Debt ceiling-what it's not.

It's not a credit card with no limit, as Greta Van Susteren and Sarah Palin suggest toward the end of this video.  Van Susteren's outrage (shared by Palin) over the idea that POTUS might take over the responsibility of raising the debt ceiling (subject to approval by congress) is incredibly mis-informed.  Raising the debt ceiling is largely a matter of optics--congress regularly reviews (and raises) the ceiling simply to remind themselves of how much they owe (of our money) before they think of borrowing more.  Whether or not the US can borrow more money has absolutely nothing to do with the debt ceiling--though if the international community of lenders sees that we are so irresponsible as to not review and raise our debt ceiling, they may be disinclined to lend to us.  In addition, the idea of taking the debt ceiling review out of the hands of congress was suggested my Mitch McConnell in 2011.

As far as the first half of the video, Leno is being held up as the only example of a journalist over at CBS with enough balls to call for answers regarding who changed the talking points on Benghazi before Ambassador Rice went on air.  Unfortunately, Leno's balls are not as impressive as his tardiness--the intelligence community has already indicated that they were responsible.  Maybe Leno missed the same meeting McCain missed.

Rice conspiracy explained.

Ok, it's not exactly explained.  However, Rachel Maddow has proffered as reasonable an explanation as any--indeed, it may look like a conspiracy theory, but it's far less crazy than the Susan Rice conspiracy theory.  What happens if Susan Rice is not nominated?  The GOP is suggesting that they'd confirm John Kerry for Secretary of State with no fuss.  If Kerry is nominated, his senate seat opens up and Scott Brown can run for the Massachusetts seat.  Worth a gander here.

McCain's World.

John McCain seems to have lost touch with reality.  Last week he called for hearings on the Benghazi fiasco, which hearings he then missed because he has several more television appearances scheduled so that he could call for hearings on Benghazi.  His questions about Rice have been answered (including the question as to who changed the talking points).  His suggestion that Rice should have used some of the knowledge she gained from the intelligence community to bolster her report to the American people stretches the bounds of good logic--what she knew apart from what she said was classified; this has been the issue all along.  Now he is comparing Benghazi to the death of Bin Laden.  Indeed, he actually called for the release of a photo of POTUS in the situation room watching the Benghazi affair go down just as we saw a photo of POTUS watching the Bin Laden raid go down.  Of course, the former does not exist because the Benghazi attack was not orchestrated by the US.  Were it the case that that photo existed, then we'd have a real conspiracy on our hands.

[READ MORE]

Backwards logic.

While the accusations against Susan Rice are beginning to simmer down, one would expect the opposition to her nomination (which has not been made yet) would take a calmer tone.  Rep. Jeff Duncan has decided to double down, instead, claiming that Rice has been "tainted" by this whole Benghazi affair.  Of course she has, because your party tainted her.  It's a little like throwing a pile of shit at someone and then complaining that he stinks of shit.

This is a brilliant tactic--1. Question the credibility of your opponent; 2. Once her credibility has been restored, argue that it doesn't matter because her reputation has been smeared (with no recognition that you are the one who smeared her). 

(This is not an endorsement of Susan Rice for Secretary of State).

McCain's pathetic apology.

I was a fan of John McCain during most of the 2008 election.  I admit, I liked him as the lesser of several evils, but he represented a more moderate Republican (for most of his campaign).  Lately, however, he's been more and more extreme, some say in order to avoid becoming obsolete.  Last Sunday he was pounding the media pavement to get his point across--indeed, we was so busy calling for hearings on Benghazi that he missed the first hearing on Benghazi.  His most relevant statements had to do with Susan Rice and the speculation as to whether she may be nominated to replace Hillary Clinton.  McCain drew a line in the sand, claiming not only that he would filibuster her nomination for Secretary of State, but that he would oppose any and all of President Obama's nominees.  His problem with Rice had to do with her report after the 9/11 attack in Benghazi.  He claimed that she was either incompetent or a liar for not having included references to al Qaeda in the report.  As it turns out, the al Qaeda references were redacted by the CIA, as everyone had been telling McCain.  McCain has finally conceded the point, but while he is big enough to call Rice a liar on national television, his apology has appeared on his web site only. 

Maverick McCain?

I remember when John McCain was a moderate, calling himself a maverick for breaking rank with GOP talking points.  Recently he seems to have been tacking to the other extreme, suggesting he would filibuster Susan Rice's nomination as Secretary of State.  Now he is saying he will support no nominee for Secretary of State.  Regardless of how one feels about Rice, the position needs to be filled.  How is this a reasonable (much less moderate) stance? [ARTICLE]