RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
What if the Senate Isn't Decided on Election Day? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29703"><span class="small">National Public Radio</span></a>   
Monday, 03 November 2014 14:42

Excerpt: "If you've enjoyed the battle for control of the Senate over the past many months, here's some good news: the drama could well spill over into next month - or even next year."

Republican David Perdue and Democrat Michelle Nunn in Georgia. (photo: David Tulis/AP)
Republican David Perdue and Democrat Michelle Nunn in Georgia. (photo: David Tulis/AP)


ALSO SEE: Runoff Votes in 2 States May Decide Senate Control

What if the Senate Isn't Decided on Election Day?

By National Public Radio

03 November 14

 

f you've enjoyed the battle for control of the Senate over the past many months, here's some good news: the drama could well spill over into next month – or even next year.

While Republicans are increasingly optimistic — and Democrats, pessimistic — about their prospects Tuesday, there are plausible scenarios that could have America waiting well beyond Nov. 4 to know which party will have a Senate majority.

Alaska is a key state for Republican hopes for a takeover and is also potentially a close race, meaning the result of its election "night" might not be clear until all the ballots in the far-flung state are tallied. "Alaska could take a week or more to get their votes in," said Justin Barasky, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Even with Alaska settled, there's still the matter of Louisiana and Georgia. Both states require a runoff election if no candidate wins a majority on Election Day, and polling suggests runoffs are more likely in those states than not.

Louisiana's runoff would be Dec. 6, but Georgia's runoff isn't until Jan. 6. That would be three days after the start of the new Congress on Jan. 3.

Apart from the prospect of both parties focusing massive television ad campaigns and voter turnout drives on just two states, the timing raises this unusual prospect: Kentucky GOP Senator Mitch McConnell rising to Senate majority leader – for exactly one day, before losing it back to Democratic Leader Harry Reid.

It's a longshot, but it's not completely far-fetched. For it to happen, Republicans would have to have a disappointing election night, yet wind up on New Year's Day with a 50-49 advantage with the Georgia runoff outstanding. [McConnell also has to win re-election, of course.]

The Constitution says each new Congress is to begin on Jan. 3, but with it falling on a Saturday next year, leaders will more than likely agree to push it to Jan. 5 or 6. The senators would convene, get sworn in to their terms but what happens next wouldn't be known until polls closed in Georgia on the evening of Jan. 6.

At that point, if Republican David Perdue has won, McConnell would have 51 senators and become majority leader. But if Democrat Michelle Nunn were to win, the 50-50 tie would give the deciding vote to Democratic Vice President Joe Biden – and the majority leader title back to Reid.

Republicans are confident that their candidates will prevail in both runoffs, should it come to that, because their supporters are more used to turning out, even in typically low-turnout contests like runoffs.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Republicans Bank on Fear in This Election Print
Monday, 03 November 2014 12:39

Maddow writes: "I know it wasn't planned this way, but there is a certain genius in how we snug Election Day up against Halloween on the calendar. We scare each other for fun and profit on the last day of October every year, but then in even-numbered years, we keep going."

Rachel Maddow. (photo: Virginia Sherwood/MSNBC)
Rachel Maddow. (photo: Virginia Sherwood/MSNBC)


Republicans Bank on Fear in This Election

By Rachel Maddow, The Washington Post

03 November 14

 

know it wasn’t planned this way, but there is a certain genius in how we snug Election Day up against Halloween on the calendar. We scare each other for fun and profit on the last day of October every year, but then in even-numbered years, we keep going. We scare each other on the first Tuesday thereafter, too, rolling right from our night of haunted houses and zombie costumes into a national election that’s being directed like the shower scene from “Psycho.”

This year, the closing argument from the Republican side is a whole bunch of ghastly fantasies: Ebola, the Islamic State, vague but nefarious aspersions about stolen elections and a whole bunch of terrifying fantasies about our border with Mexico. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) still hasn’t explained why only he knows about the “at least 10 ISIS fighters who have been caught coming across the Mexican border in Texas.” Ten fighters from the Islamic State are in custody in Texas, but only Hunter knows about it?

Once and would-be future senator Scott Brown says it’s polio that’s sneaking across the border. Polio, or maybe whooping cough. Or Ebola. Or the Islamic State! Whichever. Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), another Senate candidate, says Mexican drug cartels and the Islamic State are colluding to mount a sneak attack on Arkansas. Boo!

In the Colorado governor’s race, Republican Bob Beauprez says his opponent, Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper “is threatening to set a mass murderer free”! Life in prison without the possibility of parole is a weird definition of “free” but, hey, it’s election time.

And in the conservative media, there is even more to worry about. Conservative blogs lost their minds recently over a surveillance video showing a Latino man delivering completed ballots to an elections office in Maricopa County, Ariz. Ballot stuffing! Blatant fraud! Caught red-handed!

Actually, delivering other people’s ballots to elections offices is perfectly legal in Arizona. Even Republicans have asked Arizonans to bring their early ballots to campaign events this year, so they could be collected and dropped off at polling places. But when the person doing the same thing was Latino, the blogs made it seem like the guy was hiding under the bed, ready to grab your foot if you got up in the night.

On the other side, Democrats want to keep control of the Senate, so their best fear pitch is that if Republicans take over, things in Washington will suddenly get worse. That’s a little hard to take as we coast into the closing days of what is literally the least productive Congress in the modern history of Congress. It’s hard to imagine how much worse things could get.

The oldest Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has already explained that part of the reason she’s not retiring is because no one she would see as an acceptable replacement could possibly be confirmed in the current Senate, even with Democrats in charge. Yes, the Senate might become an even worse place for the president and for Democratic priorities if the GOP takes over, but Congress is already such a pointless and inhospitable environment for even normal, day-to-day legislative responsibilities, it’s hard to make the case that the Democrats’ current Senate majority is somehow the “good old days” that will be missed if the Republicans win.

For all the end-of-the-world clamor around this year’s elections, you’d never guess that the economy is growing at 3.5 percent, unemployment is below 6 percent and gas prices are way, way down. Even Halloween candy was cheap this year. But good news, schmood news. This year, we’ve decided to be miserable and afraid.

Once all the votes are cast and counted, it will be interesting to see if telling voters to be afraid sent more of them to the polls or kept them home, hiding under the covers. My guess is the latter: Fear, like guilt, is an emotion that creates more upset than action. The feeling of being afraid doesn’t usually lead to rational efforts to address the things you’re afraid of. At least, that’s what Washington has banked on this year.

For all the fearmongering ads, for example, Congress has done nothing to improve the nation’s response to Ebola, other than a House oversight committee hearing where Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) went on and on for the TV cameras about something he called “Eboli” that he said was from Guyana.

For all the politicking on the threat posed by the Islamic State, Congress decided to neither debate nor vote on the U.S. military fight against the group in Iraq or Syria. As the president announced expanded military deployments in the region, Congress canceled its remaining workdays in October and November, until after the election. Congress thinks it’s more advantageous to run ads about how scary the Islamic State is than to face the real threat of actually taking a vote on what to do about that threat.

Halloween is over, but the most deeply craven, vacuous political season in years has followed down its ghostly trail.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
An Election Day Carol Print
Monday, 03 November 2014 07:44

Reich writes: "In the early hours of Election Day, before dawn reaches the nation's capital, Justice Anthony Kennedy is suddenly awakened by someone standing next to his bed."

Robert Reich. (photo: Getty Images)
Robert Reich. (photo: Getty Images)


An Election Day Carol

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

03 November 14

 

n the early hours of Election Day, before dawn reaches the nation’s capital, Justice Anthony Kennedy is suddenly awakened by someone standing next to his bed.

“Get out of here or I’ll call the cops!” the Justice shouts.

“Don’t get bent out of shape,” says the ghost-like figure.

“Who are you?” demands the Justice.

“I am the ghost of Election Day Past.”

“Heavens!” cries the Justice. “Why are you here?”

The ghost does not answer but beckons the Justice to follow him.

He leads the Justice to Sacramento, California, the city where he grew up. The day is Election Day, 1957, the first time the youthful Anthony has ever voted.

“I look so happy,” the Justice says, his eyes welling up with tears. “Everyone does.”

“It was a time when people were eager to vote, a time when Election Day was a joyful occasion,” says the ghost. “A time before all the corruption.”

“What corruption?” asks the Justice, worriedly.

The ghost glowers at the Justice. “The corruption brought on by your decision in ‘Citizen’s United versus Federal Election Commission,' the ghost snaps. “You wrote the opinion that four of your fellow justices joined. It opened the floodgates to big money in elections.”

“I don’t understand…” the Justice cries.

“You decided that corporations are people under the First Amendment, and that independent campaign expenditures, even when made by giant corporations, don’t give rise to corruption or even the appearance of corruption,” the ghost says. “How could you have been so naïve?”

The ghost suddenly vanishes, and the Justice is back in his bed, trembling. He tries to calm himself. “Just a bad dream,” he says.

Moments later another ghost arrives.

“Who are you?” the Justice pleads.

“I am Election Day Present,” says the apparition, and you must come with me.

The ghost leads the Justice to a television set where he is forced to watch five straight hours of negative political advertising.

“Please stop! I can’t bear it!” cries the Justice. “Who is responsible for this?”

“No one knows. They don’t have to identify themselves,” says the ghost. “You wrote in ‘Citizens United’ that Congress would pass a law requiring disclosure of the sources of all campaign funds. But of course it didn’t.”

“But I … I … thought …” the Justice stammers.

The ghost towers over the Justice. “You should have known!” he shouts, and then vanishes as suddenly as the first ghost, leaving the Justice back in his bed.

“Oh help,” Justice Kennedy groans. “I’m having a very bad night.”

Moments later, two apparitions appear. They are very old and very ugly.

“Who are you?” the Justice cries, pulling his blanket over his head.

“We are Election Day Future,” say the two in unison. “Come with us.”

“Must I?” whispers the Justice.

The ghosts nod their heads, and lead the Justice into a palatial room in which a dozen people are loudly partying.

“Who are these people?” asks the Justice.

“The billionaires who now own America. They make all the decisions.”

“What … happened?” the Justice asks meekly.

“‘Citizen’s United,’ allowed a few giant corporations, Wall Street banks, and very wealthy people to buy American democracy. And once they bought it, there was no longer any need for Election Day. That’s why they party every year on this day.”

“Oh, no,” says the Justice, and he begins to weep.

“By the way,” say the ghosts in unison, “let us introduce ourselves. Charles and David Koch.” They shake the Justice’s hand, and then vanish.

Justice Kennedy is back in his bed, just as the morning light is beginning to peep through the curtains.

It’s Election Day, 2014. The Justice is overwhelmed with joy. He puts on his best suit, and goes to vote.

“Hello!” he happily shouts to everyone he sees at the polling place. “Isn’t Election Day wonderful?”

Then Justice Kennedy hurries to his office in the Supreme Court building where he meets with his law clerks.

“I’ve made a very important decision,” he says. “I’m going to join with the four dissenters to ‘Citizens United’, and we’re going to reverse that horrific case. ”

His clerks have never seen the Justice so overjoyed.

“I want each of you to take the rest of the day off, and be sure to vote!” he beams. Then he heads for the door and clicks his heels, before leaving for home. “Happy Election Day!” he shouts.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Does the CIA Want Republicans to Win the Midterms? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29990"><span class="small">Trevor Timm, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Monday, 03 November 2014 07:36

Timm writes: "In a surprise to absolutely no one, the CIA has, for the fourth time, asked a federal court for more time to make a decision about releasing the torture report."

Senator Richard Burr would likely be chairing the committee with oversight of the CIA. (photo: John Shinkle/Politico)
Senator Richard Burr would likely be chairing the committee with oversight of the CIA. (photo: John Shinkle/Politico)


Does the CIA Want Republicans to Win the Midterms?

By Trevor Timm, Guardian UK

01 November 14

 

If it’s hard to imagine an intelligence committee chair less inclined to provide the spy agency with any oversight, just Google ‘Richard Burr’

ill we ever see the Senate’s 6,000 page report on CIA torture without someone leaking it? A leak always been the most likely resolution for the transparency-seeking public, but, in this case, it’s increasingly looking like the only one.

In a surprise to absolutely no one, the CIA has, for the fourth time, asked a federal court for more time to make a decision about releasing the torture report. The ACLU and journalist Jason Leopold have separately sued for the report’s release, while the White House and Senate Intelligence Committee continue to haggle over what to redact and what to release since the committee voted it be declassified all the way back in April. While the Obama administration continues to say it wants the report released, their actions continue to show the opposite.

The dueling battles for the report’s release has been going on for over six months, even as the clock continues to tick on what remains of the statute of limitations for anyone at the CIA to be held legally accountable for systematically torturing dozens of suspects, let along habitually lying about it it to the public and other branches of government.

With an almost hilarious amount of chutzpah, the CIA is actually blaming the Senate Intelligence Committee for the delay in the report’s release because its members have the audacity to insist that the redactions be reduced so that people can actually comprehend the end result. The biggest fight seems to be over the CIA’s efforts to black out the pseudonyms of CIA agents used in the report. While the report is already void of anyone’s real name – and the pseudonyms were exclusively used in the report at the request of the CIA, as The Intercept’s Dan Froomkin reported earlier this week – the CIA is still arguing that the pseudonyms themselves are a national security risk

The CIA argues the redactions are necessary to protect the agents from physical harm. In reality, the only harm that could ever come the way of these pseudonymous CIA agents would be in the form of more lawsuits from victims, given that the Justice Department gave up trying to prosecute any of them, and the White House gave up on even a modicum of accountability a while ago.

As Sen. Ron Wyden said on Friday, demanding that every single pseudonym in the report be blacked out “would be unprecedented and unacceptable.”

Realistically, the CIA is probably just stalling to avoid any decision before the elections, because – as Foreign Policy’s John Hudson reported Thursday – if the Republicans win back the Senate, the CIA knows it will win big too. It might seem hard to imagine someone who’s usually more deferential to the intelligence community than Sen. Feinstein (other than on this one issue) but the next head of the intelligence committee – which again, is supposed to question the agency – is North Carolina Republican Richard Burr. No one could possibly be more of a cheerleader for the CIA and its torture regime supposedly halted six years ago than Burr, and he’s vowed to never hold public hearings to question intelligence officials.

Some people, including a former Senate staffer, think that this is actually what the Obama administration is hoping for. Since most of the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee dissented from even releasing the report, a Republican Senate majority could make sure that the report gets buried indefinitely.

One of the Democratic Senators who is in jeopardy of losing his seat on Tuesday is Colorado’s Mark Udall, who – along with Oregon’s Ron Wyden – has been one of the only voices of accountability on this committee of rubber-stamp wielders. Udall’s the senator who grilled CIA director John Brennan earlier this year at his confirmation when he promised that he would try to help get the torture report released, but, behind the scenes, would end up doing everything he possibly could to stall the release and blunt its impact.

Udall has also been one of the NSA’s number one critics: he’s even run campaign commercials explaining that it’s important to stand up for the constitution. His opponent in Colorado says that he is pro-NSA reform too – but a freshman Republican wouldn’t get Udall’s seat on the intelligence committee, and Udall’s voice there is one transparency and privacy advocates can’t afford to lose. (It’s also a wonder that the giant tech companies, who claim to be strongly pushing for NSA reform, haven’t supported his campaign more, considering he is one of the lone voices on the NSA’s only Senate oversight committee who has made real progress on privacy issues).

 

If the GOP spikes the torture report for good after the elections – or even if the CIA continues its never-ending game of stall-ball – the public may only ever learn the truth about our torture programs via the most effective and most dangerous mechanism for information dissemination: a leak. A leak as how we learned about torture to begin with – along with the NSA’s massive powers, the unaccountable No Fly List, drone strikes on Americans and pretty much every other awful thing the CIA has ever done.

It would require a brave and courageous soul to leak the torture report – one willing to incur the wrath of an administration that has prosecuted more sources and whistleblowers than any other administration in history. But it may be the only way that we can begin to account for this dark chapter in American history.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Forty-Two Plutocrats Have Funded More Than a Third of All Super PAC Spending Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=28677"><span class="small">Joshua Holland, Moyers & Company</span></a>   
Monday, 03 November 2014 07:36

Holland writes: "Do you know where your polling place is, and what documents you'll need to cast a ballot? If you have any questions, the nonpartisan League of Women Voters has answers at vote411.org. And if you encounter any problems at the polls, call the Election Protection hotline at 1-866-OUR-VOTE."

 (photo: Getty Images)
(photo: Getty Images)


Forty-Two Plutocrats Have Funded More Than a Third of All Super PAC Spending

By Joshua Holland, Moyers & Company

03 November 14

 

ith just four days to go until the 2014 midterms, here’s our final weekly roundup of news about this year’s money race.

Do you know where your polling place is, and what documents you’ll need to cast a ballot? If you have any questions, the nonpartisan League of Women Voters has answers at vote411.org. And if you encounter any problems at the polls, call the Election Protection hotline at 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) or visit their website.

Big Money: According to the Wesleyan Media Project, ad spending on congressional races has passed the $1 billion mark. Around 40 percent of it is dark money, with undisclosed donors. If you include spending on ads for ballot initiatives, judges and races for state offices, almost three million spots have aired during this election cycle at a cost of $1.67 billion.

The Times, They Are a Changin’: At Vox, Mark Schmitt, director of New America Foundation’s program on political reform, looks at three ways the 2014 midterms could permanently “transform money in politics.”

Republicans Still Dominate the Dark Money Game: Democratic-leaning donors like Tom Steyer have invested heavily in the 2014 race, but the Sunlight Foundation’s Peter Olsen-Phillips reports that when it comes to dark money, Republican-aligned groups have outspent their Democratic counterparts by around three-and-a-half to one.

Meet the Mega-Donors: Forty-two people have donated more than a third of what all Super PACs have spent this cycle. USA Today looks at who they are and where they’ve spent their money.

And at National Journal, Emma Roller and Stephanie Stamm introduce us to some of the Silicon Valley tech donors who are “dominating the midterms.”

Ghost Money: At The Center for Public Integrity, Michael Beckel reports that one out of every seven ads in this year’s hotly contested Kentucky US Senate race has been paid for by a group called The Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, which seems to exist onlt as a Post Office box located in a shopping center.

Speaking of Kentucky: Lee Fang reports for The Nation that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is bending every campaign finance rule on the books to defeat his Democratic challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes.

FaceTime: At The Washington Post, Matea Gold reports that big donors are sending hefty checks to the Republican Governors’ Association in order to get “special access” to GOP governors in the hope that one of them will emerge as the party’s 2016 presidential nominee.

Texas Takes on Dark Money: This week, the Texas Ethics Commission adopted strong disclosure rules that would effectively stamp out dark money in state races. But David Saleh Rauf reports for the San Antonio Express-News that conservative lawmakers are furious, and there may be a hard fight ahead.

Justice for Sale: Mother Jones reporter Andy Kroll looks at the explosion of campaign spending in state and municipal judicial races — and how it is turning judges into politicians.

And here at BillMoyers.com, I compared our process with how the French select their jurists, and ran down some research confirming that campaign cash has an effect on how judges will rule.

Speaking of Judges: Robert Faturechi reports for ProPublica that a previously unheard of group popped up in Kansas just three weeks before the election with the goal of getting rid of two state Supreme Court justices. The group is engaged in electoral politics but doesn’t have to disclose donors because in Kansas’ transparency laws judges aren’t included as “state officers”.

Where’s the SEC?: A New York Times editorial notes that the Securities and Exchange Commission could require companies to tell shareholders about their political spending but so far, the agency has remained stubbornly on the sidelines.

Working the Refs: An investigation by Eric Lipton for The New York Times revealed that state “attorneys general are now the object of aggressive pursuit by lobbyists and lawyers who use campaign contributions, personal appeals at lavish corporate-sponsored conferences and other means to push them to drop investigations, change policies, negotiate favorable settlements or pressure federal regulators.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2661 2662 2663 2664 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 Next > End >>

Page 2669 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN