<?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 > The American Prospect</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/the_american_prospect_2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 01:14:35 +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>Grand Old Jurassic Party</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/15/the_grand_old_jurassic_party_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/15/the_grand_old_jurassic_party_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ideology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13202155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With its focus on ideological purity, the Republican species is pushing itself toward extinction]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Republican Party is a presidential election away from extinction. If it can’t win the 2016 contest, and unless it has bolstered its congressional presence beyond the benefits of gerrymandered redistricting—which is to say not only retaking the Senate but polling more votes than the opposition nationally—the party will die. It will die not for reasons of “branding” or marketing or electoral cosmetics but because the party is at odds with the inevitable American trajectory in the direction of liberty, and with its own nature; paradoxically the party of Abraham Lincoln, which once saved the Union and which gives such passionate lip service to constitutionality, has come to embody the values of the Confederacy in its hostility to constitutional federalism and the civil bonds that the founding document codifies. The Republican Party will vanish not because of what its says but because of what it believes, not because of how it presents itself but because of who it is when it thinks no one is looking.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/15/the_grand_old_jurassic_party_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/15/the_grand_old_jurassic_party_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Marco Rubio humiliates himself</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/marco_rubio_humiliates_himself_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/marco_rubio_humiliates_himself_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marco Rubio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State of the Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13199732</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It wasn't his scrambling for a bottle of water Tuesday night. It was his insipid speech mixing calumny and cliché]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> It's not his fault, really. Maybe it was understandable nervousness — after all, here he was just a few days after being anointed "The Republican Savior" in a Time magazine cover, following the president, but without an applauding crowd to feed off. Or maybe it was that the room was hot and dry. Whatever the cause, after trying to wipe the sweat from his brow and face for 12 long minutes and repeatedly moving his tongue around his mouth to get some moisture going, Marco Rubio decided he just had no choice but to bend down and grab that tantalizing little bottle of water that lay just out of reach.</p><p>So don't blame him for that, even though he'll no doubt get plenty of mockery for it today. You can blame him, however, for the insipid speech he delivered, a combination of calumny and cliché that demonstrated just why Republicans are having such problems appealing to voters. Let's start with this:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/marco_rubio_humiliates_himself_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/marco_rubio_humiliates_himself_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>98</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Marco Rubio can&#8217;t save the GOP</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/12/marco_rubio_cant_save_the_gop_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/12/marco_rubio_cant_save_the_gop_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marco Rubio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13198474</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Immigration aside, the Florida senator's sympathies still lie with Tea Party-type Republicans]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img align="left" style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" /></a> The rapid rise of Florida Senator Marco Rubio makes one thing clear about the Republican Party: They’ve convinced themselves that outreach (or the lack thereof) is their issue with Latinos. Solve the communications problem—with gentler language and high-status Hispanic politicians—and you’ll solve the electoral problem. It’s why Fox News CEO Roger Ailes has <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112364/fox-news-latino-roger-ailes-courts-hispanic-viewers">committed himself</a> to making the network more friendly to Latino voters—an abrupt shift for a place that refers to immigrants as “illegal aliens”—and why Rubio will give his State of the Union response in English <em>and Spanish</em>.</p><p>None of this is bad. The GOP’s new push to win Latino voters includes growing support for comprehensive immigration reform, which will be a huge humanitarian boon to millions of undocumented immigrants if it’s passed. But Republicans are fooling themselves if they think this will fix their problem with Latino voters or if they think immigration is the beginning and end of the issue.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/12/marco_rubio_cant_save_the_gop_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/12/marco_rubio_cant_save_the_gop_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A sneak peek at Republicans&#8217; post-State of the Union whining</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/11/a_sneak_peek_at_republicans_post_state_of_the_union_whining_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/11/a_sneak_peek_at_republicans_post_state_of_the_union_whining_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State of the Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13197905</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's only a matter of time before the GOP starts braying about Obama's partisan politics]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img align="left" style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" /></a> Here's a heads-up: After President Obama delivers his State of the Union address tomorrow, Republicans will wave their hands in front of their faces and whine that it was viciously, horribly, frighteningly "partisan." And what will this partisanship consist of? Hold on to your hat here. He's expected to <em>argue for the same policies he has been arguing for and pursuing for the last four years</em>. If the Republican members of Congress restrain themselves from shouting "You lie!" during the speech, it'll only be because of their superior breeding and manners.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/11/a_sneak_peek_at_republicans_post_state_of_the_union_whining_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/11/a_sneak_peek_at_republicans_post_state_of_the_union_whining_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GOP&#8217;s newest in-house spat</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/08/within_the_gop_ranks_a_springer_style_smackdown_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/08/within_the_gop_ranks_a_springer_style_smackdown_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karl Rove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13195428</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The latest flare-up between Karl Rove and pundit Brent Bozell highlights a growing rift within the party]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img align="left" style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" /></a> For many years, those of us on the left have joked that all it takes is two Democratic members of Congress having trouble deciding what to eat for lunch to produce a "Dems in Disarray!" headline. Overstated though it often is, there's an underlying truth there, which is that liberals have frequently been undone by a lack of ability to herd themselves cohesively toward a desired end. And I'm sure that conservatives get no end of satisfaction from watching their opponents bicker amongst themselves.</p><p>So it's hard to resist a little schadenfreude when the shoe is on the other foot. As you may have heard, Karl Rove has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/politics/new-rove-effort-has-gop-aflame.html">started</a> a new organization whose goal is basically to stop future Todd Akins from winning Republican primaries. It's not meant to move the GOP to the center or anything, just to push aside the crazies, a couple of whom (Steve King in Iowa, Paul Broun in Georgia) are already preparing 2014 Senate runs. But that doesn't sit well with some people, which led to this hilarious conflict over what somebody who works for Rove tweeted about Brent Bozell, head of the Media Research Center. The Daily Caller <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/07/letter-demands-firing-of-crossroads-aide-calls-bozell-critically-important-figure-in-american-history/#ixzz2KDuQOl2j">reports</a>:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/08/within_the_gop_ranks_a_springer_style_smackdown_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/08/within_the_gop_ranks_a_springer_style_smackdown_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The moderate&#8217;s GOP survival guide</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/08/the_moderates_gop_survival_guide_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/08/the_moderates_gop_survival_guide_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christine O'Donnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13194987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Republicans want to take their party back from "The Crazy." Here's how they should do it]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img align="left" style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" /></a> Karl Rove and big Republican donors are trying to rescue the GOP from more Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell-type embarrassments by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/top-gop-donors-seek-greater-say-in-senate-races.html?page">funding a new group dedicated to stopping terrible candidates from winning Republican nominations</a>. The impulse is a healthy one, but it’s going to take a lot more than some attack ads to stop extremist candidates.</p><p>After all, most of the ugly Republican candidates from the last two cycles were relatively underfunded in their primaries; a little more money thrown into the pot against them is unlikely to make a difference, and it might, as <em>Salon</em>columnist Steve Kornacki <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/04/could_roves_new_effort_backfire/">has argued</a>, even backfire if it winds up drawing Tea Party activists into a fight they might otherwise have ignored. At best, it will help on the margins.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/08/the_moderates_gop_survival_guide_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/08/the_moderates_gop_survival_guide_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Being a pregnant waitress can get you fired</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/being_a_pregnant_waitress_can_get_you_fired_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/being_a_pregnant_waitress_can_get_you_fired_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pregnancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13193604</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Women at the bottom half of the workforce face point-blank discrimination when they're expecting]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img align="left" style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" /></a> Having a family shouldn’t cost you your job. It does, again and again—especially if you’re female. Which is one of the reasons women’s pay still isn’t equal.</p><p>I’ll be writing about this in the months to come, but for today, here’s one way having a family can cost you your job: women still get fired for being pregnant. Although it’s been illegal since the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, women are still refused a job or let go if they’re pregnant. You’d be shocked, EEOC and employment law folks tell me, at how often employers say so point-blank: Come back after you have the baby. The guys don’t want to look at a pregnant waitress. Housekeeping is hard work; your pregnancy is a potential liability. Our customers are uncomfortable with a pregnant driver.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/being_a_pregnant_waitress_can_get_you_fired_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/being_a_pregnant_waitress_can_get_you_fired_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the NRA&#8217;s message backfiring?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/is_the_nras_message_backfiring_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/is_the_nras_message_backfiring_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wayne LaPierre]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13192726</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new national survey reveals that the organization is less popular with Americans than it's ever been]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> Last month, I noted the extent to which the National Rifle Association was digging a hole for itself by hewing to the most extreme rhetoric in its arsenal. Rather than quietly agree to sensible reforms — like an assault weapons ban and universal background checks — the NRA has taken a maximalist position on gun control, pushing the view that safety requires a gun in every home and a holster on every belt.</p><p>True to form, this approach has backfired in the court of public opinion, as ordinary Americans — who otherwise support the Second Amendment — recoil from the extreme rhetoric of the NRA and its supporters. To wit, the latest <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/02/voters-consider-nra-endorsement-a-negative.html">national survey</a> from Public Policy Polling shows that the organization has lost cachet with a good number of Americans. Thirty-nine percent say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate with the NRA’s endorsement, compared to 26 percent who say they would be more likely. Among independents, 41 percent consider the NRA’s endorsement a negative, while 27 percent say it’s a plus.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/is_the_nras_message_backfiring_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/is_the_nras_message_backfiring_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Tea Party alone didn&#8217;t cripple the GOP</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/04/the_tea_party_alone_didnt_cripple_the_gop_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/04/the_tea_party_alone_didnt_cripple_the_gop_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Mourdock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Todd Akin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13190349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Establishment Republicans can't keep blaming their party's troubles on its extremist fringe]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> When Republicans began 2012, the Senate was within in their grasp—Democrats were defending a huge number of seats, and several incumbents, like Claire McCaskill of Missouri, were deeply unpopular. They finished it, however, with a smaller minority than anyone could have predicted. Obviously, this was a huge defeat for the GOP, and blame for it has fallen on two particular candidates—Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Todd Akin in Missouri—who represent the failures and excesses of Tea Party conservatism.</p><p>In an effort to avoid a repeat of this in 2014, establishment Republicans have begun an effort to recruit more pliable candidates—ones who won’t sink GOP odds with ill-considered words on rape and women’s health. According to The New York Times, the “Conservative Victory Project” is “intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/04/the_tea_party_alone_didnt_cripple_the_gop_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/04/the_tea_party_alone_didnt_cripple_the_gop_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will Obama break the filibuster?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/03/tk_5_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/03/tk_5_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13188694</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The D.C. Court of Appeals decision knocking out recess appointments may give him no other choice]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> Did a hack conservative judge just lay the groundwork for the end of the filibuster? It’s very possible. At least, if the Supreme Court goes along — and if Democrats, as they should, fight back. The road begins not with last week’s D.C. Circuit Court decision, which, if upheld, would knock out virtually all recess appointments, but with the Senate Republican plan that Brookings scholar Tom Mann has called “<a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92167/cordray-warren-cfpb-obama-republicans-nomination">a modern form of nullification</a>.” That was a scheme to prevent some government agencies — the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), and others — from functioning by blockading any presidential appointments, using the filibuster to require 60 votes and then keeping the Republican Senate conference united against any nominee. In the case of the NLRB, blocking appointments would mean there was no quorum to do (any) business; leaving the CFPB leaderless would stop the agency from carrying out many of its responsibilities. In both cases, the effect was not only to undermine a Democratic president and Senate, but to bring Republicans something they might not have been able to achieve even if they controlled the White House and Congress: <em>de facto</em> repeal of legislation establishing government regulatory agencies.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/03/tk_5_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/03/tk_5_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>John McCain&#8217;s sad, bitter twilight</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/02/the_bitter_twilight_of_john_mccain_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/02/the_bitter_twilight_of_john_mccain_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John McCain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chuck Hagel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of Defense]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13188819</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The senator's contempt for Chuck Hagel in Thursday's confirmation hearing was all about the guy who nominated him]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> "That one,” John McCain famously snarled in a presidential debate four years ago, referring to his opponent, who was a quarter of a century younger than McCain and who had been in the Senate 3 years to McCain’s 20. It’s difficult to imagine a better revelation of the McCain psyche than that moment, but if there is one, then it came yesterday at the meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee, convened to consider the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. The McCain fury is something to behold, almost irresistible for how unvarnished it is in all its forms. In the instance of the 2008 debate, McCain’s dumbfounded antipathy had to do with facing an opponent he so clearly considered unworthy. In the instance of the hearing yesterday, McCain’s bitter blast was at somebody who once was among his closest friends, a former Vietnam warrior and fellow Republican of a similarly independent ilk who supported McCain’s first run for the presidency in 2000 against George W. Bush but then appeared to abandon the Arizona senator eight years later.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/02/the_bitter_twilight_of_john_mccain_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/02/the_bitter_twilight_of_john_mccain_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>103</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s not a democracy if we don&#8217;t have the right to vote</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/its_time_to_make_voting_constitutional_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/its_time_to_make_voting_constitutional_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voter ID Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Rights Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13185899</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Most Americans already believe that the vote is sacrosanct. The least we can do is enshrine it in our laws]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> Early last year, when Attorney General Eric Holder took a strong stand against voter-identification laws, he emphasized how much they violate core American ideals. “What we are talking here is a constitutional right,” he said. “This is not a privilege. The right to vote is something that is fundamental to who we are as Americans. We have people who have given their lives—people have sacrificed a great deal in order for people to have the right to vote. It’s what distinguishes the United States from most other countries.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/its_time_to_make_voting_constitutional_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/its_time_to_make_voting_constitutional_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will &#8220;alt-labor&#8221; replace unions?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/29/will_alt_labor_replace_unions_labor/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/29/will_alt_labor_replace_unions_labor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alt-Labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Union]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13185057</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As union membership steadily declines, new non-union workers' groups are filling the labor movement's biggest void]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> On a warm evening in July, the Chrysler Center Capital Grille in Midtown Manhattan had more than customers to contend with. Inside, diners feasted on a $35 prix fixe dinner as part of the city’s Restaurant Week promotion. Outside, protesters handed out mock “menus”: “First course: Wage Theft. Second course: Racial discrimination.” Some passersby rolled their eyes; others pumped their fists. Dishwasher Ignacio Villegas yelled: “No more exploitation of workers!” His fellow demonstrators—a few co-workers and a couple of dozen staffers and activists from the Restaurant Opportunities Center (ROC)—picked up the chant, Occupy-style.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/29/will_alt_labor_replace_unions_labor/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/29/will_alt_labor_replace_unions_labor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Voters to the GOP: It&#8217;s not you, it&#8217;s your ideas</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/voters_to_the_gop_its_not_you_its_your_ideas/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/voters_to_the_gop_its_not_you_its_your_ideas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reince Priebus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marco Rubio]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13184053</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Republicans continue to believe that their problem in 2012 was their messaging. It wasn't]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> Over the weekend, conservative activists and politicians got together under the banner of the National Review to discuss the future. How can Republicans recover from 2012 and move the United States away from the liberalism of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party? While some political observers have called for ideological reform—a reorientation of the GOP’s priorities—Republicans themselves are less interested in taking this path. According to GOP insiders, <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1473A58C-9AED-4D12-AB0D-34758847FAFD">notes Politico</a> in a story on the summit, 2012 had little to do with substance and <em>everything</em> to do with message. If Republicans can change the package—and find someone more engaging than Mitt Romney—they can win:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/voters_to_the_gop_its_not_you_its_your_ideas/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/voters_to_the_gop_its_not_you_its_your_ideas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sam Brownback&#8217;s Kansas is a resort for &#8220;makers&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/27/sam_brownbacks_kansas_is_a_resort_for_makers_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/27/sam_brownbacks_kansas_is_a_resort_for_makers_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governor Sam Brownback]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kansas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ayn Rand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13182024</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The governor has transformed the state into a laboratory for ultraconservative policies]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Much like Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, Governor Sam Brownback is busy turning Kansas into a right-wing paradise, with low wages, few public services, and reactionary social policy. Since 2010, when conservative Republicans—including Brownback—took full control of the state, Kansas has passed <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/12/us-abortion-kansas-idUSTRE73B7XL20110412">strict new anti-abortion laws</a> as well as large cuts to <a href="http://kansasreporter.org/72069.aspx">education and mental health</a>care services. And last year, Brownback signed a bill that cuts state income taxes by <a href="http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/brownback-signs-big-tax-cut-in-kansas/">roughly $3.7 billion</a> over five years, and collapses the state’s current three-bracket tax system into two brackets: 4.9 percent and 3 percent.</p><p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/07/Prospect-Logo.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> That tax cut took effect this month, and as the <em>New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/us/politics/gov-sam-brownback-seeks-to-end-kansas-income-tax.html?smid=tw-share&amp;_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all&amp;">reports</a>, it’s the largest reduction in Kansas history. It’s also only the beginning; this week, Kansas Republicans introduced a bill that would pare taxes further, and eventually eliminate the state’s individual income tax.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/27/sam_brownbacks_kansas_is_a_resort_for_makers_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/27/sam_brownbacks_kansas_is_a_resort_for_makers_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>52</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What killed filibuster reform?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/26/what_killed_filibuster_reform_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/26/what_killed_filibuster_reform_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filibuster reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Filibuster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patrick Leahy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ezra Klein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13182761</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Senators have a disincentive for getting rid of the anti-majoritarian rule: It gives them more power]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator McConnell <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/reid-mcconnell-reach-senate-filibuster-deal-86674.html">reached an agreement</a> yesterday that will be called "filibuster reform" by some reports. But as <em>The Washington Post</em>'s Ezra Klein <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/harry-reid-explains-why-he-killed-filibuster-reform/">summarizes it</a>, "The deal is this: The filibuster will not be reformed." There were some <a href="http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/24/16680388-reid-mcconnell-strike-a-deal-on-senate-reform">minor changes</a> in the deal that will streamline the confirmation process for nominees to federal district courts (although not appeals courts), but overall the deal is a fizzle for supporters of filibuster reform.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/26/what_killed_filibuster_reform_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/26/what_killed_filibuster_reform_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Virginia Republicans move forward with mass disenfranchisement</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/virginia_republicans_move_forward_with_mass_disenfranchisement/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/virginia_republicans_move_forward_with_mass_disenfranchisement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electoral Votes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charles W. Carrico]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13180126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Senate subcommittee has recommended a bill to rig the state's electoral vote allocation]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> This morning, I <a href="http://prospect.org/article/republicans-are-seriously-considering-plan-rig-electoral-system">wrote</a> on an emerging Republican plan—in swing states won by President Obama—to rig presidential elections by awarding electoral votes to the winner of the most congressional districts. Because Democratic voters tend to cluster in highly-populated urban areas, and Republican voters tend to reside in more sparsely populated regions, this makes <em>land</em> the key variable in elections—to win the majority of a state’s electoral votes, your voters will have to occupy the most geographic space.</p><p>In addition to disenfranchising voters in dense areas, this would end the principle of “one person, one vote.” If Ohio operated under this scheme, for example, Obama would have received just 22 percent of the electoral votes, despite winning 52 percent of the popular vote in the state.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/virginia_republicans_move_forward_with_mass_disenfranchisement/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/virginia_republicans_move_forward_with_mass_disenfranchisement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>47</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mississippi&#8217;s last abortion provider</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/mississippis_last_abortion_provider/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/mississippis_last_abortion_provider/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mississippi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The South]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martin Luther King]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KKK]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13179567</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Meet Willie Parker, the public face of the effort to save the state's only abortion clinic]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> Twelve years ago, Dr. Willie Parker was at home listening to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I’ve been to the mountaintop” sermon. Parker had heard the words many times before. But this time, he found himself focusing on King’s interpretation of the Bible story of the “good Samaritan,” who stopped to help a man who had been left for dead by robbers. Though others had passed the man by, the Samaritan stopped, King explained, because he didn’t think about the harm that might befall him if he did. Instead, he asked what might happen to the dying man if he did not.</p><p>Parker, an ob-gyn who had been practicing for 12 years at the time, suddenly felt that King’s words held meaning for his own work. Having grown up in a religious family that was active in the Baptist church (Parker was “born again” and preaching the gospel at 15), he had been brought up to believe that abortion was wrong. Up to that point, he had never provided one. He’d refer women to other providers, but was too conflicted about the moral significance for him to perform the procedure himself. But listening to King, he decided he would focus on the women who needed his help rather than on his own fears.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/mississippis_last_abortion_provider/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/mississippis_last_abortion_provider/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Juno&#8221; isn&#8217;t the average abortion</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/22/juno_isnt_the_average_abortion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/22/juno_isnt_the_average_abortion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Juno]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roe v. Wade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Friday Night Lights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenthood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13178464</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Forty years after Roe v. Wade, why do we still think of white middle-class women as the typical abortion patients?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> In the 40 years since <em>Roe v. Wade</em>, quite a bit has changed about the abortion debate. Evangelicals have taken the helm of the anti-choice movement, once dominated by Catholics. The movement has shifted strategies repeatedly—from stoking moral outrage and blocking abortion clinics to feigning concern for women’s health and, most recently, passing innocuous-sounding building regulations aimed at eliminating access to abortion. For its part, the pro-choice movement has mellowed since the days <a href="http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/a/redstockings.htm">radical feminists crash</a><a href="http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/a/redstockings.htm">ed</a><a href="http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/a/redstockings.htm"> town halls</a>into a professionalized juggernaut of lobbyists and lawyers with a mighty service arm known as Planned Parenthood.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/22/juno_isnt_the_average_abortion/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/22/juno_isnt_the_average_abortion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Afghanistan worse than Vietnam?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/20/is_afghanistan_worse_than_vietnam/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/20/is_afghanistan_worse_than_vietnam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vietnam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World War II]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13176830</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With U.S. troops scheduled to withdraw in 2014, a look at some key statistics from America's longest running war]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> In October 2001, George W. Bush told the country he was sending the American military to Afghanistan in order to "bring justice to our enemies." It's safe to say support for the war would not have been as nearly unanimous as it was had he said, "Oh, and by the way, our troops are going to be fighting there for the next 13 years." But if all goes according to plan and Barack Obama follows up on his pledge to bring them home by the end of 2014, that's how long the Afghanistan war will have lasted.</p><p>We thought it would be useful to take a brief look at some of the basic facts of our involvement there. Last spring, Afghanistan passed Vietnam (measured by the time between the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 and the departure of the last Americans from Saigon in 1975) to become America's longest war.</p><p><img src="https://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/duration_of_major_wars.jpg" alt="" width="634" height="473" /></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/20/is_afghanistan_worse_than_vietnam/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/20/is_afghanistan_worse_than_vietnam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>45</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>