Surprise! Libertarian Blogger Buys Rightwing Spin Re Mitch McConnell Vow To Not Consider Obama Scalia Replacement

The blogger Willis Hart claims to be a Libertarian-leaning Moderate, but (as is so often the case) he allows the Rightwing media to inform his views.

Willis Hart: On Mitch McConnell's Threat to Block Any Potential Obama Supreme Court Appointment... It's unfortunate but being that Chuck Schumer said essentially the same thing at the end of W's second term it's hard to be surprised by it. Welcome to D.C. in the 21st Century, folks. (2/17/2016 AT 7:50pm).

Not really, according to Media Matters... and yes, Media Matters is Leftwing. A source Willis would dismiss out-of-hand, most likely with a pejorative like labeling them part of the "Regressive media".

Media Matters: Media are making false comparisons between current Republican rhetoric and past Democratic actions and comments to undermine the president's pledge to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Unlike Democrats in the past, Republicans are indicating they will refuse to even engage in the nomination process at all, an abdication of their basic constitutional responsibilities that is unprecedented. [quoting CBS, 2/15/2016] Schumer's argument was not one of timing and the closeness of the presidential election. He just didn't think much of either of President Bush's picks. Schumer's recommendation stemmed from his feeling that the Senate had insufficient information when it confirmed his two picks, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to the court. "It appears we were not given the most accurate picture of the nominees we confirmed", Schumer said. "We were presented a misleading portrait". He accused both justices of making decisions that "flouted precedent" and, essentially, legislating from the bench. He argued that Senate had to "engage in conjecture" to understand the nominees' way of thinking and method of reasoning because their records were thin. (Media Use False Comparisons To Undermine Obama's Supreme Court Nomination).

Of course we don't know if Congressional Republicans will follow through with their threat yet, but Schumer objected to the nominees... he was NOT refusing to consider ANYONE... making the Willis' claim that "the Democrats did it too" bullshit.

In fact, the Democrats were never even given an opportunity to follow through with Schumer's "threat", because there were no further SCOTUS vacancies after Roberts and Alito were confirmed WITH DEMOCRATIC VOTES. Which, I would say, is the biggest difference between the McConnell and Schumer statements... Schumer was talking about hypothetical appointments, while McConnell is speaking of an ACTUAL appointment. A fact that makes this McConnell/Schumer statement equating such a f*cking brain-diseased narrative.

BTW, the reason behind the Schumer statement? He made it because the Democrats felt snookered by both "balls and strikes" Roberts and "elections should be for sale to the highest bidder" Alito.

Senate Democrats regret supporting Roberts, Alito (excerpt from a 7/23/10 The Hill article by J. Taylor Rushing) Twenty-two Democrats backed Roberts in 2005, while four supported Alito four months later. From the rank and file to senior members, Democrats widely said they were particularly frustrated that Roberts, during his confirmation hearings, portrayed himself as an umpire merely calling balls and strikes. Instead, they say, he has joined the far-right wing of the court and been a leading voice in recent controversial 5-4 rulings. Some of the regrets have been caused by two recent 5-4 decisions with which Democrats have disagreed. Most notably, the Roberts court voted 5-4 in June 2008 to strike down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, a decision that broadened gun rights and was a severe blow to gun-control efforts. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Anthony Kennedy signed the majority ruling.

Another ruling that had Dems regretting their support for Roberts and Alito? (this is the one that I alluded to above by pointing out that Alito believes that our elections should be available for purchase).

Feingold Slams Supreme Court over "Citizens United", Implies Roberts and Alito Lied Under Oath (excerpt from a 9/17/2010 Common Dreams article by Matthew Rothschild) Sen. Russ Feingold recently slammed the Supreme Court and strongly implied that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito lied, under oath, to the Senate during their confirmation hearings. In a speech on 9/10/2010, Feingold, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, denounced the "Citizens United" decision that the Court handed down earlier this year. Feingold called it "a lawless decision".

There was a lot of disatification with Roberts and Alito on the Democratic side, with MANY Dems saying they were mislead (Roberts and Alito Misled Us by Edward Kennedy, 7/30/2006). This is QUITE different than the reasoning the Congressional Repubs are currently putting forward regarding why they won't even consider an Obama nominee, which includes such nonsensical reasons as it being the last year of Obama's term. The Constitution doesn't say a potus can't nominate a SCOTUS judge in the last year of his presidency, Mitch! (Mitch McConnell's Arguments Against An Obama Supreme Court Nomination Debunked...)

"Chuck Schumer said essentially the same thing at the end of W's second term"??! No, sorry Willis, he did not. But that Willis says this (in agreement with the BS Rightwing spin on their unprecedented obstruction) isn't surprising. Seems the Hartster LOVES these false narratives that paint both sides as equally horrible (because The "Both Sides Do It" Mentality Favors Republicans).

This "both sides do it" narrative is one the the Repubs play up, btw, because they realize NOBODY would buy it if they said they weren't terrible. So they TRY to make it seem like the Dems are equally horrible. This narrative also "gives advocacy to mealy-mouthed, middle-of-the-road third way types. But, more noticeably, it feeds into the idea of government is the problem" (WTNPH: "I have consistently praised bipartisan efforts... the Concord Coalition, Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, No Labels, The Third Way, the Wyden-Ryan compromise on Medicare, etc").

But the Democrats simply are NOT as bad as the Repubs. I mean, as a Democrat, I acknowledge there are a lot of problems on the Democratic side, but Democrats are still way better than Republicans. Just take a look at the respective potus hopefuls on both sides, for Christ! On the Republican side the candidates are arguing over cutting taxes, who will go to war faster with ISIS and Russia, which one will torture more, who's going to restrict a woman's right to choose harder, etc. And they're all going to take healthcare AWAY from people, of course.

Image: A political cartoon representing the reality of the "choice" between the GOP and the DLC. First there was Bill Clinton, then there was Barack Obama. Now we've got a REAL choice with the 2016 potus primaries. We can choose a genuine Progressive (Bernie Sanders), or go with the establishment's choice again, another DLC corporate Dem in Progressive clothing (Hillary Clinton).

OST #111

According To Willis Hart 90 Percent Of Women Who Claim They Were Unable To Consent To Sex (& Were Therefore Raped) Actually Consented Then Just Regretted It Later

This is yet another example of misogyny from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart IMO.

Willis Hart: On President Obama Spouting that Thoroughly Discredited Claim that 1 out of Every 5 College-Aged Women Will Ultimately Be Raped... Do they simply not have a fact-checker at the White House? Yes, folks, there is a study from the CDC (and an older one by an activist named Mary Koss) which claims what the President is claiming, but it is seriously flawed (the main flaw being that they count all episodes of drunken sex in which the woman regrets it in the morning as "rape" and all episodes in which the man lies to the woman in an effort to get her in the sack as "sexual violence"). A much more accurate number (one that is considered the gold standard) is the one which comes from the Justice Department Crime Survey; 1 in 50 (still a troubling number but not the type that produces hysteria). Of course the $64,000 question is why in the hell did Obama use the bogus stat? Stupidity? More pandering? I'd kind of like to know. (11/16/2015 AT 4:16pm).

First of all, the CDC study (the one Willis refers to) has NOT been "thoroughly discredited" nor are it's stats "bogus". I looked into it and found that some Libertarian-types have concerns with how one of the questions was worded.

...the wording of the question measuring "incapacitated rape" (which accounted for nearly two-thirds of the CDC's estimate of rapes that occurred in the past year). Respondents were asked about sexual acts that happened when they were "drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent". This seems to imply that "unable to consent" is only one of the variables and to include situations in which a person is intoxicated - perhaps enough to have impaired judgment - but not incapacitated as the legal definition of rape requires. A CDC spokesperson told The New Republic that "being unable to consent is key to the CDC's definition of rape". Presumably, this is conveyed by the introduction to the question about alcohol and drug-enabled rape: "Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications". However, in a telephone survey, some people may focus only on the question itself and let the introduction slide by. Moreover, the introductory message ends with an advisory that may create more confusion: "Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault". Obviously, the intended point is that even if you got drunk, you're not to blame for being raped. But this vaguely phrased reminder could also be taken to mean that it's not your fault if you do something stupid while drunk or on drugs. At no point are respondents given any instructions that could result in fewer reports of alleged victimization: for instance, that they should not include instances in which they had voluntary sex while drunk but not incapacitated. (The CDC's Rape Numbers Are Misleading by Cathy Young, contributing editor for Reason Magazine. Time 9/17/2014).

Note the three words in RED. "May" (twice) and "could". Is this how the study was "thoroughly discredited"? By guessing how someone may or could interpret a question based on the wording? Obviously this is an absurd conclusion to reach. I say the wording might produce some false positives, but 90 freaking percent?

That's what the false positive rate would have to be if you say 1 in 5 is wrong and 1 in 50 is right. 1 in 5 would be the same as 20 out of 100, while 1 in 50 would be the same as 2 out of 100. Which would mean Willis is saying 18 out of 20 women are saying they were raped when they actually were drunk when they consented to sex (but later regretted it).

Which is a figure I'm not buying. The way the question is worded might produce some false positives, but no freaking way would it result in a 90 percent false positive rate. Yet this is EXACTLY what the Harster concludes.

That Justice Department Crime Survey, by the way refers to "forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force". But it doesn't say anything about no force being needed because the victim is drunk (or under the influence of drugs). Taking advantage of someone while they're too incapacitated to say NO is still rape in my book. Which explains why the CDC got higher numbers (I'm guessing).

The stats were obviously good enough for the president, and YES I think he has fact checkers, and NO I do not think he quoted the CDC stat due to either "stupidity" or "pandering". I'd say he used it because he felt the CDC stats were (questioning of question wording not withstanding) more accurate than the Justice Department Crime Survey figures... and I'm inclined to agree.

I'm certainly NOT inclined to believe that 90 percent of women who responded to the CDC survey misunderstood the question and answered that that they were unable to consent when they actually did consent (did "something stupid while drunk or on drugs"). Actually, there is no f*cking way I believe that. I am, however, inclined to believe the Harster buys that this is the case due to his (previously demonstrated) misogyny.

OST #81

Shooting Prognosticators In A Barrel

This post concerns a prognostication from the Conservative blogger Rusty Shackelford that turned out to not be that accurate. As well as another from the Libertarian Willis Hart that came closer, but still missed the mark.

Rusty Shackelford: Shit... even Rusty could write the Republican AD's for 2012, fish in a barrel. In 2008 Obie was just the former community organizer and junior Senator without a past. In 2012 he will be forced to run on his record and all the flowery hope and change B.S. wont mean a thing. (7/6/2011 AT 9:28pm). Willis Hart: In a normal environment, I would probably agree with you, Russ. But with the Republicans currently in such disarray (and even unpopular in certain states like Florida or Ohio) and the huge dissatisfaction with the Republican field, I would have to give Mr. "Obie" (why do you have to call him that, Russ - he is the President, after all?) at least a 50-50 chance next year... Me - I'd still like to see Bloomberg get in. (7/6/2011 AT 9:28pm).

Obviously we know that Barack Obama retained the presidency when the votes were tallied. Much to the chagrin of Karl Rove, who, I'm convinced, was positive that GOP operatives had fixed the results for Romney. (see second video below).

Whether Anonymous prevented the election from being fixed or not, Rusty was obviously dead wrong with his prediction. Willis Hart's prediction of 50-50 was essentially meaningless, as around 50-50 is how presidential elections have been going for awhile now. As for Obama winning due to "the Republicans currently in such disarray", I say... maybe.

They certainly did their damndest to obstruct the Obama agenda and to purposefully hold back a recovery (as per their Caucus Room Conspiracy). And it met with a lot of success, in that the recovery was weak and the American people were fooled (blaming the Obama Administration for Republican obstructionism). This, plus the normal dirty tricks (disenfranchising voters as well as vote manipulation) and they got close.

But the disarray, I believe, is not something that can be categorized as "current". I would say current and ongoing. If by "disarray" you mean not appealing to a majority of the voters. However, if by "disarray" you mean not cheating to the max, then no, they I say they are still working that game.

Working it because it is the only way they can win (by cheating). By the way, even though bush LOST the popular vote by 543.89 thousand in 2000, and "won" it by 3.01 million in 2004, the conservative media declared that the 2nd "win" was a decisive mandate for bush's agenda.

Compare that to Obama, who won the popular vote by 9.55 million in 2008 and 4.98 million in 2012 - and he has no mandate for his agenda. If he spent his political capital to pass the ACA, then why didn't Republicans accept it as the "law of the land" instead of (futilely) voting to repeal it so many times?

Instead he is actively obstructed. Even when Obama attempted to meet the Republicans halfway and included ideas in his legislation that previously received Republican support!

My point is that Obama's record is more the Republican's record (of obstruction). He would have done MUCH better if the GOP had acknowledged HIS mandate (a mandate larger than bush's). So - Rusty wrong in regards to Obama running on "his record" in 2012 and Willis wrong in regards to the Republicans being in "disarray". Both wrong in regards to Obama's chances of winning. He won by a narrower margin than in 2008, but still came out further ahead (popular vote wise) than did bush when he ran against Kerry in 2004 (Obama won that one with 1.97 million more popular votes than bush).

In regards to Willis defending Obama re Rusty's disrespect (don't call him Obie)... NOW the Hartster says he does not like him personally as well as politically (5/11/2013).

Video1: Fox News, Karl Rove Argue Over The Outcome In Ohio (2:50).

Video2: Sam Seeder discusses the claim by the hacker group Anonymous that they prevented Karl Rove from stealing the 2012 election (2:43).

Update 2/7/2018: Rational Nation makes a prediction and Rusty Shackelford responds.

Rational Nation: ...don't be at all surprised when the next real crash happens, as it surely will. When it does it will partially the result of excessive deregulation. But don't take my word for it. Listen to credible economists. Something trump is not. (2/6/2018 AT 2:12pm). Rusty Shackelford: ...he doesn't deserve a retort for his silly childish comments. He runs around numerous blogs making stupid predictions that are always wrong. Notice that when I pinned him down on his idiotic "real crash" comment he hauled ass. (2/6/2011 AT 5:57pm).

OST #67