<?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 > Joan Walsh</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/joan_walsh/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 00:09:31 +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>Ted Cruz against the world</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/ted_cruz_against_the_world/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/ted_cruz_against_the_world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ted Cruz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John McCain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michelle Malkin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marco Rubio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rand Paul]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13307970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Texas senator’s escalating feud with McCain reveals his arrogance -- and the continuing crackup of the GOP]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One bonus for Republicans in the trifecta of pseudo-scandals ensnaring the Obama White House this month is that it distracted the party from its looming civil war. It’s even possible that the Senate immigration reform got as far as it did partly because wingnut radio talkers and Tea Party xenophobes were consumed by their hatred of Obama, and paying less attention to GOP immigration sellouts.</p><p>But with the easing of scandal fever on the Potomac, Republicans are back to fighting one another, and the week-long Senate clash between freshman Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. John McCain over the budget is exposing the yawning gulf within the party once again.</p><p>Now that the GOP-dominated House and Democratic-led Senate have passed very different budgets, McCain has tried to argue for the formation of a conference committee that would try to reconcile the two. That might be a thankless, impossible task nowadays, but it’s nonetheless the way Congress has always worked. Democrats agree with McCain, and so do most Republicans.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/ted_cruz_against_the_world/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/ted_cruz_against_the_world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>200</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lois Lerner, IRS disaster</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/lois_lerner_irs_disaster/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/lois_lerner_irs_disaster/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 16:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lois Lerner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fifth amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Max Baucus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Darrell Issa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House Oversight Committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elijah cummings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inspector general]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13305719</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The executive who took the Fifth has bungled this mess from start to finish. Why is she still employed?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One puzzling response to the IRS mess, common among pundits, is demanding firings, of anyone, anywhere, now, yesterday – Obama should just make heads roll! “Why weren’t more people fired?” Sen. Max Baucus asked at a Senate hearing Tuesday. But shouldn’t we all want to figure out exactly who is responsible for targeting conservatives before trying to placate the gods of outrage by offering up indiscriminate scapegoats?</p><p>Acting IRS director Stephen Miller walked the plank, even though there’s no evidence he had anything to do with the wrongful targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, and the commissioner of the agency's tax exempt and government entities division, Joseph Grant, is retiring early. I’m not defending either man; bad things happened on their watch and that’s what happens to people at the top. Yet the woman at the center of the scandal, Lois Lerner, the IRS director of exempt organizations, still has a job --  and that makes no sense.</p><p>I don’t like scapegoating, but Lerner seemed like a reasonable candidate to lose her job even before she delivered a tin-eared self-defense in front of Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee – and then pleaded the Fifth Amendment, exercising her constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination,</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/lois_lerner_irs_disaster/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/lois_lerner_irs_disaster/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>111</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inhofe and Coburn: Red state hypocrites</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/inhofe_and_coburn_red_state_hypocrites/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/inhofe_and_coburn_red_state_hypocrites/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oklahoma tornado]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sen. James Inhofe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sen. Tom Coburn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hurricane Sandy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Red States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tornadoes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13304571</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apparently, we have deserving and undeserving disasters, Oklahoma senators James Inhofe and Tom Coburn explain]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a week ago, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe suggested that President Obama might be impeached over the Benghazi non-scandal. Now, Inhofe must watch as Obama declares Inhofe's state a disaster area and promises Oklahomans “all the resources they need at their disposal.”</p><p>Inhofe, of course, believes his state deserves those resources, even though he voted down aid to Hurricane Sandy victims. On MSNBC, Chris Jansing confronted Inhofe about his calling the Sandy aid bill a “slush fund,” and the brazen right-winger insisted the two issues shouldn’t be linked.</p><p>“Let’s look at that, that was totally different,” Inhofe told Jansing. “They were getting things — for instance that was supposed to be in New Jersey, they had things in the Virgin Islands, they were fixing roads there, they were putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C.; everyone was getting in and exploiting the tragedy taking place. That won’t happen in Oklahoma.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/inhofe_and_coburn_red_state_hypocrites/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/inhofe_and_coburn_red_state_hypocrites/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>265</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beltway scandal machine breaks, knows nothing about America</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/beltway_scandal_machine_breaks_knows_nothing_about_america/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/beltway_scandal_machine_breaks_knows_nothing_about_america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 20:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AP probe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beltway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Gregpry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peggy Noonan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karl Rove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politico]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13303715</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While DC fixates on whether Obama is worse than Nixon, polls show the public likes the president more and more]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The great Charles Pierce may deride it as “Tiger Beat on the Potomac,” but sometimes I’m damn grateful we have Politico. Good reporters like Maggie Haberman and Ken Vogel aside, even Politico’s trademark triviality sometimes provides an important political service.</p><p>Case in point: Its hilarious <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/dc-turns-on-obama-91386.html#ixzz2TrQc1hRi">“D.C. turns on Obama”</a> piece last week, which marked the crest of Scandalmania and also helped explain polls that show Americans trust President Obama’s version of events when it comes to the Benghazi and IRS controversies. I expected polls to show people believe the president on these issues, but I’ll admit I was surprised to see his approval rating actually ticked up a bit despite the constant drumbeat of scandal. But it did -- and that should force the media to look in the mirror, though it probably won’t.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/beltway_scandal_machine_breaks_knows_nothing_about_america/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/beltway_scandal_machine_breaks_knows_nothing_about_america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>177</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Peggy Noonan hears a dog whistle</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/obamas_shocking_reverse_dog_whistle_politics/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/obamas_shocking_reverse_dog_whistle_politics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peggy Noonan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scandalgate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meet the press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Gregpry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Citizens United]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lee Atwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jonathan Karl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Woodward]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13302993</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How desperate is GOP? It now fantasizes that Obama’s campaign was a coded order to the IRS to target the Tea Party]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here’s the best evidence the GOP knows the IRS scandal doesn’t reach into the White House: Now they’re saying they don’t need to find evidence that President Obama directed or even knew about the investigation of Tea Party groups’ non-profit status; his actively campaigning for reelection represented a “dog whistle” to tell the agency to target his political enemies.</p><p>The dog whistle quote came via NBC's “Meet the Press” Sunday from Peggy Noonan, who can no longer be taken seriously as a writer or pundit. When host David Gregory pressed her on the lack of evidence for her claims that the IRS scandal was worse than Watergate, Noonan insisted that the president “was giving a dog whistle to people who could launch this thing." The former Reagan-Bush speechwriter vividly summed up, in her thousand points of crazy style, where the IRS “scandal” went over the last few days: Obama didn’t need to order the tax agency to harass Tea Party groups (and his critics don’t need proof that he did so): his criticizing the group during the 2012 campaign, as well as blasting the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, represented an implicit order to do so.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/obamas_shocking_reverse_dog_whistle_politics/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/obamas_shocking_reverse_dog_whistle_politics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>115</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jon Karl makes things worse</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/19/jon_karl_makes_things_worse/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/19/jon_karl_makes_things_worse/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 16:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jon Karl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ABC news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State DEpartment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13302784</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[He regrets “inaccurate” Benghazi email but says his story based on it “still entirely stands.” Really. ABC News?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CNN’s Howard Kurtz, who knows a little bit about being in the line of media fire for his own work, offered ABC News’s embattled Jon Karl the chance to defend himself on Reliable Sources Sunday. Karl, of course, is in hot water because his “scoop” revealing that the White House tampered with Benghazi talking points <a href="http://http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/who_doctored_a_white_house_email/">relied on doctored email leaked by House Republican sources</a>. That’s not my charge, by the way:<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/"> CBS’s Major Garrett reported Friday</a> that House GOP staffers peddled the doctored email to him and other reporters.</p><p>Karl didn’t appear on CNN, <a href="http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/19/abc-news-jonathan-karl-addresses-criticism-on-reporting-on-the-benghazi-talking-points-controversy/">but he gave Kurtz a statement</a> which is brazen and baffling.</p><blockquote><p>Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands.  I should have been clearer about the attribution.  We updated our story immediately.</p> <p>-Jonathan Karl, ABC News Chief White House Correspondent</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/19/jon_karl_makes_things_worse/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/19/jon_karl_makes_things_worse/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>75</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should Obama go Bulworth?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/16/should_obama_go_bulworth/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/16/should_obama_go_bulworth/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 17:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bulworth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Beatty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13300614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s no wonder a movie about the crisis of liberalism and race in the shadow of Clinton’s impeachment is appealing]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, who among us hasn’t wanted to “go Bulworth” from time to time?</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/politics/new-controversies-may-undermine-obama.html?smid=tw-share&amp;pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0">The New York Times’ Peter Baker</a> gave us a great gift Thursday morning when he described President Obama  fantasizing about “going Bulworth” in an otherwise-mundane piece about Obama’s current woes. Mired in two faux-scandals – Benghazi and the IRS – and less wounded, but still singed, by the the Department of Justice seizing phone records from the Associated Press in a national security leak probe, Obama is facing predictable criticism from enemies and well-meaning but fairly useless advice from friends about his “leadership,” and Baker rehashes it all.</p><p>But the “going Bulworth” revelation jumped out at me – <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/going-bulworth-164117.html">as it did at a lot of folks</a>, from everywhere on the political spectrum. Depending on your memory and your ideology, the 1998 movie -- starring Warren Beatty as an idealistic turned sellout Democratic senator who commits himself to telling the truth about money in politics, and lusting after Halle Berry, once he puts out a contract on his own life -- is a memorable satire of American politics.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/16/should_obama_go_bulworth/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/16/should_obama_go_bulworth/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>79</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 20:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scandal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressives]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13299671</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although Tea Party applicants got unfair IRS scrutiny, only one known group had status revoked. They’re Democrats]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Everyone agrees that the IRS shouldn’t have targeted groups with “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names for special scrutiny in awarding tax-exempt status. NBC News reports two agents have been disciplined for doing so, and the Justice Department announced a criminal probe. But so far no one has identified a single conservative group that was denied status in the controversial review, though some faced bureaucratic hurdles and had their tax-exempt status delayed.</p><p>In fact, the only known 501(c)(4) applicant to have its status denied happens to be a <em>progressive</em> group: the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. Although the group did no electoral work, and didn’t participate in independent expenditure campaign activity either, its partisan status apparently disqualified it from being categorized as working for the “common good.”</p><p>Ironically, the national organization and its earlier chapters had gotten tax-exempt status by the IRS during the Bush administration in 2006. But it appears as though the Maine group’s rejection triggered a review of the entire organization, and Emerge America and all of its chapters had their tax-exempt status revoked. Emerge reincorporated with 527 status, which requires it to report its donors. You can read the IRS letters explaining its decisions at the bottom of this post.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>71</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two scandals deflated, one persists</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/two_scandals_deflated_one_persists/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/two_scandals_deflated_one_persists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 12:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Associated Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scandal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jonathan Karl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ABC news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jake Tapper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morning Joe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13299106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ABC's Jonathan Karl fails to defend erroneous Benghazi report, and IG report suggests IRS outrage is overblown]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Obama administration started Tuesday mired in three scandals the GOP seemed able to tie “into one ‘Big Brother Obama’ storyline,” in the words of Greg Sargent, and ended it appearing to face political culpability on only one, the Department of Justice’s broad subpoenas obtaining phone records from the Associated Press. It’s not to say Benghazi or the IRS mess went away, but the GOP’s creepy plotline got a whole lot less plausible.</p><p>The Benghazi “scandal” lost velocity thanks to <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/who_doctored_a_white_house_email/">CNN’s Jake Tapper reporting</a> that an email key to the notion that the White House doctored talking points to protect the State Department didn’t at all read the way <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/">ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported it</a>. Karl quoted White House national security communications adviser Ben Rhodes’ email specifically saying the talking points should “reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department,” but the actual email obtained by Tapper didn’t mention the State Department at all. Karl ended the day with the shocking admission that while he’d reported on air that he’d “obtained” the emails in question, and wrote online that he’d “reviewed” them, in fact he’d only heard about them from the notes of a source – presumed to be a House GOP staffer.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/two_scandals_deflated_one_persists/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/two_scandals_deflated_one_persists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>141</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who doctored a White House email?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/who_doctored_a_white_house_email/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/who_doctored_a_white_house_email/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 17:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ABC news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jake Tapper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jonathan Karl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State DEpartment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[email]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13298353</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CNN appears to have undermined a scoop that damaged the White House]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was ABC News used by someone with an ax to grind against the State Department? It looks possible. A key email in its <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/">“scoop”</a> that the administration’s “talking points” on Benghazi had been changed a dozen times came from White House national security communications adviser Ben Rhodes. It seemed to confirm that the White House wanted the talking points changed to protect all agencies’ interests, “including those of the State Department,” in the words of the email allegedly sent by Rhodes.</p><p><a href="http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/">But CNN’s Jake Tapper reveals</a> that Rhodes’ email didn’t mention the State Department, and doesn’t even seem to implicitly reference it. The email as published by Karl differs significantly from the original obtained by Tapper.</p><p>According to ABC’s Jonathan Karl, Rhodes weighed in after State Department’s Victoria Nuland, who expressed concerns about the way the talking points might hurt “my building's leadership.” ABC quotes Rhodes saying:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/who_doctored_a_white_house_email/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/who_doctored_a_white_house_email/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>113</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Angelina Jolie’s choice not the only one</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/angelina_jolie%e2%80%99s_choice_not_the_only_one/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/angelina_jolie%e2%80%99s_choice_not_the_only_one/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 16:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Angelina Jolie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breast cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mastectomy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13298056</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Low-income and younger women especially need to know: Mastectomy is not only way to deal with breast cancer risk]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It takes courage for an international sex symbol (and renowned actress and humanitarian) to tell the public she had a double mastectomy. So I applaud Angelina Jolie for writing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/my-medical-choice.html?_r=4&amp;">an excruciatingly detailed New York Times Op-Ed </a>about the choice she made after she learned she carried a mutation of the BRCA1 gene, which put her at high risk for breast cancer. She watched her mother die of ovarian cancer at 56, and her anxiety over cancer risk led to her genetic screening.</p><p>I faced a similar anxiety: My mother died of breast cancer at 45; my grandmother was diagnosed at 48 and survived. Like Jolie, after I had a child, I became increasingly anxious about my own risk. There was no genetic testing 20 years ago, so I consulted a variety of doctors, including a genetic counselor. I was told I had an elevated risk of breast cancer, though it couldn’t be quantified (Jolie’s doctors estimated hers was 87 percent). At least one doctor recommended a double mastectomy. Another cautioned against it, noting that it can’t eliminate all risk of breast cancer (Jolie’s is now estimated at 5 percent). He railed at surgeons describing the breasts of women like me as “ticking time bombs” and advising unnecessary prophylactic mastectomies.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/angelina_jolie%e2%80%99s_choice_not_the_only_one/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/angelina_jolie%e2%80%99s_choice_not_the_only_one/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>41</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GOP reprises &#8217;90s scandal playbook</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/13/gop_reprises_90s_scandal_playbook/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/13/gop_reprises_90s_scandal_playbook/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 19:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John McCain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1990s]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ron Johnson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libya]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Susan Rice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Victoria Nuland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill O'Reilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State DEpartment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scandal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13297366</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With zero self-awareness, Beltway conservatives and journalists are salivating over a return to Clinton scandals]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First things first: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never said “Who cares?” about how four Americans died in Benghazi. Sen. John McCain either misspoke or flat-out lied about that on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.</p><p>“Remember when she said, ‘well who cares how this happened,’ in a rather emotional way?” McCain asked guest host Martha Raddatz. “A lot of people care.” It’s too bad Raddatz didn’t tell the senator that no, she didn’t remember that – because Clinton never said it.</p><p>Remarkably, I’ve seen no one follow up on McCain’s misstatement today either. (I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong.) Instead, reporters are breathlessly parsing each new GOP charge on Benghazi (while also decrying the very real abuse of the IRS overscrutinizing the tax-exempt status of conservative groups.)  The National Journal’s Ron Fournier tweeted “<a href="   https://twitter.com/ron_fournier/status/333976318981062656">Welcome to the 90s,”</a> with no apparent irony or self-awareness about the role of the media in ginning up that decade of phony scandals that paralyzed our last popular second-term Democratic president, Bill Clinton.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/13/gop_reprises_90s_scandal_playbook/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/13/gop_reprises_90s_scandal_playbook/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>121</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Go away, 2016 presidential obsession!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/13/go_away_2016/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/13/go_away_2016/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2016 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rand Paul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ted Cruz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marco Rubio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13296671</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The media fixate on the presidential race while sequester cuts fester and real questions about Libya go unanswered]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No matter that Sen. Rand Paul can’t even spell Hillary Clinton’s name right <a href="https://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/332857889498742784">on Twitter</a>, as he insists the Benghazi killings mean she "should never hold high office again.” No matter that the former secretary of state isn’t officially seeking high office again. Despite it all, everyone is<em> positive</em> that Paul is running for president against Clinton, and so his trip to Iowa this week is big news.</p><p>So was Chris Christie's lap band surgery; it’s <em>obvious</em> what that means. Joe Biden tells Rolling Stone he spends four to five hours a day with President Obama -- we all know <em>why</em>. The attempted rehabilitation of George W. Bush was all about the presidential ambitions of his brother Jeb. Sen. Marco Rubio’s immigration reform proposals are covered almost exclusively in terms of what they mean for his 2016 chances, not for U.S. immigration policy. And the White House schemes of freshman Sen. Ted Cruz, instead of being a laughable footnote in stories about his radicalism, are instead headline news everywhere.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/13/go_away_2016/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/13/go_away_2016/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>61</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Charles Ramsey is still a hero</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/charles_ramsey_is_still_a_hero/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/charles_ramsey_is_still_a_hero/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 22:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charles Ramsey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cleveland kidnapping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic violence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13293219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[His own domestic violence record doesn't negate what he did to free Amanda Berry. It makes it more remarkable]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In hindsight, maybe Charles Ramsey was trying to tell us something when he insisted to Anderson Cooper Tuesday night that he’s not a hero. “No, no, no. Bro, I’m a Christian, an American. I’m just like you,” he told the news anchor.</p><p>Maybe he knew the whole hero story line would come with an unhappy ending: Now we’ve learned, <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/cleveland-hero-charles-ramsey-8702415">via the Smoking Gun</a>, that Ramsey was charged with and served time for multiple domestic violence counts. He was also convicted and imprisoned on drug charges and receiving stolen property.</p><p>All of that is awful, particularly for his ex-wife and daughter. But it doesn’t change the fact that Ramsey was a hero when he helped Amanda Berry escape Monday night. It may make him even more admirable, if he had an inkling that his sudden fame might expose his troubled past.</p><p>Writing <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/cleveland%E2%80%99s_lost_girls/">my piece about Cleveland's lost girls</a>, I watched Ramsey's interview with Cooper twice just before the news about his past convictions broke. Even without that information, I found the encounter a little strange. For one thing, Ramsey insisted on saying Ariel Castro was “cool,” and not a “freak of nature.” He seemed to be reminding us that even monsters can appear decent, and even decent people can do bad things.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/charles_ramsey_is_still_a_hero/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/charles_ramsey_is_still_a_hero/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>91</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cleveland’s lost girls</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/cleveland%e2%80%99s_lost_girls/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/cleveland%e2%80%99s_lost_girls/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 21:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charles Ramsey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gina DeJesus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michelle Knight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amanda Berry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ohio Kidnapping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13293104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The forgotten kidnapping victims show our obsession with missing white women is about not just race but class]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Put yourself in her shoes,” Cleveland hero Charles Ramsey told a not-terribly-helpful 911 operator, who was trying to get more information about Amanda Berry, after Ramsey helped her escape from her 10-year imprisonment, rather than just sending police immediately.</p><p>Ramsey did what Cleveland authorities over a decade could not: He not only helped Berry get free, but he put himself in her shoes; he empathized enough to intervene in what he first assumed was a domestic violence dispute. (Breaking news from the Smoking Gun that Ramsey himself served prison time for domestic violence charges doesn't negate Ramsey's role in freeing Berry.)</p><p>We still don’t know how much police are culpable for failing to find Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight. Multiple neighbors say they called 911 to report seeing women in distress; the police deny getting their calls. Confronted with those police claims, neighbor Israel Lugo told MSNBC: “It’s a bunch of BS.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/cleveland%e2%80%99s_lost_girls/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/cleveland%e2%80%99s_lost_girls/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>43</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chris Christie&#8217;s weighty secret</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/chris_christies_weighty_secret/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/chris_christies_weighty_secret/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 13:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Christie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2016 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obesity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13291595</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ten days after telling a former White House doctor to “shut up” about his weight, the governor had lap-band surgery]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought there was something remarkable about <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/why_chris_christie_wont_be_president/">New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s furious outburst</a> at former White House doctor Connie Mariano last February, after she suggested to CNN that his evident obesity was “a time bomb,” and that she hoped he would slim down for the sake of his health.</p><p>“I’m a Republican. I like Chris Christie. I want him to run. I just want him to lose weight,” Mariano said. “I’m a physician more than I’m a Democrat or Republican. And I’m worried about this man dying in office.” The White House doctor under George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Mariano revealed that she helped Clinton lose 30 pounds, and suggested Christie could be helped, too.</p><p>“If he can overcome this disease, he deserves the White House,” the doctor later told the Newark Star-Ledger. “He’s a tough SOB. And all of us really like him because he’s refreshingly honest. He’s no BS-er. … I want him to lose weight so he can win the office.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/chris_christies_weighty_secret/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/chris_christies_weighty_secret/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>66</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the creep Mark Sanford might actually win</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/can_mark_sanford_actually_win/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/can_mark_sanford_actually_win/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Sanford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elizabeth Colbert-Busch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Carolina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adultery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PPP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13291262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Adultery, abandoning his office, mock-hijacking a reporter's car. And yet: Not being a Democrat might trump it all]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not that my opinion matters much in South Carolina’s first congressional district, but Mark Sanford strikes me as rather loopy, and somewhat creepy. Yet he may well win his race against Elizabeth Colbert-Busch on Tuesday. Local conservatives apparently despise Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama more than the Republicans who flagrantly violate so-called family values.</p><p>National Republicans nominally abandoned Sanford after it became public that he was being sued by his ex-wife Jenny for violating a no-trespassing order at her home – to watch the Super Bowl with his son, he claimed – on top of that small matter of violating his oath of office as governor when he disappeared for five days to be with his Argentine mistress (now his fiancée) back in 2009, on the taxpayer’s dime.</p><p>Sanford fell 9 points behind Colbert-Busch in a PPP poll after the trespassing revelation (more on that possibly flawed poll later), but he’s a point ahead in the latest PPP survey, and could very well win.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/can_mark_sanford_actually_win/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/can_mark_sanford_actually_win/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>93</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s real leadership challenge: Democrats</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/06/no_obama%e2%80%99s_not_a_lame_duck/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/06/no_obama%e2%80%99s_not_a_lame_duck/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sequester]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peggy Noonan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sequestration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FAA Furloughs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Head Start]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debt ceiling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plan B]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maureen Dowd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gun Control]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13290203</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Leadership isn't about getting drinks with McConnell or bad sports metaphors. The president must rally progressives]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There’s been so much trolling President Obama in the last two weeks, with columnists and pundits and politicians calling him “a lame duck” or “just lame” -- <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323628004578459280757577300.html">Peggy Noonan knows lame</a> -- or comparing his leadership unfavorably to fictional characters in movies and TV shows (not to mention LBJ), that the most important task for a reasonable political analyst has been to swat aside the silly and try to clear the air of delusion, projection and dejection.</p><p>Chasing delusion and projection is easy. Dejection, not so much, especially when some of it seems to come from the president himself.</p><p>First the easy part: Obama is a real president, Michael Douglas wasn’t. LBJ had overwhelming Democratic majorities in the House and Senate; Obama’s party lost the House, and its Senate majority is meaningless because of the outrage of current filibuster rules. LBJ also dealt with reasonable Northeastern Republicans, who gave him overwhelming majorities for civil rights legislation when the Solid South began to secede from the Democratic Party largely over race. Obama, by contrast, has mainstream Republican leaders who are terrorized by their right flank and who declared their highest priority was blocking his reelection and his agenda; they failed at the first part but are doing a good job at the second.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/06/no_obama%e2%80%99s_not_a_lame_duck/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/06/no_obama%e2%80%99s_not_a_lame_duck/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>88</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Americans to government: Hands off our civil liberties</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/americans_to_government_hands_off_our_civil_liberties/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/americans_to_government_hands_off_our_civil_liberties/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston Bombings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surveillance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surveillance cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston Explosions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polls]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13287675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a pleasant surprise, voters are more concerned about retaining basic rights in wake of the Boston bombing]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I admit I was a little bit surprised, but pleasantly: A new Time/CNN/ORC poll shows that Americans are actually more concerned about protecting civil liberties in the wake of the Boston bombing, not less. It turns out voters are smarter than many of their leaders, particularly (but not exclusively) on the Republican side of the aisle. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who vilifies his local NYCLU by comparing it to the NRA, might want to take note.</p><p><a href="http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/01/poll-americans-more-concerned-about-civil-liberties-in-wake-of-boston-bombing/#ixzz2S4kizocR">Time has the details</a>, but the top line is:</p><blockquote><p>When given a choice, 61 percent of Americans say they are more concerned about the government enacting new anti-terrorism policies that restrict civil liberties, compared to 31 percent who say they are more concerned about the government failing to enact strong new anti-terrorism policies.</p></blockquote><p>Only 32 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. government can prevent all major attacks, down from an average of 40 percent in 2011 and 41 percent in 2006. And by contrast with polls taken in the wake of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing, when only 23 percent of voters polled showed reluctance to give up civil liberties to protect terrorism, 49 percent said they were not willing to give up such rights, as opposed to 40 percent who were.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/americans_to_government_hands_off_our_civil_liberties/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/americans_to_government_hands_off_our_civil_liberties/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>My Barbara Lee mistake</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/my_barbara_lee_mistake/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/my_barbara_lee_mistake/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 20:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Lee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sequester]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13287102</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The progressive Oakland Congress member was one of only 29 House Dems who voted against the FAA sequester dodge ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’ve been so dispirited by the way Democrats caved on the FAA “fix” to the sequester bill that I got a fact wrong on <a href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/312442-4">C-SPAN’s Washington Journal Wednesday morning</a>.</p><p>Talking about how President Obama’s advisers dismissed the notion of a veto because the bill passed both the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities, I listed some progressives who voted for the bill, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Maxine Waters. I also included Rep. Barbara Lee, which was really surprising to me. Surprising, because I was wrong, and she didn’t cave.</p><p>My larger point stands: Although the White House blames the overwhelming congressional vote for its inaction, had the president made voting against the bill a priority for Democrats, the bill would likely still have passed, but not with a veto-proof majority. It only got 41 “no” votes, 29 of them Democrats. (<a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h125">Here's the final vote</a>.) Now that the FAA’s been protected, we’ll likely see other carve-outs – but none will protect Head Start kids or Meals on Wheels recipients. Those of us who thought the August 2011 debt-ceiling "compromise" that led to the sequester deal was <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/27/heres_your_sugar_coated_satan_sandwich/">"a sugar-coated Satan sandwich"</a> were right.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/my_barbara_lee_mistake/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/my_barbara_lee_mistake/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
