Liberal Forum

RedState's Erick Erickson Calls Out His Own. W5 + H = A Baseline for Integrity [...] I think conservative media is failing to advance ideas and stories. Certainly part of that is because the general media has an ideological bias against conservatives, which makes it harder for the media to take our views seriously. But many conservatives are, instead of working doubly hard to overcome that bias, just yelling louder about the same things. The echo in the chamber has gotten so loud it is not well understood outside the echo chamber in the mainstream press and in the public. It translates only as anger and noise, neither of which are conducive to the art of persuasion. Conservatives are trying so hard to highlight controversies, no matter how trivial, we have forgotten the basics of reporting: W5 + H as I learned in grade school, also known as who, what, where, when, why, and how. I think conservatives need to reset some of their reportorial resources to tell the stories that need to be told by focusing on the facts at hand in a world view of the right. We need to establish a baseline for integrity in reporting that then allows us to highlight the truly outrageous. That baseline must be the basics of who, what, where, when, why, and how and it must be set before taking the next step into analysis of motivation and its implications. The Obamaphone is a great example of this. Conservatives laughed out loud at the video of the lady saying Barack Obama had given her a phone. Conservatives used it as an example of all that was wrong with the expansion of the welfare state under Barack Obama. What many conservatives missed was that the program was a pre-existing program. In fact, the Obamaphone idea goes back to the Reagan Administration, but the present program was implemented in 2008 when George W. Bush was President. Government funds are not even used directly. Focus on the Obamaphone by conservatives missed a number of key points and, in not covering the basic facts, sent conservative activists down rabbit holes. It would have been helpful if conservative reporters spent more time laying out the basic who, what, where, when, why, and how of the issue before exploring the necessity of the program and the fact that there are Americans who credit Barack Obama with giving them that phone. [...] There are scandals to uncover and there are outrageous stories to be outraged over, but I would submit conservatives are spending a lot more time trying to find things to be outraged over than reporting the news and basic facts online from a conservative perspective. In my ideal world, RedState would have a couple of reporters to focus on the basics and the depth. I would like to see a reporter or two focusing on the W5+H of Capitol Hill and the White House with another who can go beyond the basics and provide the analysis of how those facts will impact conservatives, where conservatives stand, and how the ultimate policies and politics in play will affect the country. I just do not see the need to get outraged over things without first having all the facts at hand. Further, I do not see the need to get outraged over everything, when better targeting of stories that truly resonate would serve conservatives well. We do our cause more harm than good if we get outrageously outraged over every slight and grievance. Yes there is an institutional media bias against the right, but we must also honestly acknowledge that conservatives have also screamed Wolf a these past few years more often than there was one. I agree with Erick Erickson that conservatives are spending a lot more time trying to find things to be outraged over than reporting the news and basic facts.

Arkansas Governor Rebukes ‘Unconstitutional’ Abortion BanArkansas Gov. Mike Beebe (D) vetoed on Tuesday a bill that would ban all abortions after 20-weeks of pregnancy, calling it “unconstitutional” and potentially very costly for the state.H.B. 1037, The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (PDF), would have banned abortions even before a fetus becomes potentially viable outside the womb, which Beebe noted runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade setting viability between 24-28 weeks.Though the bill was originally passed by the state House of Representatives without exceptions, the final bill contained exceptions for the life and health of the woman, as well as an exception for a pregnancy resulting from rape and incest. However, a study by Ibis Reproductive Health found that exceptions for federal funding allowed under the Hyde Amendment often go unfunded.“because it would impose a ban on a woman’s right to choose an elective, nontherapeutic abortion before viability, House Bill 1037, if it became law, would squarely contradict Supreme Court precedent,” he wrote in a veto letter. “When I was sworn in as Governor I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend both the Arkansas Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. I take that oath seriously.”He added that adopting unconstitutional laws can be “very costly to the taxpayers,” even if anti-abortion attorneys argue on the state’s behalf for free. “Lawsuits challenging unconstitutional laws also result in the losing party – in this case, the State – having to pay the costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the litigants who successfully challenge the law,” Beebe explained. “Those costs and fees can be significant.”Despite the veto, Republicans in the Arkansas legislature have the votes to override the governor’s objection, requiring only a simple majority. The Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee also considered on Wednesday the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act (PDF), which seeks to ban abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, or as soon as a fetus’s heartbeat can be detected.Pass laws that you know are unconstitutional and will only end up costing your state money to fight the inevitable lawsuits.That's the GOP way.I guess Arkansas has no other problems that need attending to, so the legislature has all the time and money it needs to pass laws that they know will be overturned.

Scalia: Voting Rights Act Is A ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’ Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out that an overwhelming number of lawmakers in both parties had voted to reauthorize the law in 1970, 1975, 1982 and 2006. Scalia argued that the nearly-unanimous reauthorizations proved that lawmakers were scared to be seen voting against discrimination, calling it “a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Yeah....how dare those people of color..........thinking that they are entitled to vote. What nonsense. The lawmakers voted to reauthorize the law four times, not because that was the will of the people they represent, but only because they were scared.

Connecticut Woman Shoots Grandkids, Then HerselfA WOMAN who picked up her two young grandsons from daycare drove them to a neighbouring town and shot and killed the children and herself.The bodies of 47-year-old Debra Denison and her grandsons, 2-year-old Alton Perry and 6-month-old Ashton Perry, were found on Tuesday night in a car parked near Lake of Isles in Preston, Connecticut.State police called the deaths a double murder-suicide, saying they believe Denison shot the boys and herself. Autopsies were planned.Family members said Denison had bipolar disorder and a history of mental health problems.Tuesday was Alton's second birthday. Denison picked up the children from their daycare in North Stonington on Tuesday afternoon and was supposed to bring them home so Alton could open his presents, family members said."I wanted him to come home and play with his new toys and have a good day," Alton's mother, Brenda Perry, told WVIT-TV.This is a very sad story.Having three beautiful grandkids myself, I can't even imagine something like this.Apparently the family knew that this woman was very ill and owned a gun, so why was she allowed to pick up the kids by herself?Note to Chuck,Please spare me the lecture about how this woman is entitled to the FREEDOM to own a gun.

Speaker Boehner to Senate: Get Off Your AssJohn Boehner's vocabulary isnt exactly family-friendly these days.As the deadline to avoid the sequester approaches, the House Speaker is trying to pin the blame all over President Obama and the Democrats, arguing that his chamber has already passed two bills to avoid the across-the-board spending cuts.We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their *** and begins to do something, the Ohio Republican said on Tuesday.Looks like Boehner is losing his ****.Note to the Speaker.....the two bills you refer to were passed in the 112th Congress.They expired at the start of the new Congress this year.You haven't passed anything to avoid the across-the-board spending cuts during this session.And as Nancy Pelosi reminded you, the Constitution says that appropriations and revenue bills must begin in the House, not the Senate.

Roe V Wade 1973. Holds just as much weight as the Heller decision. I'm sure you don't think there should be any regulations at all when it comes to bearing arms, but lots of regulation on what a woman can do with her own body. Am I right? I asked you first. Funny how you can't answer. The fact is you get on here regularly and advocate against the Second Amendment, while I don't do the same regarding your precious sacrament of abortion. To claim that i do, and to use that as your justification, demonstrates the dishonesty of your position

This is a very sad story. Having three beautiful grandkids myself, I can't even imagine something like this. Apparently the family knew that this woman was very ill and owned a gun, so why was she allowed to pick up the kids by herself? Note to Chuck, Please spare me the lecture about how this woman is entitled to the FREEDOM to own a gun. in a case like this, i'd say everyone concerned was lucky she had a gun. this kind of female is crazy to the point where the means don't really matter. if she didn't shoot them, she probably would have strangled, drowned, or stabbed them to death. and no one would have stopped her regardless.

The fact is you get on here regularly and advocate against the Second Amendment, while I don't do the same regarding your precious sacrament of abortion.To claim that i do, and to use that as your justification, demonstrates the dishonesty of your positionTalk about dishonesty.Show me one quote where I ever advocated against the Second Amendment's individual right to bear arms.I absolutely believe in the Second Amendment, but much like Justice Scalia, I do not believe that the Second Amendment is unlimited.And that is what SCOTUS ruled in the Heller case, that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."Unlike you, I accept SCOTUS rulings as the law of the land.And SCOTUS said the Second Amendment is not unlimited.You have a problem with that? Talk to Scalia.The right to an abortion is also not unlimited, according to SCOTUS.There are restrictions placed on it in the later months of pregnancy, and I have no problem with that.And I do not consider abortion to be a 'precious sacrament', and frankly find your use of those words rather insulting.BTW, The First Amendment.....also NOT unlimited.

Wall Street Bonuses Rise To $20 BillionThe fleecing class had quite a year. Despite providing little to no valuable goods or services Wall Street has once again siphoned off a huge share of America’s wealth for itself. While Americans foolishly dreamed of a time gone by where opportunity existed for the non-rich as well as the rich, Wall Street broke into their bedrooms and stole their wallets.New York’s state comptroller says Wall Street cash bonuses for 2012 are expected to rise 8 percent to $20 billion, partly driven by deferred payments from prior years. The industry reports profits for broker/dealer operations of some 200 New York Stock Exchange members, the traditional measure of profitability for the securities industry, totaled nearly $24 billion last year, triple their 2011 earnings. The average salary, including bonuses, rose slightly to almost $362,900 in 2011.Funds that could have been used to promote business activity, growth, and jobs will instead be channeled into drugs, prostitution, and the other tropes of the Wall Street lifestyle. The plutonomy will roll on. But as for the remaining overwhelming majority of Americans, the decline continues. According to a new paper by economist Emmanuel Saez the 1% have snatched almost all the gains while the bottom 99% have actually lost even more of their wealth.The top 1% has captured all of the income gains since 2009 and then some, roaring ahead while the rest of the population slipped behind. A new paper by Emmanuel Saez (along with his frequent co-author Thomas Piketty, a long-standing cataloguer of income inequality) estimates that the income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%.It is bad enough to have such inequality in a society. Inequality degrades society by creating distrust and stress among the population with all the resulting pathologies. But to have many of those at the top producing no real value is truly unacceptable. The top 1% deserve to capture all of the income gains since they work so much harder than the rest of us and take so many risks. With our money.

BREAKING: House Republicans Backing Down On Violence Against Women Act After nearly a year of resistance that has damaged them politically with women voters, House Republicans have found a clever way to back down on the reauthorization of an expanded Violence Against Women Act, aides confirmed to TPM late Tuesday. The original plan was for the Republican majority in the House to pass its version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization and then go to conference conference committee with the Senate. The Senate has already overwhelmingly passed a more aggressive bill, with protections for LGBT, Native American and undocumented women that have been at the heart of the dispute with House Republicans. But all that changed Tuesday night. The Rules Committee instead sent the House GOP’s version of the Violence Against Women Act to the floor with a key caveat: if that legislation fails, then the Senate-passed version will get an up-or-down vote. The big admission implicit in this latest move is that House GOP leaders don’t believe they have the votes to pass their version of the bill but that the Senate version is likely to pass the chamber. So this way they’ll give House conservatives the first bite at the apple as a way of saving face and still resolve an issue that has hurt them politically. Here’s how Democrats expect it to play out. After the House finishes debating the GOP-version of the bill on Wednesday and Thursday, it will get a vote, but will fail to muster enough votes for passage due to conservative and Democratic opposition. So the Senate-passed bill will get a vote instead, and Democrats as well as a faction of more moderate Republicans will carry it to victory. Then it will go straight to President Obama’s desk for his signature. Looks like the old Hastert rule is out the window. Boehner can't control his caucus, and needs to rely on Democrats to get anything done, even something like VAWA which has always had bi-partisan support. The majority of the majority is a governing principle used by Republican Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s. Under the majority of the majority doctrine, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives will not allow a vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.This is sometimes referred to as the Hastert Rule. Boehner also ditched the Hastert rule twice in January, on both the Fiscal Cliff and the Hurricane Sandy Relief bills. Looks like it's becoming a habit.

I asked you first. Funny how you can't answer.The fact is you get on here regularly and advocate against the Second Amendment, while I don't do the same regarding your precious sacrament of abortion.To claim that i do, and to use that as your justification, demonstrates the dishonesty of your positionSince October 4, 2007, you've talk about abortion 300 times. That is 300 times in 1973 days. That comes out to once every six and a half days (1973/300=6.576) for 5 years 4 months 23 days. More than once a week for over 5 years. Yeah, that's not regularly. LOLThe fact is, Chuck!, you're a liar and a fraud. Your problem is, the person you lie to the most is yourself.Top that off with treating the person on the site you claim is your best friend like [excrement] most of the time, makes me wonder what your mental malfunction really is all about.I have always said my philosophy expects the best of people.Just another lie you tell yourself to feel good about you being an [butt opening] to your good friend.

the same thing can be said of liberals who despised bush for the patriot act and gitmo, but now either remain silent when obama re-signs it and even escalates it. that's not a matter of race, it's a matter of media manipulation. You are quite correct. Does that make you feel better about the turds you're defending with the lousiest human shields I've ever shot through?

Since October 4, 2007, you've talk about abortion 300 times. That is 300 times in 1973 days. That comes out to once every six and a half days (1973/300=6.576) for 5 years 4 months 23 days. More than once a week for over 5 years. Yeah, that's not regularly. LOL You inspired me to read through all the posts I made since joining the forum. I had no idea that I had such a single-minded focus on bad word. Sometimes you have to look back at what you've written to know your interests (especially, of course, if you're an idiot).

What freedom are your trying to deny Chuck? Regulating either is a loss of freedom of the other. Anytime you take away someone else's rights you have just limited your own. You just made it eaiser for them to come after your guns. I have two questions, sir: 1. Just what makes you think that the people have a right to privacy in their persons, houses, papers and effects? 2. Are you having trouble understanding the clear language of the 2nd Amendment? SCOTUS said so. Deal with it. They were veritable GODS when they rendered the Citizens United Decision.

This is a very sad story. Having three beautiful grandkids myself, I can't even imagine something like this. Apparently the family knew that this woman was very ill and owned a gun, so why was she allowed to pick up the kids by herself? Note to Chuck, Please spare me the lecture about how this woman is entitled to the FREEDOM to own a gun. How would making me defenseless make those kids safer?All she did was a really late term abortion,,,, Since October 4, 2007, you've talk about abortion 300 times. That is 300 times in 1973 days. That comes out to once every six and a half days (1973/300=6.576) for 5 years 4 months 23 days. More than once a week for over 5 years. Yeah, that's not regularly. LOL The fact is, Chuck!, you're a liar and a fraud. Your problem is, the person you lie to the most is yourself. Top that off with treating the person on the site you claim is your best friend like [excrement] most of the time, makes me wonder what your mental malfunction really is all about. Just another lie you tell yourself to feel good about you being an [butt opening] to your good friend. LOL!!How many of them were like this one, where someone else mentioned it as a means to justify their own desires?

I asked you first. Funny how you can't answer. I'M yer huckleberry. ... your precious sacrament of abortion. Hey, I see a fetus, I wanna kick it. How would making me defenseless make those kids safer? It wouldn't. All she did was a really late term abortion,,,, That was my read. in a case like this, i'd say everyone concerned was lucky she had a gun. this kind of female is crazy to the point where the means don't really matter. if she didn't shoot them, she probably would have strangled, drowned, or stabbed them to death. and no one would have stopped her regardless. At that age, it wouldn't really matter. They're barely sentient. Just really big fetuses. Talk about dishonesty. Show me one quote where I ever advocated against the Second Amendment's individual right to bear arms. I absolutely believe in the Second Amendment, but much like Justice Scalia, I do not believe that the Second Amendment is unlimited. And that is what SCOTUS ruled in the Heller case, that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Unlike you, I accept SCOTUS rulings as the law of the land. And SCOTUS said the Second Amendment is not unlimited. You have a problem with that? Talk to Scalia. The right to an abortion is also not unlimited, according to SCOTUS. There are restrictions placed on it in the later months of pregnancy, and I have no problem with that. And I do not consider abortion to be a 'precious sacrament', and frankly find your use of those words rather insulting. BTW, The First Amendment.....also NOT unlimited. Stop making sense, and start hurling overblown rhetoric and cartoon positions! Learn the goddamned rules or get the **** out! The top 1% deserve to capture all of the income gains since they work so much harder than the rest of us and take so many risks. With our money. To say otherwise would mean that you live a life of petty envy. God bless this mighty nation and preserve her from the pillage of commoners!

LOL!! How many of them were like this one, where someone else mentioned it as a means to justify their own desires? I agree. You've actually been pretty neutral on this issue of our precious sacrament. In fact, it seemed like you were coming down in FAVOR when you compared it to granny murdering toddlers.

I agree with Erick Erickson that conservatives are spending a lot more time trying to find things to be outraged over than reporting the news and basic facts. I'm blown away that that came from Red States. I need to read that website. Sounds kinda "reasonable"

I agree. You've actually been pretty neutral on this issue of our precious sacrament. In fact, it seemed like you were coming down in FAVOR when you compared it to granny murdering toddlers. It's not that I am opposed to killing babies, it's just that I hate empowering women and allowing them rights,,,,

In any event, I am bowing out of Misty's thread.....