Louisiana Just Banned Legal Tender

Again, this makes no sense:

Cold hard cash. It’s good everywhere you go, right? You can use it to pay for anything.

But that’s not the case here in Louisiana now. It’s a law that was passed during this year’s busy legislative session.

House bill 195 basically says those who buy and sell second hand goods cannot use cash to make those transactions, and it flew so far under the radar most businesses don’t even know about it.

“We’re gonna lose a lot of business,” says Danny Guidry, who owns the Pioneer Trading Post in Lafayette. He deals in buying and selling unique second hand items.

“We don’t want this cash transaction to be taken away from us. It’s an everyday transaction,” Guidry explains.

Guidry says, “I think everyone in this business once they find out about it. They’re will definitely be a lot of uproar.”

The law states those who buy or sell second hand goods are prohibited from using cash. State representative Rickey Hardy co-authored the bill.

I’m not sure how this is legal, given that federal law states that US currency is considered legal tender for all transactions. Private business don’t have to accept cash, but I’m not sure how a state can ban private business from accepting it.

Lawyers? Am I wrong about this?

Oh, and this was done in the name of crime prevention by a Democrat. Whatever the intent, I am not sure how this is legal, and has the side effect of making everyone more beholden to banks and the credit card industry. Idiocy.

An Odd Omission

I’m doing some telephone canvassing (not enough) for the No On Two campaign in Ohio and I’m finding out something that is extraordinary to me.

None of the people I’m talking to know that many, many charter schools in Ohio are run by for-profit operators. They don’t know this because I live in a low-income rural area, where we still have traditional public schools, where the schools are run by elected (not appointed) boards and are “operated” by public employees who live, pay taxes and spend their money here. “School reform” in terms of privatization hasn’t reached us yet. Don’t come, corporate reformers. This is not an invitation or a plea for help. It’s simply an observation. We’ll manage.

This is from 2009:

By Ohio law, charter schools are nonprofits. But about half the charter schools are managed by for-profit companies which pay the bills and pocket any profits. For-profit charter school managers took in $291 million in state funds last year, according to an Ohio Education Association study. The biggest charter manager in Ohio, [David Brennan’s] White Hat Management Co. of Akron, received $84 million for its Ohio schools, which include its Life Skills Centers and Riverside Academy in the Cincinnati region.

This to me seems like an outrageous omission by school reform proponents, and of course, there are plenty of liberal school reform proponents.
Should taxpayers really not know that they’re transferring public funds to private for-profit operators? I don’t remember deciding that “public” schools should be for-profit. I remember a lot of touchy-feely talk about neighborhood schools, and parental control, and “freedom” from those lazy, thuggish greedy teachers and their incessant demands for a seat at the table when their salary is determined. When did we decide schools were an “industry”?

When we talk about charter schools, and teachers unions, isn’t it only fair to inform taxpayers that there are non-profit charter schools and for-profit charter schools, and Ohio conservatives have gone for-profit charter schools in a big way? About half for-profit operators, in 2009, in Ohio. 80% for-profit operators, today, in Michigan. Isn’t it only fair to inform taxpayers that with the teachers unions out of the way, upon passage of Issue 2 in Ohio, we’re deregulating public schools even further than they already are in Ohio?

This is Diane Ravitch, who is, of course, the former charter school and deregulation advocate who is (now) appalled at what’s happened, and screaming “STOP!”:

There is a clash of ideas occurring in education right now between those who believe that public education is not only a fundamental right but a vital public service, akin to the public provision of police, fire protection, parks, and public libraries, and those who believe that the private sector is always superior to the public sector. Waiting for “Superman” is a powerful weapon on behalf of those championing the “free market” and privatization. It raises important questions, but all of the answers it offers require a transfer of public funds to the private sector. The stock market crash of 2008 should suffice to remind us that the managers of the private sector do not have a monopoly on success.

Well, yeah. I think that’s an understatement, but agreed. But let’s talk about the money. Does a school reformer/union buster want to tell my why I want my tax dollars flowing out of my district and into shareholder pockets? What happens to the “savings” when we take from teachers and other public school employees? Because if my Fabulous Projected Savings are slated to go to outfits like this, I think we need to talk about that. With teachers unions out of the way, who, pray tell, is going to lobby for public education? Where’s my organized, effective defense from the for-profit operators? Are we really going to kid ourselves and say that this “fundamental right and vital public service” argument is going to carry the day in my state legislature when up against for-profit operators and their lobbying dollars, once teachers unions are gone?

between those who believe that public education is not only a fundamental right but a vital public service

Please. We know better. We won’t stand a chance.

Senate Poised to Kill Jobs Bill

And of course the usual suspects in the Democratic party are going to give the GOP cover:

Obama has been touring the country, aiming to put pressure on the GOP to act. But Senate Democrats have indicated they are feeling some heat. Last week, Democratic leaders revised Obama’s bill, scrapping his proposed offsets. Instead of raising taxes on families making more than $250,000 annually, Senate Democrats lifted that figure to $1 million.

Despite the changes, the legislation still does not enjoy the support of all 53 senators who caucus with the Democrats. A handful of Democrats are undecided or leaning no on the bill.

Democrats who will vote no or are leaning no include Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.), who all hail from red states and are up for reelection next year.

Republican and Democratic analysts say it will be politically difficult for Obama to blame the GOP for blocking the bill if more than a few conservative Democrats break ranks.

I called Manchin’s office, and asked him to support the bill, also while noting to the poor intern who had to listen to me that I know that my call is futile, since all Manchin has done since he got to DC was screw this administration at every opportunity. I did, however, take the time to point out to him that while Manchin thinks he needs to fuck Obama over at every opportunity to be re-elected in 2012 in a state that hates Obama, he actually doesn’t. Voting for the jobs bill will help him politically:

In an interview with me this morning, Greenberg made a strong case that moderate Senate Democrats in red states would be foolish and shortsighted if they vote against the American Jobs Act today, as some of them appear to be prepared to do. The White House and Dems have been railing against Republicans for opposing the jobs bill, but if a few Senate Dems defect, and a simple majority of the Senate doesn’t support it, that will dilute the Dem message that Republicans are the key obstacle to progress on the economy.

But Greenberg’s case for voting for the bill went significantly beyond this concern about overall party messaging. He argued that moderate Democrats who vote against it are actually imperiling their own reelection chances.

“They reduce their risks for reelection by showing support for a jobs bill that’s going to be increasingly popular as voters learn more about it,” Greenberg said. “They have to be for something on the economy, and this the kind of proposal they should support. If I were advising them, I’d say you want to be backing a jobs bill with middle class tax cuts paid for by tax hikes on millionaires. Moderate voters in these states very much want to raise taxes on the wealthy to meet our obligations.”

Crucially, Greenberg pointed out that if moderate Dems are hoping to show distance from the President and his low approval numbers by voting against the jobs bill, they run another risk: Dem disunity on the economy could backfire on them.

“Voting No would increase their risk of losing,” Greenberg said bluntly. “Democrats would look divided on their central agenda. In the end you all go down with the ship here. Why would you send Democrats back to the Senate if they are divided on the most important issue facing people? Here you can show unity and purpose, which Democrats have not had an opportunity to do during budget negotiations.”

Greenberg dismissed concerns about Obama’s overall numbers. “It’s a long time until the election, and the presient’s standing can go up,” he said. “If the Democrats are divided and have a weak vote on the jobs bill, then moderates will only hurt themselves.”

It isn’t just the poor who the Republicans have convinced to vote against their interest- it’s the blue dogs in Congress. Every time the President on the liberal wing of the house provides them with an opportunity to help themselves, they shit the bed and vote with the GOP to protect the rich and well off and do nothing for those who actually need help. So I fully expect the jobs bill to fail, and even though it hurts him, I fully expect Manchin to vote against and then spew a stream of bullshit about the deficit. They just can’t help themselves. They have so fully bought into the GOP spin they don’t even know why they are Democrats anymore.

Good job

I am cautiously optimistic:

Earlier this year, Ohio Gov. John Kasich® signed a sweeping bill intended to make it harder to vote in his states’ elections. Kasich’s anti-voter law drastically cuts back on early voting and erects new barriers for absentee and even for election day voters. Today, however, opponents of Kasich’s war on voting will submit over 300,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office — well over the 231,000 signatures necessary to suspend the law until it can be challenged in a referendum in November of 2012. If enough of the signatures are deemed valid, the practical effect of this petition will be that Kasich’s law will not be in effect during the 2012 presidential elections when Republicans hoped the law would weaken President Obama’s efforts to turn out early voters who support his reelection.

Note the caveat: if enough of the signatures are deemed valid. The general rule is one would want to submit twice as many signatures as required, and we didn’t make that number. 318,000 is better than I expected, however, because, in my opinion, conservatives and media have succeeded beyond my worst nightmares in convincing people that the fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed right to vote is exactly the same as cashing a check, using an ATM, or purchasing a bus, train or airline ticket. I’m sure I missed one or two comparisons there, although I believe I’ve heard every one. Like everything else under the sun, the franchise is now akin to a commercial transaction.

That’s remarkable, considering the absolutely epic struggles we’ve had in this country to extend voting rights to minorities and women, up to and including amending the Constitution, but, working in concert, conservatives and media managed to pull that redefinition off.

Votes for women were first seriously proposed in the United States in July, 1848, at the Seneca Falls Woman’s Rights Convention organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. One woman who attended that convention was Charlotte Woodward. She was nineteen at the time. In 1920, when women finally won the vote throughout the nation, Charlotte Woodward was the only participant in the 1848 Convention who was still alive to be able to vote, though she was apparently too ill to actually cast a ballot.

That’s a lot like the epic struggle to cash a check, isn’t it? Sure it is.

Supporters of President Obama in Ohio, a key battleground state, have scored what is seen as a significant victory for maximizing Democratic voter turnout ahead of the 2012 presidential election. Obama campaign volunteers and a coalition of Democratic-aligned advocacy organizations gathered more than 318,000 signatures to effectively block new Republican-sponsored voting restrictions from taking effect through the next year, the groups announced today. “It’s a victory for organizing,” said Brian Rothenberg, who led the fight against the new rules.

It is a victory for organizing, and it’s a (preliminary) victory for my local OFA organizer, who is brand new at this, very young, and local: she grew up in one of the most conservative counties in Ohio. She had to call me four times to track me down to find a place our paths might cross where I could give her my (one) petition.

Give-a-Shitter Status: Broken

This graph shows the difference between Democratic and Republican enthusiasm. There are a number of ways to read this graph. Either we’re back in Nader for President territory going into the 2012 election, or Democrats are more disappointed with Obama than Republicans were with Bush right after Katrina.

I’m sure after President Romney and his Republican Congress shutter Planned Parenthood, appoint enough Supremes to overturn Roe v Wade, privatize the Department of Education, turn Medicare into Vouchercare, and outsource the Treasury Department to Goldman-Sachs, Democratic enthusiasm will return.

Move over, big dog

What the fuck? And that’s not the first time I’ve asked this about him over the past few years.

Former President Bill Clinton tells Newsmax that Washington should not raise taxes until the slumping economy is turned around — and says President Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the wealthy won’t solve the debt problem.

Maybe it’s time for him to step away from things for a while.

Update. Newsmax misrepresented what Clinton said…but my point here is less “why did he say that” than “why is he giving interviews to Newsmax”.

Friends. Everybody Needs Them

Honestly, is there anything more useless than “moderate” Dems:

President Obama’s deficit-reduction plan—complete with tax increases on the wealthiest Americans—won high marks from his liberal base encouraged to see Obama back in fighting mode, but the plan is set to hit a brick wall in Congress—even in the Democratically controlled Senate and the bipartisan super committee.

Moderate Senate Democrats are signaling strong resistance to tax increases in the President’s deficit-reduction plan, and the early disapproval within his own party will no doubt give Republicans on the deficit super committee plenty of cover to block any and all revenue-raising aspects of Obama’s plan.

They’ll bellyache and wail and moan about the deficit, but any balanced attempt to deal with it is strangled in the crib by the money party. When you hear austerity, what they mean is “the poor people must suffer.”

Now That the Charade is Over

This is the least surprising thing you will ever read:

House Republican leaders say they are rejecting President Barack Obama’s jobs proposals to rebuild schools and blighted neighborhoods, and help keep state and local employees on the job.

In a memo to GOP lawmakers that was also issued publicly and reprinted in The New York Times, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and other Republican leaders also objected to the president’s proposal for a temporary reduction in payroll taxes, in order to boost consumer spending and increase demand.

The GOP leaders say such a temporary reduction means taxes will go up later when the reduction expires in 2013.

“While employees would see an additional temporary benefit from this proposal in 2012,” they wrote, “they would experience a larger effective tax increase 12 months later when the payroll tax reverted back to its full level.

“There may be significant unforeseen downsides to large temporary tax cuts immediately followed by large tax increases,” they added.

Boehner and his GOP colleagues also say that Mr. Obama’s move to tax the wealthy claiming itemized deductions will hurt churches and other nonprofits.

The memo says Mr. Obama’s proposal to spend $50 billion to repair and improve infrastructure and to create a $10 billion national infrastructure bank is “adding more money to the same broken system,” and is “more likely to produce waste and inefficiency than meaningful results.”

This is playing out pretty much as I expected. Up next, the manic progressive wing starts screaming about Obama not just making his job plan law by waving a magic wand, the “bully pulpit” chorus begins, all while the media completely ignore Republican intransigence and instead focuses on the “rift” inside the Democratic party while having concerned and excited chats about Obama’s sagging popularity.

No one could have predicted.

Glad To See Things are Proceeding as Expected

Mistermix already linked to this, but it really made me laugh:

President Obama anticipated Republican resistance to his jobs program, but he is now meeting increasing pushback from his own party. Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.

“I think the American people are very skeptical of big pieces of legislation,” Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said in an interview Wednesday, joining a growing chorus of Democrats who prefer an à la carte version of the bill despite White House resistance to that approach. “For that reason alone I think we should break it up.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has said he will put the bill on the legislative calendar but has declined to say when. He almost certainly will push the bill — which Mr. Obama urged Congress to pass “right now!” — until after his chamber’s recess at the end of the month; Mr. Reid has set votes on disaster aid, extensions for the Federal Aviation Administration and a short-term spending plan ahead of the jobs bill.

Republicans have focused their attack on the tax increases that would help pay for the spending components of the bill. But Democrats, as is their wont, are divided over their objections, which stem from Mr. Obama’s sinking popularity in polls, parochial concerns and the party’s chronic inability to unite around a legislative initiative, even in the face of Republican opposition.

Some are unhappy about the specific types of companies, particularly the oil industry, that would lose tax benefits. “I have said for months that I am not supporting a repeal of tax cuts for the oil industry unless there are other industries that contribute,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana.

A small but vocal group dislikes the payroll tax cuts for employees and small businesses. “I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.”

A wise man recently wrote:

In the long term, assuming a plan gets through the House (it won’t), then we get to go through our usual drama of the blue dogs from Red States (Manchin, Nelson, Landrieu, McCaskill, etc.), Lieberman just so he can continue to be the world’s preeminent douchenozzle, and some others I am sure I am missing. They’ll cockblock it on the Senate side, moaning about the program being a deficit buster while conveniently ignoring the fact that each one of them represents a welfare state sucking at the federal teat. Finally, at the 11th hour, Snowe and Collins will swoop in and offer tax cuts for the ultra-rich as a sweetener and they will support it. At this point, Bernie Sanders or whatever progressive hero of the moment will claim he can’t support anything with tax cuts for the rich in it. This will bring things to a standstill for a couple more weeks until another shitty jobs report comes out, and the Senate, acting in the fierce urgency of when-the-fuck-ever will pass some piece of shit that is too small, unfocussed, and does nothing other than provide the left with another opportunity to fracture and start flinging shit at each other. Republicans will have spent the entire time using procedural tricks to slow things down while having Frank Luntz work on the framing of the issue so that by the time it is about to hit the President’s desk, they will already have a cute name, the talking points will be distributed, and we’ll all be hearing about the new “Porkulus” or “Obamacare” or whatever the fuck childish name they come up with. In three months time, when employment hasn’t picked up because we are actually in the same god damned depression we’ve been in since 2007, Rick Perry can claim that Keynesian ideology has once again been disproven. Because everyone hates the bill, Friedman, Brooks, and other members of the Centrist jihad will claim this as proof that the bill is great.

So predictable.

I also hope this shuts up all the idiots who think OBAMA. JUST. NEEDS. TO. USE. HIS. BULLY. PULPIT! He’s running around the country, doing his damn best to whip up support, and as usual, his own party is kneecapping him before the Republicans get a chance.

The Menagerie Speaks

We haven’t heard much from them since their pack was decimated last year, but the jobs bill brought a few of the almost-extinct Blue Dogs out of their dens, baying:

“I have said for months that I am not supporting a repeal of tax cuts for the oil industry unless there are other industries that contribute,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana.

Representative Heath Shuler, another North Carolina Democrat, said Congress should tame the deficit before approving new spending for job programs. “The most important thing is to get our fiscal house in order,” said Mr. Shuler, a leader of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition. “Then we can talk about other aspects of job creation.”

And let’s not forget the high-pitched cry of the safe-seat absolutist:

“I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.”

His voice rising to a near shriek, he added: “We have the economy that tax cuts give us. And it’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it? The president is in a box.”

Faced with the real possibility of losing the Presidency and both houses of Congress, in the worst recession in most of their lifetimes, this is how the Democratic Party reacts to the least objectionable piece of legislation that’s been sent to the hill in a long time. I’m sure Future President Perry, Future Majority Leader McConnell, and Continuing Speaker Boehner are all laughing right now.

Giving Away Our Base?

Dave Weigel at Slate discusses the Great NY-9 Debacle, and finishes by pointing out a new Republican meme that really does worry me:

... Actually, this disastrous election gave the Democrats a few hints. The party tried, and failed, to wound Turner by telling voters he’d provide one more Republican vote to weaken entitlements. That worked in New York’s 26th district, where Democrat Kathy Hochul tore pages out of the Ryan plan and made her Republican opponent eat them. In the 9th, Turner and his surrogates tried to neutralize the entitlement issue by promising not to cut entitlements. In two robocalls, Koch promised voters that Turner wouldn’t cut Medicare or Social Security. The weekend before the election, Hikind said the same thing, and bolstered his case by saying Democrats were risking the programs.

“The president of the United States is now a member of the Tea Party!” said Hikind. “He said, in his own words, that there won’t be Medicare and Social Security for my children and your children and my grandchildren unless we address Medicare!”

That’s not really a wedge issue – it’s the slow death of a wedge issue. It’s the start of a problem for Democrats, who have gone from attacking the Ryan plans for entitlement reform to vouching support for some undefined “everything on the table” entitlement reform. There might not be any way for Democrats to dodge this, and there’s no sign that they want to. And that leaves all of them in the position of Democrats in New York’s 9th. Their traditional base, weary of the recession, not sure what Democrats have to offer any more, are ready to be wedged.

“This message will resound for a full year,” said Turner in his victory speech. “It will resound into 2012.”

[Emphasis mine.] I know: reasonable people, sensible compromise, demographic calculation, courting the independent vote... but people are scared. The economy is, at best, trembling on the brink of another recession; for a lot of people the last one never ended, and doesn’t look to be ending any time soon. The Repubs have a lock on the “Social Security ‘entitlements’ can’t be relied upon / are just another way for the government to steal your money”. I’d feel a lot happier about our Democratic chances in 2012 if our leadership (elected and otherwise) stuck to “We built Social Security, we’ve worked to contribute to Social Security, and we’re not going to gut Social Security because a few timid souls and grifters see a temporary respite in parroting the opposition’s lies & half-truths.”

My Take on NY-9

Special elections are nothing but risk and pain for the incumbent party. The office holder usually resigned for some ugly reason that splatters onto the incumbent party’s candidate, the incumbent party is often a sclerotic and shortsighted enough to nominate a weak machine favorite who hasn’t ever participated in a contested election, tons of money is spent stupidly in a short period of time, and the national media makes the election into a referendum on some national issue that may have no bearing on the district’s politics. The campaign calendar is compressed, so a candidate who’s slow getting on his feet is doomed. In short, they’re a shitstorm that should be avoided whenever possible.

The media loves a resignation, and DC party leaders just want the noise to go away so they’ll short-sightedly push for resignation, but unless the guy’s been indicted, I don’t see the point. Are Democrats better off without Anthony Weiner in that seat? I doubt we’ll think so tomorrow morning.

The next time some fool sends a picture of his penis somewhere and you think that resignation is the best alternative, I hope you’ll remember the disaster in NY-9, the fact that Larry Craig didn’t resign, David Vitter’s easy re-election, and Charlie Rangel’s apparently successful quest to die in office.

A Traitor Speaks

A former Republican staffer on the House and Senate budget committees explains how the modern Republican party co-opted low-information white voters who should want to vote for Democrats:

How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? – can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative “Obamacare” won out. Contrast that with the Republicans’ Patriot Act. You’re a patriot, aren’t you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn’t the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?

You know that Social Security and Medicare are in jeopardy when even Democrats refer to them as entitlements. “Entitlement” has a negative sound in colloquial English: somebody who is “entitled” selfishly claims something he doesn’t really deserve. Why not call them “earned benefits,” which is what they are because we all contribute payroll taxes to fund them? That would never occur to the Democrats. Republicans don’t make that mistake; they are relentlessly on message: it is never the “estate tax,” it is the “death tax.” Heaven forbid that the Walton family should give up one penny of its $86-billion fortune. All of that lucre is necessary to ensure that unions be kept out of Wal-Mart, that women employees not be promoted and that politicians be kept on a short leash.

It was not always thus. It would have been hard to find an uneducated farmer during the depression of the 1890s who did not have a very accurate idea about exactly which economic interests were shafting him. An unemployed worker in a breadline in 1932 would have felt little gratitude to the Rockefellers or the Mellons. But that is not the case in the present economic crisis. After a riot of unbridled greed such as the world has not seen since the conquistadors’ looting expeditions and after an unprecedented broad and rapid transfer of wealth upward by Wall Street and its corporate satellites, where is the popular anger directed, at least as depicted in the media? At “Washington spending” – which has increased primarily to provide unemployment compensation, food stamps and Medicaid to those economically damaged by the previous decade’s corporate saturnalia. Or the popular rage is harmlessly diverted against pseudo-issues: death panels, birtherism, gay marriage, abortion, and so on, none of which stands to dent the corporate bottom line in the slightest.

There’s a lot more in the essay, including a perceptive analysis of Republican authoritarianism, and how de-legitimizing institutions is part of their gameplan. The whole thing is well worth a read. (via James Fallows)

Congratulations, you are the weakest link

I knew that Max Baucus was going on the new cat food commission. I fucking knew it.

It takes one Democrat to give in to whatever plan the GOP members demand. “Entitlement reform” here we come.

Blue Dogs Not Done With Their Shit Show Fail Parade

Awesome guys. Just fucking awesome:

One of the big victories by tea-party Republicans in the debt-ceiling measure signed into law Tuesday was securing a requirement that Congress vote later this year on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

The measure would need a two-thirds vote in each chamber, and then ratification by 38 states, to succeed. And most observers believe passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate is all but impossible.

Enter Sen. Mark Udall, the centrist Democrat from Colorado, who has introduced an amendment proposal and said Tuesday that Democratic leaders have chosen his legislation to be considered in the fall.

President Obama and other senior Democrats have opposed any balanced-budget amendment, but the idea is popular with many voters – particularly independents, who are growing more fiscally conservative.

Udall is up for reelection in 2014. Many of his Democratic co-sponsors – including Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) – are running this year and need support from centrists.

If Old Yeller was actually a story about putting down a rabid blue dog, it would be a heartwarming tale.

I’m beginning to think that centrist means “I can’t be bothered to know shit about what is going on, so I will just go with shit that sounds plausible and middle of the road.”

(via)