<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Politics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/politics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 19:34:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Salman Rushdie writes NYT op-ed on &#8220;political courage&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/salman_rushdie_writes_nyt_op_ed_on_political_courage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/salman_rushdie_writes_nyt_op_ed_on_political_courage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salman Rushdie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nelson Mandela]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston Bombings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13284129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["We find it easier, in these confused times, to admire physical bravery than moral courage," he writes ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In an op-ed for the New York Times, author Salman Rushdie wonders why "physical bravery" has come to trump "moral courage" in the eyes of the public. "It’s a vexing time for those of us who believe in the right of artists, intellectuals and ordinary, affronted citizens to push boundaries and take risks and so, at times, to change the way we see the world," Rushdie writes.</p><p>From the op-ed:</p><blockquote><p>It’s harder for us to see politicians, with the exception of Nelson Mandela and <a title="More articles about Daw Aung San Suu Kyi." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/daw_aung_san_suu_kyi/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Daw Aung San Suu Kyi</a>, as courageous these days. Perhaps we have seen too much, grown too cynical about the inevitable compromises of power. There are no Gandhis, no Lincolns anymore. One man’s hero (Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro) is another’s villain. We no longer easily agree on what it means to be good, or principled, or brave. When political leaders do take courageous steps — as France’s <a title="More articles about Nicolas Sarkozy" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/nicolas_sarkozy/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Nicolas Sarkozy</a>, then president, did in Libya by intervening militarily to support the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi — there are as many who doubt as approve. Political courage, nowadays, is almost always ambiguous.</p></blockquote><p>Read more <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/whither-moral-courage.html?smid=tw-share&amp;_r=0">here</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/salman_rushdie_writes_nyt_op_ed_on_political_courage/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/salman_rushdie_writes_nyt_op_ed_on_political_courage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Best of the Salon limerick contest</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/14/best_of_the_salon_limerick_contest_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/14/best_of_the_salon_limerick_contest_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Poetry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Writers and Writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[salon limerick contest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Manti Te'o]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R-Wis.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wayne LaPierre]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13270425</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Part two: A roundup of some of our favorite poetic news items]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p id="internal-source-marker_0.39253279558081733" dir="ltr">The best limericks submitted by Salon readers since the election:</p><p dir="ltr">So we’ve come to this point, as a nation,</p><p dir="ltr">Where a white man with money and station,</p><p dir="ltr">Is no longer a shoe-in,</p><p dir="ltr">So the Right Wing’s now stewin’:</p><p dir="ltr">“’Tis the End of Civilization!”</p><p dir="ltr">Bruce F. Cole</p><p dir="ltr">Kamuela, Hawaii</p><p dir="ltr">From Delaware hails our VP,</p><p dir="ltr">A fiscal cliff jumper is he.</p><p dir="ltr">He'll work on your pecs,</p><p dir="ltr">Offer old ladies sex,</p><p dir="ltr">Won't someone please put this guy on TV?</p><p dir="ltr">Josh Klemons</p><p dir="ltr">Madison, Wis.</p><p dir="ltr">Where’s Obama’s diversity minder–</p><p dir="ltr">His “qualified female” staff finder?</p><p dir="ltr">He’s named white guys galore,</p><p dir="ltr">To positions top-drawer,</p><p dir="ltr">Perhaps he should borrow Mitt’s binder.</p><p dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.madkane.com/">Madeleine Begun Kane</a></p><p dir="ltr">Bayside, Queens</p><p dir="ltr">Did we have an assault weapons binge?</p><p dir="ltr">Just the thought should make all of us cringe.</p><p dir="ltr">Can we trust NRA,</p><p dir="ltr">To be honest when they,</p><p dir="ltr">Are the voice of a lunatic fringe?</p><p dir="ltr">Stephen Whitred</p><p dir="ltr">Barriere, B.C., Canada</p><p dir="ltr">In a tale of pro cycling woe,</p><p dir="ltr">Doping brought down a mighty hero.</p><p dir="ltr">But one detail I find,</p><p dir="ltr">Really frazzles my mind,</p><p dir="ltr">Who knew Oprah still had her own show?</p><p dir="ltr">Tom Foltz</p><p dir="ltr">Fort Wayne, Ind.</p><p dir="ltr">Although your new limerick contest is thrillin',</p><p dir="ltr">My brain appears not to be willin'</p><p dir="ltr">When every new verse</p><p dir="ltr">Than the last one is worse.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/14/best_of_the_salon_limerick_contest_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/14/best_of_the_salon_limerick_contest_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>There is no Gosnell coverup</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kermit Gosnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13269167</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The horrors and underlying disparities exploited by Kermit Gosnell aren't new -- nor have they been ignored(UPDATE)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This week, the right wing has been working the refs, demanding to know why the press has been allegedly silent on the trial of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia doctor who allegedly committed horrific acts against his patients with impunity for years. Fox News' Kristen Powers kicked it off with an Op-Ed in USA Today, <a  href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/">claiming</a>, "The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace." Michelle Malkin has helped <a href="http://twitchy.com/2013/04/10/kirsten-powers-michelle-malkin-quiz-the-media-whoiskermitgosnell-wheres-the-coverage/">spearhead</a> a Twitter campaign. Breitbart.com <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/12/Kermit-Gosnell-Abortion-Doc-Is-Most-Searched-Term-on-Politico-Yields-Zero-Matches">calls</a> it "a full-blown, coordinated blackout throughout the entire national media."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>586</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The liberal media&#8217;s gift to Mitch McConnell</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/the_liberal_medias_gift_to_mitch_mcconnell/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/the_liberal_medias_gift_to_mitch_mcconnell/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitch McConnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2014 elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ashley Judd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mother Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative movement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13266458</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The unloved Senate minority leader is exploiting that Ashley Judd meeting leak to get a bit of conservative love]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After a recording of an opposition research strategy meeting <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/mcconnell-use-senate-employees-research-political-attacks-ashley-judd">was leaked to Mother Jones</a>, Mitch McConnell is demanding that the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/09/mcconnell-mother-jones-tape-ashley-judd/2066725/">FBI investigate</a> the bugging of his office <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/mcconnell-accuses-political-left-bugging-his-office.php">by the "political left."</a> This is silly. McConnell knows it's silly. The meeting was almost certainly <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/04/mitch-mcconnell-office-bugged/64059/">recorded by an attendee</a>, not by "bugs" planted by liberal spies.</p><p>But the point isn't really to catch the perpetrator. The point is <a href="http://teammitch.com/wiretap/?src=twitter">this ridiculous splash on his campaign website,</a> in which visitors are told that McConnell's office was "wiretapped" by "liberals" and are encouraged to respond by sending all of their contact information, along with some money, to Mitch McConnell's reelection campaign.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/the_liberal_medias_gift_to_mitch_mcconnell/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/the_liberal_medias_gift_to_mitch_mcconnell/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thatcher: A female icon, but not a feminist one</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/thatcher_a_female_icon_but_not_a_feminist_one/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/thatcher_a_female_icon_but_not_a_feminist_one/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Margaret Thatcher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women in politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[England]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united kingdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13264858</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's better to have women in public life, even those with whom we disagree, than no women in public life at all]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There have always been women like Margaret Thatcher in power. Never more than one or two at a time, of course. Thatcher was the embodiment of what Katha Pollitt memorably <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/07/magazine/hers-the-smurfette-principle.html?pagewanted=all&amp;src=pm">called</a> "the Smurfette syndrome," which is when "a group of male buddies will be accented by a lone female, stereotypically defined." She was not a feminist icon, nor any kind of feminist, as she took pains to remind people. "Some of us were making it before women's lib was even thought of," she once sniffed. To make it any more obvious, she might as well have literally kicked the ladder out from under her.</p><p>For decades, Thatcher's gender provided some public relations cover for her most noxious politics. That was true even today in the White House's statement on her death, which included the following treacly sentence: "As a grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s first female prime minister, she stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/thatcher_a_female_icon_but_not_a_feminist_one/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/thatcher_a_female_icon_but_not_a_feminist_one/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GOP thinks imitating BuzzFeed to raise money is WIN!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/the_gop_thinks_imitating_buzzfeed_to_raise_money_is_win/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/the_gop_thinks_imitating_buzzfeed_to_raise_money_is_win/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BuzzFeed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13262314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One crazy congressional campaign committee that is totally going to win the midterms with listicles]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The GOP is going to make its own BuzzFeed, apparently. <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-new-house-republican-web-strategy-just-add-buzzfeed-20130404">National Journal's Brian Fung "won the Internet" yesterday</a> with his report on the National Republican Congressional Committee's thrilling new website, which has a sidebar, and features lists.</p><p>The NRCC also hired 20 writers (the GOP will save publishing!) to create conservative versions of the soul-deadening crap BuzzFeed's list-generators are forced to compile. While it may sound like the aim is to appeal to a new demo -- kids who remember the '90s and who also believe that balancing the federal budget with deep domestic spending cuts will also somehow spur economic growth -- it's actually not quite that ambitious: The point is to boost traffic to the NRCC website, and therefore to increase donations to the NRCC. It appeared to be working, too, even before the entire liberal Internet <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/04/gops-pursuit-buzzfeed-style-memes-suicidal/63882/">stopped to point</a> and <a href="http://prospect.org/article/were-all-buzzfeed-now">laugh</a> at the notion of a "conservative BuzzFeed," giving the project a massive amount of attention.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/the_gop_thinks_imitating_buzzfeed_to_raise_money_is_win/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/the_gop_thinks_imitating_buzzfeed_to_raise_money_is_win/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Spare us your salary sequestration stunts</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/spare_us_your_insulting_salary_sequestration_stunts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/spare_us_your_insulting_salary_sequestration_stunts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sequestration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chuck Hagel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13260868</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama &#038; co. take small salary dips, as if rich people losing a few bucks takes the sting out of anti-poverty cuts]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel -- a former enlisted man, from modest circumstances -- said on Tuesday that he'd give up a portion of his $200,000 salary in solidarity with <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/04/02/hagel-to-forgo-part-of-his-salary/">civilian Defense Department employees facing furloughs.</a> (Hagel was simply following Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who announced his intention to forgo some of his salary a month ago.) Giving up 14 days' worth of salary, for Hagel, will require first getting paid, and then writing a check to the Treasury.</p><p>This prompted President Obama to announce that he, too, would call attention to the widespread deprivation and needless immiseration Congress has foisted upon the nation by formally returning 5 percent of his salary to the Treasury as well. Five percent of his $400,000 annual salary. That he doesn't need because he's rich.</p><p>Rep. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat and Iraq War veteran, upped the stakes <a href="http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130403/news/704039688/?interstitial=1">by announcing that she had already written a $1,218 check to the Treasury </a>, representing a whopping 8.4 percent of one month of her congressional salary. Duckworth, I am pretty sure, is not nearly as rich as President Obama or Secretary Hagel, but on $174,000 a year, not counting tax deductible expenses, $1,218 shouldn't hurt too much (she says she'll do a check each month).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/spare_us_your_insulting_salary_sequestration_stunts/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/spare_us_your_insulting_salary_sequestration_stunts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One thing we don&#8217;t know about Hillary</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/hillary_2016_and_the_mark_penn_test/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/hillary_2016_and_the_mark_penn_test/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2008 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2016 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Penn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13259587</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Did she learn any lessons from 2008?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hillary Clinton made her first public speech since leaving the State Department last night, <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/too-early-2016-not-hillary-clintons-fans#.UVt9ia8y9QM.twitter">addressing the Vital Global Leadership Awards at the Kennedy Center.</a> She did not say she is running for president in 2016. But this week, at least, she seems very much like she is. A super PAC staffed in part with former Clinton campaign aides <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/02/hillary-clinton-president-super-pac-website/2046861/">is up and running and sending out press releases.</a> Clinton made a show of support for gay marriage in a Human Rights Campaign video, and will make <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/02/hillary-clinton-set-for-reemergence-on-public-stage/">a whole host of speeches at venues across the country</a> over the next few months. (She's on the lucrative private speaking circuit as well.)</p><p>There is a series of clichéd caveats you have to get through when you write about this stuff: 2016 is a long ways away. Making predictions is an invitation to mockery in a few years' time. At this point in 2006, the 2008 election was supposedly going to pit Mark Warner against George Allen.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/hillary_2016_and_the_mark_penn_test/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/hillary_2016_and_the_mark_penn_test/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>81</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Libertarians name North Dakota &#8220;most free&#8221; state</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/libertarians_name_north_dakota_most_free_state/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/libertarians_name_north_dakota_most_free_state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Dakota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libertarianism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mercatus Institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Koch Brothers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13254979</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sorry, women! Your "freedoms" aren't as important as freedom from excessive taxation]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Mercatus Center, a libertarian-oriented -- and Koch brothers-affiliated -- think tank based out of George Mason University (a public university, for whatever that's worth), regularly releases its ranking of American states in terms of "Freedom." Their definition of "freedom" largely adheres to the standard American libertarian conception of "liberty," which is to say it is oriented almost entirely around private property ownership and low taxation. As a result, <a href="http://freedominthe50states.org/">America's freest state this year turns out to be North Dakota.</a></p><p>North Dakota has also been in the news for another reason recently. What was it, again? Oh, right, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/north-dakota-governor-signs-strict-abortion-limits.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0">it passed the most restrictive antiabortion laws in the country.</a> Including a law specifically aimed at shutting down the state's lone abortion provider. It passed this law <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/this_is_what_losing_looks_like/">knowing it was unconstitutional</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/libertarians_name_north_dakota_most_free_state/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/libertarians_name_north_dakota_most_free_state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>141</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama to dine with GOP senators again</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/obama_to_dine_with_gop_senators_again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/obama_to_dine_with_gop_senators_again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Filibuster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13253999</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Will civility end Senate gridlock? Ha ha, no]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barack Obama <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/27/president-obama-invites-senate-republicans-to-dinner-again/?wprss=rss_election-2012">is going to have dinner with Republicans again.</a> The president asked Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson to put the whole thing together, and no one yet knows where it will be or who will go, but it will definitely Increase Civility.</p><p>A few weeks ago, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/optimistic-tone-at-obama-gop-dinner-88548.html">Obama had dinner with 12 Republican senators</a> and the group "talked about the debt, deficits and taxes." That dinner having apparently done nothing to change the fact that on matters related to debt, deficits and taxes Republicans and Democrats don't merely have different preferred solutions but in fact wildly different interpretations of what the <em>problems</em> are, they will try again. Or maybe it will be a different group of 12 Republican senators this time, who knows.</p><p>I imagine Obama will once again push for a Deficit Deal, involving "a mixture of revenue and spending cuts," no matter how little we need such a thing at the moment, and he will also probably bring up immigration and gun control, though Republicans don't need much more nudging on immigration and gun control will never interest them.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/obama_to_dine_with_gop_senators_again/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/obama_to_dine_with_gop_senators_again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The last, worst argument against gay marriage</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/the_last_worst_argument_against_gay_marriage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/the_last_worst_argument_against_gay_marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same-sex marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13252665</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When you lose arguments based on bigotry, you're left with one based on an idea of marriage we rejected already]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most popular opposition to same sex marriage is driven by simple homophobia. I'm sure opponents would disagree, but it seems like the rapid shift in public opinion on the question is evidence that the once-prevalent attitude that gays are weird and/or gross is dissipating as straight Americans get to know more and more out LGBT Americans.</p><p>"Gays are weird and/or gross," though, is not a great <em>legal</em> argument, and right now the Supreme Court is deciding whether or not there is a good reason for the state to ban same-sex marriages while allowing opposite-sex marriages. So far the best that opponents of equality could come up with was "opposite marriage is just the way marriage has always been." That falls apart when you compare the modern American institution of marriage to marriages as they've been practiced throughout human history, as anyone who has read a book called "the Bible" could tell you. So the opponents moved on to their current argument -- the last, best argument for banning gay marriage -- which is, basically, "for the children."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/the_last_worst_argument_against_gay_marriage/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/the_last_worst_argument_against_gay_marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>132</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Scott Walker hires torture apologist to ghostwrite campaign book</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/scott_walker_hires_torture_apologist_to_ghostwrite_campaign_book/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/scott_walker_hires_torture_apologist_to_ghostwrite_campaign_book/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Torture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marc Thiessen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scott Walker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2016 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13251580</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Marc Thiessen will collaborate with the Wisconsin governor on a book in preparation for 2016]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is going to try to be president now. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343881/walker-writing-book-former-bush-adviser-robert-costa">Robert Costa reports that Walker is "collaborating on a book with Marc Thiessen, a former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush."</a> It's not like a sci-fi robot murder mystery that takes place in the distant future on Ganymede, either: It is an <em>I would like to be president</em> sort of book, "with stories about his family, his values, and his rise to power." It will probably be boring.</p><p>But just because it will be a boring book doesn't mean that its existence isn't interesting.</p><p>Thiessen is a very poor Washington Post opinion columnist who wrote a book in which he strung together a series of distortions in support of the thesis <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/03/29/100329crbo_books_mayer?currentPage=all">that torture is great.</a> Before the book and the column gig, he was a speechwriter for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. (Before <em>that</em>, Thiessen spent six years as a spokesperson and "policy adviser" to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/26/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-quotations-of-chairman-helms-race-god-aids-and-more.html">unreconstructed white supremacist</a> Sen. Jesse Helms, which is another thing that should effectively <a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/07/conservatives-a.html">bar him from participating in civilized society.</a>)</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/scott_walker_hires_torture_apologist_to_ghostwrite_campaign_book/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/scott_walker_hires_torture_apologist_to_ghostwrite_campaign_book/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the two-state solution finally dead?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/23/is_the_two_state_solution_finally_dead/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/23/is_the_two_state_solution_finally_dead/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel-Palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestinian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arabs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israeli occupation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benjamin Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mahmoud Abbas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13249753</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama's terrific speech can't hide the fact that no solution is in sight and a "one-state reality" is setting in]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let’s give Mitt Romney some credit for candor on the Middle East, if for almost nothing else. President Obama’s soaring rhetoric in his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/world/middleeast/transcript-of-obamas-speech-in-israel.html">campaign-style speech</a> this week in Jerusalem, when he urged the Israeli public to “create the change that you want to see” and laid out a moral and philosophical case for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, showed us the leader of the free world at the top of his oratorical game. But Obama didn’t go to Israel with any concrete plan to restart negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, a pair of weakened politicians who lack clear mandates from their own people. Despite vague promises to send Secretary of State John Kerry into the breach in coming weeks, it’s by no means clear that he has one.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/23/is_the_two_state_solution_finally_dead/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/23/is_the_two_state_solution_finally_dead/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>145</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paul Broun runs for Senate by trolling his colleagues</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/paul_broun_runs_for_senate_by_trolling_his_colleagues/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/paul_broun_runs_for_senate_by_trolling_his_colleagues/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Broun]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. House of Representatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2014 elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13248312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Georgia's nuttiest Republican pulls his colleagues and fellow Senate candidates closer to the fringe]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Georgia Republican Rep. Paul Broun, a total <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/05/quote_of_the_day_lies_from_the_pit_of_hell/">nutcase</a>, is <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/paul_broun_enters_georgia_senate_race/">running for U.S. Senate.</a></p><p>I'm just going to quote myself <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/paul_broun_enters_georgia_senate_race/">writing in January about Broun's decision to run:</a></p><blockquote><p>Georgia's primary election runoff rules might prevent Broun from eking out a plurality victory over a bunch of less-crazy candidates, but even if he doesn't win, he’ll definitely push the entire field further to the edge of the fringe that the national party has been trying to back away from since November.</p></blockquote><p>Since I wrote that, a couple of things have happened. First, the Republican National Committee released a huge report begging the Republican Party to moderate its language and some of its policies. Second, <em>two</em> members of the Republican House delegation from Georgia voted against the most recent Paul Ryan budget -- because they found it to be insufficiently conservative. One of those members was Broun, who published an Op-Ed decrying the budget <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/19/paul_broun_op_ed_slams_paul_ryans_budget_plan/">before the vote.</a> The other was <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/21/ryan_budget_passes_the_house_which_10_republicans_voted_against_it.html">Rep. Phil Gingrey, who is also considering running for the Senate seat</a>, and thus "can't let Broun get to his right," as Dave Weigel says.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/paul_broun_runs_for_senate_by_trolling_his_colleagues/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/paul_broun_runs_for_senate_by_trolling_his_colleagues/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Did Rand Paul kill conservative opposition to immigration reform?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/20/did_rand_paul_kill_conservative_opposition_to_immigration_reform/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/20/did_rand_paul_kill_conservative_opposition_to_immigration_reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rand Paul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve King]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13247294</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While things look pretty good now, there is still plenty of time for a backlash]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rand Paul has some sort of magic touch, <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/entire-room-of-tea-party-house-members-agrees-with-rand-paul-on-immigration.php?ref=fpblg">according to TPM's Benjy Sarlin</a>, as his immigration reform turnaround apparently convinced a roomful of the sort of Republicans who refer to immigrants as "animals" that allowing many of them to seek citizenship wouldn't necessarily be a horrible idea.</p><p>Earlier this year <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/three_reasons_to_be_skeptical_that_immigration_reform_will_pass/">I told everyone to be skeptical that immigration reform would pass</a>, and one of the reasons I cited was the I thought rather obvious fact that House Republicans didn't support it. Now Rand Paul nearly has me convinced it could pass the House with more Republican than Democratic support.</p><p>Paul's primary argument was to convince very conservative politicians that they could <em>get away</em> with supporting immigration reform, even though the president wants it and many conservative voters don't. The strategy is to just use different words, basically.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/20/did_rand_paul_kill_conservative_opposition_to_immigration_reform/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/20/did_rand_paul_kill_conservative_opposition_to_immigration_reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MSNBC selectively remembers the Iraq War</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/19/msnbc_selectively_remembers_the_iraq_war/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/19/msnbc_selectively_remembers_the_iraq_war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Scarborough]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morning Joe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Woodward]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Luke Russert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13246025</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Updated: Morning Joe and Luke Russert leave out some important context. Like how much MSNBC pushed for war]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>[UPDATE BELOW]</b> MSNBC today ran two very interesting segments addressing the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. In one, Luke Russert <a href="http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-daily-rundown/51239782#51239782">interviewed veteran NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel</a> on the state of Iraq today (spoiler: not great). In another, <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036789/#51237921">Joe Scarborough hosted a large panel</a> to discus how the Iraq War happened and what went wrong.</p><p>The <a href="http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-daily-rundown/51239782#51239782">Russert segment is sort of bizarre</a>, referring to "that big anniversary" and completely ignoring the reasons the Iraq War <em>started.</em> It concludes -- after Engel explains how Iraq is once again in a sectarian civil war -- with Russert essentially asserting the inevitability of a military strike against <em>Iran,</em> saying they could be "months" away from building nuclear weapons.</p><p><a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036789/#51237921">Here's the Morning Joe segment.</a> It's long, but well worth watching. Bob Woodward's presence adds a note of dark comedy to the proceedings. No one bothers to mention <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/173245/bob-woodwards-biggest-failure-iraq#">any of his horrible pre-war punditry</a>, or his culpability for the misleading journalism the Washington Post was producing at the time.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/19/msnbc_selectively_remembers_the_iraq_war/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/19/msnbc_selectively_remembers_the_iraq_war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>47</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sunday shows haven&#8217;t learned</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/17/the_sunday_shows_learned_nothing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/17/the_sunday_shows_learned_nothing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Mar 2013 19:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sunday morning shows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sunday show roundup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Boehner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david gregory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13244007</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week: Everyone agrees that we must get serious about Balancing the Budget, no one feels guilty about Iraq]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Happy tenth anniversary, Iraq War! To celebrate, America's Sunday Shows got you a Nearly Complete Absence of Any Sense of Responsibility or Indication That Any Lessons Were Learned. Here's what we got instead, today: Scaremongering about North Korea and Iran, great excitement about our new pope, and terribly unenlightening endless fact-free arguments about dueling federal budget proposals.</p><p>The big three Sunday Shows were all very budget-focused today, and on each of them everyone competed to be the most Serious about Balancing the Budget, which is obviously a self-evidently Good goal and not a totally unnecessary one. Not a single moderator came close to articulating the mainstream (in terms of economics, not politics) view that the government <em>doesn't have to</em> balance its budget. (It was not that long ago that the government was running a surplus and conservatives and economists kept saying on the TV that that was a bad thing, right?) Instead, they pressed their guests (usually one Democrat elected official and one Republican elected official) on how "serious" their party's proposals were, with "seriousness" measured in terms of how likely it was that a proposal would get passed by Congress and signed by the president. Alas, neither the Senate Democratic Budget nor the Ryan Budget came close to meeting the Seriousness standard. (Fun fact: The House Progressive Caucus budget <em>does not exist.</em> No one mentioned it on any of the three shows.)</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/17/the_sunday_shows_learned_nothing/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/17/the_sunday_shows_learned_nothing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>41</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pick of the week: Dick Cheney has no regrets</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/15/pick_of_the_week_dick_cheney_has_no_regrets/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/15/pick_of_the_week_dick_cheney_has_no_regrets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Documentaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dick Cheney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Our Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Our Picks: Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13229670</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pick of the week: Battered but defiant, the Darth Vader of politics shows no emotion -- except over firing Rumsfeld]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are so many jaw-dropping moments in <a href="http://www.sho.com/sho/reality-docs/titles/3370771/the-world-according-to-dick-cheney#/index">“The World According to Dick Cheney”</a> that I’m sure to forget several of them. One comes right at the beginning, when interviewer and co-director R.J. Cutler asks the most “consequential” vice president in American history – that’s Cheney’s word – a series of softball questions to get him warmed up. Cheney looks undeniably older and thinner after his recent heart transplant (talk about jokes that write themselves!), and he does deliver a few minuscule nuggets of warm-and-fuzzy: Happiness is fly-fishing on the Snake River, and misery is the loss of a family member. In case you’ve been wondering, his favorite food is spaghetti. Then Cutler asks Cheney about his biggest flaw. It’s a standard Barbara Walters-style question, for which every skilled politician has a faux-humble answer at the ready.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/15/pick_of_the_week_dick_cheney_has_no_regrets/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/15/pick_of_the_week_dick_cheney_has_no_regrets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>43</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Louie Gohmert treated like rock star at CPAC, of course</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/louie_gohmert_treated_like_rock_star_at_cpac_of_course/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/louie_gohmert_treated_like_rock_star_at_cpac_of_course/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Louie Gohmert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CPAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative movement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13229344</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Longtime crank with no actual accomplishments very beloved at conservative conference]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We've probably reached the point where coverage of the Conservative Political Action Conference, which is going on now in D.C., finally outweighs the actual influence and importance of CPAC. But the conference remains a useful glimpse at the state of the hardcore conservative movement.</p><p>That's why <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343006/louie-gohmert-cpac-superstar-betsy-woodruff">it's so fun to read this Betsy Woodruff story about how Texas congressman Louie Gohmert is being treated like a rock star at CPAC.</a> Because Louie Gohmert is not just a nutjob -- he is a singularly useless and unaccomplished nutjob. The man has been in the House of Representatives since 2005 and in all that time all he's done is generate hundreds of outraged blog posts.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/louie_gohmert_treated_like_rock_star_at_cpac_of_course/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/louie_gohmert_treated_like_rock_star_at_cpac_of_course/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chris Hayes to replace Ed Schultz in prime-time slot</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/chris_hayes_to_replace_ed_schultz_in_prime_time_slot/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/chris_hayes_to_replace_ed_schultz_in_prime_time_slot/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Hayes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill O'Reilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ed Schultz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Up With Chris Hayes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rachel Maddow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sunday morning shows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ezra Klein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Television]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pundits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13229047</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[MSNBC announced their latest move as it struggles to dominate the 25 to 54 demographic]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris Hayes is ready for his close-up.</p><p>The hip, bespectacled journalist is preparing to take over the covetable 8 p.m. time slot vacated by Ed Schultz's "The Ed Show" — network executives have moved Schultz to Saturday and Sunday evenings. Hayes has hosted "Up With Chris Hayes" since September 2011, and established quite a following in less than two years of carrying a show.</p><p>"Chris has done an amazing job creating a franchise on weekend morning," network president Phil Griffin said in a statement. "He’s an extraordinary talent and has made a strong connection with our audience. This is an exciting time for MSNBC."</p><p>Griffin is banking on Hayes -- and possible Hayes's morning slot replacement Ezra Klein -- to make MSNBC a household name. Well, a <em>liberal</em> household name, at least. “Our awareness level, people who can define who we are, is much lower than Fox and CNN,” Mr. Griffin <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/business/media/msnbc-its-ratings-rising-gains-ground-on-fox-news.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0%22" target="_blank">told</a> the New York Times. The network president has been building out a brand identity through the steady recruitment of ever-younger, ever-more progressive on-air talent. Of the network's gravitation to the left, former President Bill Clinton remarked, “Boy, it really has become our version of Fox.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/chris_hayes_to_replace_ed_schultz_in_prime_time_slot/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/chris_hayes_to_replace_ed_schultz_in_prime_time_slot/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>