continued drought. Expect even more of this as the climate crisis worsens. And expect even more of the state to be affected as we witness even more drought and extreme weather. This should really be a "no-brainer". We must act for our own survival. And we must act to strengthen our economy! We win if we finally act on replacing our fossil fuel addiction with a green, renewable future. We lose if we continue to let our fossil fuel addiction cloud our better judgment.


So what will it be? Will we let the latest bout of Scandal-mania cloud our better judgment? Or will we finally act on solving the real scandal facing us?

Think Before You Act

Today, we're all remembering what happened 13 years ago. And we're facing tough questions that harken back to the decisions made in the aftermath of September 11.

Not even a year after 9/11 and the start of the Afghanistan War, then President George W. Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq. We were initially told Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for 9/11. Then, we were told Saddam Hussein was providing safe harbor to al-Qaeda terrorists. Then, we were told Iraq was somehow part of the "Axis of Evil". Then, we were told of "smoking guns" and "mushroom clouds".

Ultimately, then President Bush got the war he wanted. Thanks to neoconservative allies in Congress like Senator
John McCain (R-Arizona), approval for the Iraq invasion was a snap. And Bush never had to worry about obtaining more funding for what later became a war of "liberation" and "spreading democracy".



Senator John McCain, along with so many of the other regular cable "news" talking heads and Sunday show pundits, have regularly been proven wrong on their constant assertions that all we need is another war in order for Americans to "feel safe".



But what if we don't need another war in order to "feel safe"? What if we don't need to repeat the mistakes from our last war in the region? What if we actually think before we act?

We can't afford to make the same mistakes we made in Iraq last decade. While Isis indeed poses a threat to regional stability in the Middle East, it's not the some rapidly approaching apocalypse for America. Yet if we make the wrong move there, we risk further destabilization of the region (and ironically, a stronger Isis).



Contrary to what certain "TEA" flavored media pundits like to say, sports analogies won't help. Neither will bombastic rhetoric. And probably neither will yet another full scale Middle East war.

Perhaps we should think some more before we act. We have no obligation to repeat the mistakes of the previous Iraq War. And we have no obligation to commit thousands more American troops to a geopolitical Pandora's Box that only promises more brutal & bloody mayhem if opened. However, there are 535 people on Capitol Hill who do have an obligation to hold a vote. We'd like for them to think and act on it.

Where's the Scandal?

Must we do this again? Apparently, yes. While one local media pundit continues to beat this dead horse, national G-O-TEA media spinners have begun beating the "ZOMG!!! Hillary Clinton is a rich b---h!!!!" dead horse of a "scandal".



What Fox "News" talking heads call "rock star diva outrageous demands" are actually considered standard operating procedure for high profile politicians. If Hillary Clinton is a "rock star diva" making "outrageous demands", then so are George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich.

But of course, Hillary Clinton is different... Because she's "stealing money from UNLV students"! Except she's not.

No really, the UNLV Foundation relies on private donations to fund its efforts to raise private money for UNLV (since the public college doesn't receive enough public funding). Since Hillary Clinton's speech will be for the UNLV Foundation, her speaking fee came from private donations. Already, there have been more than enough private donations to cover the fee. She has already donated that fee to charity. And the October event will likely raise a hefty sum... For the benefit of UNLV and its students.

So where's the "scandal"? Where were all these media pundits when politicians like Rudy Giuliani cashed in on big speaking fees? And where were they when Governor Brian Sandoval (R) pushed for more UNLV budget cuts in 2011?

Ironically, one of the most vocal critics of Clinton's UNLV Foundation gig accepted a for-pay speech at UNLV herself. And she's not alone on the list of high profile individuals UNLV and/or the UNLV Foundation paid to give a speech. So why are we still wasting so many characters arguing over this Hillary Clinton speech?

Whenever a Clinton runs for President, strange things happen. Extramarital affairs become "impeachable offenses". A money losing land deal becomes some horrifically sophisticated money laundering scheme. A tragic attack on a US consulate becomes some bizarre mass murder conspiracy. And a speaking fee becomes some heinous crime against higher education.

Perhaps if Republican political operatives and their media enablers were to spend less time hyperventilating over fictitious "scandals" and more time preparing better policies for their preferred Presidential candidates to espouse (along with decent candidates for them to prefer), they'd actually have a viable 2016 alternative to Hillary Clinton.

The Iraq Question

At one point, it seemed like it was beginning to fade from our memory. It was becoming "ancient history". And with so much to worry about at home, why must we think about it again?

But now, Iraq is back in the news. Isis (or "Islamic State") is on the move in Northern Iraq, and it may now have sights on Syria and Turkey as well. And now, fears are growing of a possible genocide in the region.

The US is moving back towards military engagement in Iraq. But before we debate what we should do there next, we must remember how we fell into this hot mess in the first place.

In October 2002, Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq to combat the alleged stockpiling of "weapons of mass destruction" by then Iraqi Prime Minister Saddam Hussein. Before the vote, the Bush Administration made claims that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the September 11, 2001, (9/11) terrorist attack. There was never a formal declaration of war when the US led invasion began in March 2003. And after the invasion, it became painfully clear that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" prepared to be used against us... And that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

After the invasion began, the Iraq War transformed from an allegedly "anti-terrorist operation" into some "armed humanitarian liberation of the Iraqi people". All of a sudden, our armed forces were in Iraq to initiate "regime change" and essentially force "democracy" at gunpoint. The neoconservatives who were advising then President George W. Bush on foreign policy were praising "freedom fighters" like Ahmad Chalabi and urging the US to expand our military presence into Iran, Syria, and elsewhere so we can spread "democracy" all over the Middle East. What was supposed to be a fast & easy "shock & awe" war to disarm terrorists was suddenly becoming a grandiose attempt to set up an American Empire halfway across the world.

Ironically, this war that was supposed to "disarm terrorists" actually succeeded... In arming terrorists. al-Qaeda never had a presence in Iraq before March 20, 2003. But after the US led "coalition of the willing" toppled Saddam Hussein's regime from power, an enormous power vacuum emerged. And by mid 2004, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was wreaking havoc in the "Triangle of Death" around Baghdad.

US forces only succeeded in wresting control of the Baghdad exurbs from "al-Qaeda in Iraq" by arming Sunni militias who had grown uncomfortable with their continued presence in the region while providing "The Surge" of additional US soldiers into Iraq. But even then, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was never fully eradicated. It only went dormant (until the inevitable "rebranding" that we'll get to in a moment).

What was supposed to be a "liberation of the Iraqi people" quickly devolved into a complete organizational clusterfuck as the US occupation of Iraq dragged on. Alleged "Iraqi Messiah" Ahmad Chalabi ran to Iran whenever they had money for him and became a nagging destabilizing force in the region. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that took over after the end of Saddam's reign quickly emerged as a Keystone Kops style money laundering scheme. And the Shia led political bloc that ultimately took the keys from the CPA never seemed to unite the nation behind its government.

By 2011, what had previously been known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" "rebranded" itself as Isis. And when Isis decided to disobey al-Qaeda Central's orders to limit civilian deaths when it jumped into Syria's civil war, the 2 terrorist networks divorced this past February. But now that Iraq's government is as unstable as ever, President Obama faces tough choices on how to prevent a horrid genecidal bloodbath in the region.

Oh, and so does Congress. But already, many of the same neoconservatives who misled the nation into the Iraq War in 2002 want to criticize just about anything & everything President Obama decides to do now. Some of the current G-O-TEA hotheads on Capitol Hill even want to return US ground troops to Iraq and revive the US occupation. And to make matters even more bizarre, some Democrats (who happen to be the same ones who voted for military force authorization in 2002) are harping about the Obama Administration's caution in arming rebels, even as many of the rebels the neoconservatives have wanted to support actually have ties to Isis.

As we ponder what to do next about Iraq, it's critical for us to remember the history of this war. It's crucial for us to remember the many painful errors and brutal blunders made in the 12 years so that we don't repeat them. And as Members of Congress decide what parameters to set on this latest mission into Iraq, they must remember their Constitutional duty and their precedecessors' big mistake.

When You Wish Upon... What?!

OK, kids. It's time to fire up the Wayback Machine. Let's travel back to January 2013. Remember the sordid tale of John Swallow & Jeremy Johnson?

Wait, who?!

Here's what we know so far. St. George businessman Jeremy Johnson wanted the legal equivalent of a magic wand to wave away a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into his internet marketing company, I Works. So he contacted then Deputy Utah Attorney General John Swallow (R), who then connected him with the late Check City (payday loan provider) owner Richard Rawle. 

Now here's where we descend into "he said, he said" territory. Johnson alleges that Swallow & Rawle struck a deal with him where he'd give them $600,000... For them to then bribe Senator [Harry] Reid [D] into making the FTC investigation of I Works go away. 

However, Swallow vehemently denies this allegation. Swallow's version of the story goes as this: He just thought (at the time that) Johnson was facing an unfair probe by the FTC. So he referred Johnson to his former employer Rawle. And he's even presented an affidavit from Rawle (prepared just before his death) stating Johnson paid Rawle $250,000 to hire federal lobbyists to make Johnson's case in DC.

At the very least, some sleazy wheeling-dealing was going on here. And now that John Swallow is Utah's Attorney General, he's facing the political scandal of his life. However, there's been nothing produced so far that confirms that Reid accepted any kind of bribe from Johnson, Swallow, and/or Rawle.

Yesterday, Former Utah Attorneys General John Swallow (R) & Mark Shurtleff (R) were indicted on 23 counts. They face up to 30 years in prison if convicted. And yes, this has to do with their alleged dealings with Jeremy Johnson and the late Richard Rawle.

Already, this is causing a huge political earthquake in Utah. And already, investigators are suggesting more indictments are on the way in the Swallow-Johnson corruption case.

However, some in Utah are disappointed that the federal Department of Justice declined to take this case. Even the lead investigators have suggested such. Could it possibly be...

Still, no. Even as certain figures whisper about Senator Harry Reid's potential involvement, no evidence has actually been found. We only have Jeremy Johnson's claims that Senator Reid is involved. And keep in mind that Jeremy Johnson had demanded a refund of the $250,000 he paid Richard Rawle because Senator Reid never made that pesky FTC investigation of I Works go away!

We get it. This is awful news for Utah Republicans. Many sense this case goes far deeper than some money Rawle, Shurtleff, and Swallow passed around. And certain media pundits are hungry for a big, splashy "SCANDAL!!!" involving Nevada's top elected leader.

But no matter how much certain pundits & politicians wish for a "Reid connection" here, they can't wish it into being true. Just as they couldn't turn a UNLV Foundation fundraiser into a giant "Hillary Clinton SCANDAL!!!", they can't just wish it into reality.

The 2014 Election Cycle isn't even over yet, and already some politicians & pundits are wishing for 2016 fireworks. And already, they're wishing for "SCANDALZZZ!!!" that only seem to be political mirages. Perhaps instead of wishing for that which will never materialize, they need to focus on what's actually here.

The Fact of the Matter

In recent days, we've been bombarded with news of a new haute faux scandal. Now that Congressional Republican "leaders" are already embarking on their path to impeach President Obama for committing the heinous crime of doing his job, they're already embarking on their strategy to tar & feather the next Democratic President (while also revisiting their irrational hatred of the previous one).

Oh, yes. That's right. They're going there. And they're already going after Hillary Clinton.

They were hoping #Benghazi would net them "2 for the price of 1". But now that they're coming up empty there, they need to latch onto a new haute faux scandal to gin up more "OUTRAGE!!!" So of course, they're returning to the time honored tradition of "investigating" the Clintons' personal lives to death (cough- Whitewater- cough- Monica).

And now, G-O-TEA operatives think they've hit pay dirt with the "speaking fees scandal". How dare that she-devil steal food right out of starving students' mouths! How dare that haggardly witch unilaterally raise tuition at UNLV! How dare that...

Wait, what?! No really, this is what G-O-TEA media spinners are now claiming. Because Hillary Clinton accepted a $225,000 speaking fee from the UNLV Foundation to attend an October fundraiser (for UNLV!), she's somehow responsible for tuition hikes and budget cuts that she never approved. (Who's the Governor of Nevada again?) And now that Hillary Clinton is donating that $225,000 speaking fee to the Clinton Foundation, she's somehow horribly evil and selfish.

Give. Us. A. Break! Hillary Clinton was never the one eager to slash UNLV's budget. Hillary Clinton was never the one to direct state funding away from UNLV. And Hillary Clinton was never the one who voted to raise tuition for UNLV students.

Guess who did? Oh, yes. That's right. Nevada Republicans... And in particular, one Brian Sandoval.

We've seen first hand the pain & suffering caused by the budget cuts to higher education. And yes, we know that UNLV has especially been hit hard by the past 5 years of budget cuts.

The real perpetrators of the real scandal would like nothing more than for us to misplace our outrage and rage against those who actually have nothing to do with the real problems at our public colleges and universities. The fact of the matter is that the UNLV Foundation has already netted more money for this fundraiser (3 months before the event!) than it's paid Hillary Clinton/the Clinton Foundation. And the fact of the matter is that we wouldn't even need a UNLV Foundation hiring big names for big private fundraisers if the state's elected "leaders" were actually doing their job and properly funding public education.

But hey, let's not let some pesky facts get in the way of the hottest new haute faux scandal. Certain media pundits and political spinners find it so much "sexier" to hype a fictitious "SCANDAL!!!" than explain the real one.

Impeachment Games

And it's on! We always suspected this is what they've been aiming for. But now, it's increasingly clear what their ultimate goal has been all along.

Benghazi. IRS. Bergdahl. And all the G-O-TEA's other haute faux "OBAMA SCANDALZZZ!!!111111!!!!!!1" They never really cared about any of that, especially since there's never actually been "any there there". No, they've just wanted some excuse, any excuse, to impeach President Obama.



Earlier today, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Jack Daniel's) announced a law suit against President Obama. For what? And why? He doesn't know yet, but he'll get back to us when he figures it out.

Wow. Perhaps this is why even Fox "News" pundits are questioning the utility of this law suit over nothing...



Except that we know that it's not for nothing. Rather, we know the real goal of this suit. We know the real goal is a little thing called impeachment. Remember the 1990s? Go ahead and feel the deja vu.

Yet while House G-O-TEA "leaders" want "Impeachapalooza: The Sequel", the rest of the nation wants something else. Here's a hint: #4jobs. And for all those 3 million+ Americans who are still seeking jobs, they just want a chance to survive.

While House G-O-TEA "leaders" are obsessing over scoring political points with campaign tactics that used to be considered actual punishment for real high crimes and misdemeanors, Rep. Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas), Rep. Dina Titus (D-Paradise), and a bipartisan group of other House Members are introducing the same #RenewUI.



It's been nearly 6 months since Congress let the federal extension of unemployment insurance (UI) expire. Since then, over 37,000 Nevadans and 3 million Americans have been forced into unnecessary hardship. And even though the Senate has already passed bipartisan legislation to #RenewUI, House G-O-TEA "leaders" have still refused to bring it to the floor.

Instead, they're now playing impeachment games. It's nice for them that they don't have to worry about how they'll be paying the bills. Unfortunately for all the rest of us, we don't have the luxury of all this time & money to waste on impeachment games.

Why Republicans Probably Won't Pick @LV2016

Every so often, a certain local journalist and media pundit (cough- Jon Ralston- cough) has been begging national Republicans to bring the 2016 Republican National Convention to Las Vegas. He's certainly tried his best to promote our region to Republicans and make a convincing case why "The Entertainment Capital of the World" should host what may be the most entertaining political party event ever. Unfortunately for Ralston, most Republicans don't want to listen to his case.

But why is that? Ralston has made many good points. The Strip has plenty of quality lodging, dining, and entertainment options. Nevada will likely be a key Swing State that cycle. And Southern Nevada has become a diverse society that would serve as the perfect backdrop for the Republicans' big party.

Unfortunately for Ralston (and all other @LV2016 boosters), the G-O-TEA Culture Warriors strongly object to this. And why's that? Oh, our lodging, dining, and entertainment options threaten their "Judeo-Christian values". In fact, our "entertainment" is so wicked & sinful that it corrupted poor Rep. Vance McAllister (R-Louisiana) from thousands of miles away! (/snark)

And it's not just our lack of "moral values" that will likely prevent "Sin City" from hosting the 2016 Republican National Convention. There's also the matter of the entire Nevada Republican Party's lack of common decency and common sense. Last week, state & local G-O-TEA politicians rushed to sing the praises of Cliven Bundy violating federal law at Gold Butte. They also tacitly endorsed outside G-O-TEA groups meddling in #BundyRanch to the point of encouraging armed conflict with federal public servants who were just attempting to enforce the law.



But wait, there's more. Republicans just concluded their convention... The 2014 Nevada Republican Party Convention, that is. And while most delegates decided to cast a few votes in favor of the 21st century, they nonetheless decided to spurn the Governor they just endorsed for reelection by rejecting nearly all his preferred candidates in other races up & down the ballot. And even after they endorsed a new platform, they're still fighting each other over it!

But hey, at least they agreed to endorse Sue Lowden for Lt. Governor.



Apparently, all of this finally weighed on Jon Ralston as he prepared to say farewell to his fantasy of the 2016 Republican National Convention playing out in his back yard...

"Thanks to #BundyRanch and @NVGOP folks for providing great advertisement today why @LV2016 should happen. Thanks, geniuses."

Except that he forgot to mention Nevada Republicans' other great shining moment from last week.



Hillary Clinton may have had a shoe thrown at her, but Republicans are ultimately throwing away whatever chance they have left of defeating her in 2016 by embracing so much crazy. And this visual must be terrifying those in charge of the Republican National Committee.

This is why Republicans probably won't pick Las Vegas to host their 2016 national convention. While Southern Nevada is home to a diverse electorate who likely resembles the future of America, "Republican rebranding" has accomplished nothing but the repeat of the same old lame excuses of why the G-O-TEA base rejects 21st century America. And even though Nevada is a key state that Republicans need to win more often in order to remain a nationally relevant party, the Nevada Republican Party long ago lost interest in winning elections as it's pursued ideological "purity" to the point of endorsing "Chickens for Checkups" and armed anarchy. Southern Nevada can all too easily remind everyone of why the Republican Party has become radically out of touch with the mainstream electorate, and this is why the Republican National Committee will likely "rebrand" itself into a convention somewhere else.

(Sorry, Jon Ralston.)

Basic Instinct

Hey, someone has to do it. So who will it be? Kevin Drum can't figure it out yet. And frankly, we're having trouble with it as well.

So who will Republicans nominate in 2016? All we can say at this point is that whoever wins that nomination will have turned up the crazy to whole new levels. And whoever wins that nomination probably will have done so by pandering to the basest of base elements.

But why? Why is this likely bound to happen? Don't Republicans want to win? Oh, yes they do... But they're counting on voter suppression "purging" to do the trick.

And perhaps that has helped them win some races here & there. However, not even that can guarantee nationwide viability going into the future. They can't simply purge every non-Republican voter off the rolls.

Ultimately, Republicans need to offer voters more than just hollow "rebranding" in order to expand their ranks. But instead of that, they're just offering failure to govern, warmed over "Culture War" hysteria, and unnecessary hardship. And they're wondering why their 2016 polls look so damned ugly?

They need to pay closer attention to the state of their own party in 2014. They need to pay closer attention to why the Nevada Republican Party has become nothing more than a glorified political fight club. They need to pay closer attention to why their empty slogans don't translate into functioning policies.

We know basic is hardly ever something to aspire to, but we also know that far too many Republican Party "leaders" fail to recognize the basic reality that their party will ultimately be screwed if it fails to adapt to the reality of 21st century America. It's so basic, yet it's so out of their grasp. And if it remains out of their grasp in 2014, they'll eventually regret it come 2016.

Double Down?

Last week, it was thrust back into the spotlight. A state and a hospital were refusing to grant a woman her last wish. A former Governor declared that women must do better at "controlling their libidos". And a number of G-O-TEA pundits (including a couple former Members of Congress) have resorted to blaming women for everything from extramarital affairs to "bad parenting" (for daring to work outside the home).



Oh, yes. That's right. The G-O-TEA War on Women rages on, and it shows no signs of letting up any time soon.

Not only have they been sinking to new lows to attack progressives who dare to challenge their assertion that "family values" require devaluing women, but they're even resorting to attacking their own. Why? Even when they claim the War on Women is over, they keep fighting. Why is that? Why are they so determined to insult American women again and again and again and again?



Is this what we're to expect from the Republican Party going forward? Is this the inevitable conclusion of their "rebranding campaign"?

But on the self-pitying right, you can never lose by blaming the media for coddling awful Democrats. [Senator Rand] Paul’s [R-Kentucky] brilliant declaration about women winning the war on women was likewise fact-challenged and paranoid. “I don’t see so much that women are downtrodden. I see women rising up and doing great things,” he told David Gregory. “In fact, I worry about our young men sometimes because I think the women are out-competing the men in our world.”

Never mind that women still make less than men and are more likely to live in poverty. Even more cruelly, the man who opposes legal abortion and the contraception-coverage mandate also suggested last Thursday that women who have “too many” children should lose welfare support. “Maybe we have to say, ‘Enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount,’” Paul said Thursday. He backed off a bit on CNN Sunday morning, telling Candy Crowley: “I mused about how you’d have a government policy, but I actually came down saying it would be very difficult to have a government policy,” Paul said.

Only last week reasonably smart people declared that Paul was the beneficiary of Chris Christie’s implosion. The Atlantic’s Peter Beinart called him the new “front-runner,” and Andrew Sullivan endorsed Beinart’s piece, tweeting, “Those who dismiss Rand Paul’s chances are missing something, I think — a revival of true small-gov’t conservatism.”

Believe it or not, Rand Paul now stands a real chance at becoming Republicans' 2016 Presidential Nominee. It remains to be seen whether his recent War on Women remarks will make more Republicans uncomfortable with his likely candidcacy... Or if this will only strengthen his appeal with the 21st Century Know Nothings who comprise the base of today's Republican Party.

And it remains to be seen how much longer these G-O-TEA politicians will continue their War on Women. Will they ever realize the folly of antagonizing over 50% of the nation? Or will they try doubling down (yet again) all the way to Las Vegas in 2016?

Not Just Who, But Why

Oh, joy. Senator Harry Reid (D-Searchlight) is catching plenty of attention over what he told PBS' Judy Woodruff yesterday about Hillary Clinton running for President in 2016. Of course, the media are focusing on this.

However, there's far more in Senator Reid's interview. Funny enough, he addressed what we've been discussing all week here. Go ahead and look below.



Although Senator Reid mentioned last week's filibuster breakthrough, he also acknowledged the record low approval of Congress. And he pointed out why Congress is now so unpopular. When so much time is wasted on abortion bans, health care deform, austerity fetishes, and ideological insani-TEA, this is what follows.

Right now, most Americans are looking for solutions. They're looking for job creation. And they're looking for a better future for our next generation. What is Congress doing to further this? Can Congress accomplish anything when all the G-O-TEA wants is more obstruction?

There's a reason why Congress is so unpopular now. And there's a reason why Hillary Clinton is doing well in the (extremely) early 2016 polls. Senator Reid clearly notices these. Are Republican Congresscritters?

Wherein The Washington Post Jumps the Shark

Seriously, have you seen this? How is this funny?



OK, so my favorite HOTlanta housewives are always funny! However, Dana Milbank & Chris Cilizza are not. I don't even want to embed the YouTube video here, as it's a racist, sexist, and all around disgusting. Come on, it makes VH1 & Bravo look classy! But if you must click, downrate while you're watching it to let The Washington Post know that misogyny is never "cool".