Skip to content

Month: February 2016

Preemptive rejection? Bucket! by @BloggersRUs

Published by Tom Sullivan on February 15, 2016

Preemptive rejection? Bucket!
by Tom Sullivan

Does anyone imagine that if a Republican president were residing in the White House, prominent Republicans would insist that he abdicate his responsibility to the next president to appoint a replacement for a Supreme Court justice? But insisting a Democrat must is what passes for a principled stand in today’s Republican Party. One Republican rule set when they hold power; another Republican rule set when Democrats do. They who used to accuse the left of relativism have come to embrace it. Proudly. As Richard Nixon did in saying, “Flexibility is the first principle of politics.”

Steve Benen points out how Republicans responded within minutes of notice of Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death by challenging the very legitimacy of the president’s authority to nominate Scalia’s replacement:

The GOP majority … has embraced a course that corrupts the process with a showdown unlike anything seen in the modern era. The high court vacancy must remain unfilled for at least 11 months, they say, regardless of the consequences, all because of the unbridled disgust Republicans have for President Obama.

Indeed, to further their obviously ridiculous case, GOP senators have even begun making up rules that didn’t exist before the weekend…

Let’s make this plain: the “no confirmations in an election year” rule simply does not exist. Period. Full stop.

Paul Krugman cautions against the tendency to blame partisanship for the coming confirmation chaos and against buying into “false symmetry” between the two parties. He cites the deep differences between Republicans and Democrats in both policy and values. Plus, “only one party has gone off the deep end.” How does he justify saying that?

One answer is, compare last week’s Democratic debate with Saturday’s Republican debate. Need I say more?

Beyond that, there are huge differences in tactics and attitudes. Democrats never tried to extort concessions by threatening to cut off U.S. borrowing and create a financial crisis; Republicans did. Democrats don’t routinely deny the legitimacy of presidents from the other party; Republicans did it to both Bill Clinton and Mr. Obama. The G.O.P.’s new Supreme Court blockade is, fundamentally, in a direct line of descent from the days when Republicans used to call Mr. Clinton “your president.”

Republicans seem to believe they represent the only real America — conservative America, Republican America. The Republican party has given itself over to the proposition that should a Democrat reside in the Executive Mansion, she/he occupies it, and America has been taken hostage. If Republicans lose, somebody cheated. (Guess who?)

Speaking of cheating, take last weekend’s preemptive calls by Republican lawmakers for the Kenyan Usurper to back off nominating a replacement for the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. This one, for example:

Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic takes a rather dim view of that suggestion, writing, “That isn’t a call to fulfill the ‘advice and consent’ function and to reject a bad nominee. It is a naked call for a strategic delay.” Not so strategic if the Democrat moving into the White House next January nominates someone further to the left than we might see from Barack Obama. Friedersdorf continues:

But the Senate does have an obligation to fulfill its “advice and consent” obligation. Says the Constitution, the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court…” A preemptive rejection of any possible Supreme Court appointment is self-evidently in conflict with that obligation. The phrase “do not let it become about whoever Obama names” makes that explicit.

A man as versed in the Constitution as Senator Cruz should be embarrassed to posit that the nation could owe a debt to Scalia, that a “debt” to a dead man should play any role in a process governed by the Constitution, or that a sitting president’s nominee should be preemptively rejected before his or her identity is known. There is no agreed upon standard of what legitimate advice and consent entails. But any standard that rejects a nomination before it is even made fails the laugh test.

And speaking of laughs, perhaps Obama is feeling loose enough that throwing down with a recalcitrant Republican Senate is on his final-year “bucket list”:

The Scalia legacy goes way beyond the legal system

Published by digby on February 15, 2016

The Scalia legacy goes way beyond the legal system


by digby

I wrote about Justice Scalia’s legacy for Salon today:


It’s ironic, to say the least, that the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, a man known for the legal doctrine of “originalism,” would immediately lead the majority leader of the Senate to declare that no nominee to replace him would be confirmed until a new president is inaugurated in a year’s time. The founders would very likely scratch their heads in wonder at Mitch McConnell’s odd statement that “the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice, therefore this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” They would likely point out that the American people did have a voice in that decision in 2012, when they voted for Barack Obama for a four year term. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says after three years the president is no longer authorized to nominate Supreme Court Justices.


Be that as it may, the reality is the Republican Senate is not going to confirm anyone President Obama sends up, and I don’t think anyone would imagine otherwise. What’s startling about McConnell’s statement is the fact that he said it so openly. It’s another example of the reckless disregard of political norms, traditions and the rule of law by the modern GOP. In the old days, they would have at least paid lip service to the idea that a president is obligated to nominate Supreme Court justices and the Senate is obligated to fulfill its advise-and-consent role. Sure, they would delay the nomination, but to just announce upfront that they have no intention of following the usual procedure is a new thing. They don’t even pretend to care about preserving the integrity of the institution.


Last night in the GOP debate, all the candidates backed up McConnell. It would seem they too believe that even the pretense of normal constitutional processes is no longer necessary. This will be good to keep in mind as they bray incessantly about President Obama’s use of executive orders as if they were acts of treason. (By the way, his use of Executive Orders is right in line with all modern presidents, including Republicans.)


But then, if there’s one Supreme Court justice who exemplifies this propensity of modern American conservatives to bend the system for partisan ends when needed, it was Justice Antonin Scalia. His legacy as a hardcore legal conservative is second to none, but it will always be over-shadowed by one decision: Bush v. Gore. The Republicans had already begun the process of destroying the integrity of Congress with its partisan witch hunts and the impeachment circus of the 1990s; but if there’s one Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for the total abandonment of any pretense of dignified non-partisan adherence to traditions for the sake of preserving the integrity of our institutions in the eyes of the public, it is that one.


Indeed, Justice Scalia may have written the single most fatuous line in Supreme Court history with his brief concurrence in that case:

“The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm [George W. Bush] and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.”
Scalia was a very smart man, and he had to know that this would be one of the main decisions for which he was remembered. His willingness to risk his reputation by writing that ridiculous rationale for a nakedly partisan outcome served as an example to conservatives everywhere: Win by any means necessary.
He did not like being reminded of it. When college audiences would ask him about the decision he would usually bellow, “Get over it,” which was the standard line the media employed in the wake of the decision in 2000. But in recent years he led the way with another modern Republican tactic, simply denying reality. In 2008 he appeared on “60 Minutes”:
“People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy but on politics,” Stahl asks.
“I say nonsense,” Scalia says.
Was it political?
“Gee, I really don’t wanna get into – I mean this is – get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn’t even close. The vote was seven to two.”
At the end of the speech, Scalia took questions from the audience. One person asked about the Bush-Gore case, where the Supreme Court had to determine the winner of the election.
“Get over it,” Scalia said of the controversy surrounding it, to laughter from the audience.“
Scalia reminded the audience it was Gore who took the election to court, and the election was going to be decided in a court anyway—either the Florida Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
It was a long time ago, people forget…It was a 7-2 decision. It wasn’t even close,” he said.
The problem is that he was not telling the truth. As Ian Millhiser at Think Progress explained:
Bush v. Gore was not a 7-2 decision — and indeed, Scalia could tell this is true by counting all four of the dissenting opinions in that case. Although it is true that the four dissenters divided on how the Florida recount should proceed — two believed there should be a statewide recount of all Florida voters while two others believed a narrower recount would be acceptable — not one of the Court’s four moderates agreed with Scalia that the winner of the 2000 presidential election should effectively be chosen by five most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Justice Scalia had a long illustrious judicial career. He was a giant among the modern conservative legal theorists on the right.  But he was also one of the fathers of the modern conservative movement’s “you can believe me or you can believe your lying eyes” school of politics. If the 2016 Republican presidential primary is any example, his political legacy is secure.

He believes everything he reads #Carsonsproblem

Published by digby on February 15, 2016

He believes everything he reads

by digby

I’ve always thought that Ben Carson’s entire political education came from right wing media. This suggests that’s probably true:

Ben Carson referenced a line he said came from Joseph Stalin, a quote that’s believed to have gained prominence as a conservative social media meme, during his closing statement at Saturday night’s Republican debate.

“Joseph Stalin said if you want to bring America down you have to undermine three things — our spiritual life, our patriotism, and our morality,” Carson said, puzzling some observers, who couldn’t quite place the remark.

And for good reason. The mythbusters at Snopes.com, in a recently updated review, state that the line, which Carson is reported to have used before, have little evidence to back up that it came from Stalin. The CNN Reality Check team rated its attribution to Stalin as “false.”

That more familiar version, which quotes Stalin as saying, “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within,” cannot be found in any of a number of voluminous online libraries, according to Snopes. The oldest account of it, in a letter to the editor of the Lawrence Journal-World, comes from 1983 — three decades after Stalin died.

“We have yet to find a presentation of this quotation that references a verifiable source for it,” the Snopes sleuths write. “Nearly all reproductions of this quotation simply offer it as an undated, unsourced statement attributed to Stalin.”

In an email, the campaign told CNN it was “not sure the actual or original source on which Dr. Carson found it.”

Remember the Egyptian pyramid grain silo theory? Yeah, this is like that.

Trump has a little of this too, but I think he reads across a wider political spectrum. But he does believe everything he reads, just like Carson.

Ok, that tears it. This country is doomed.

Published by digby on February 14, 2016

Ok, that tears it. This country is doomed.

by digby

Seriously, can people really be this uninformed? Come on …

Unsurprisingly, Jeb Bush – who got caught in one of the night’s biggest clashes while defending his family against Donald Trump’s criticisms – was among the candidates being looked up online.

But according to Google Trends data, it wasn’t so much Bush’s policy experience that people were interested in.

The top trending question asked about him in South Carolina was, “Is Jeb Bush related to George W. Bush?”

I get that a lot of people don’t care about politics and don’t care about this election. But people watching a presidential debate aren’t those people.

Sheesh …

Two different worlds

Published by digby on February 14, 2016

Two different worlds

by digby

After watching last night’s debate, President Obama’s weekly radio address seems like a good antidote:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Hi, everybody. I’m speaking to you today from Springfield, Illinois.

I spent eight years in the state senate here. It was a place where, for all our surface differences in a state as diverse as Illinois, my colleagues and I actually shared a lot in common. We fought for our principles, and voted against each other, but because we assumed the best in one another, not the worst, we found room for progress. We bridged differences to get things done.

In my travels through this state, I saw most Americans do the same. Folks know that issues are complicated, and that people with different ideas might have a point. It convinced me that if we just approached our politics the same way we approach our daily lives, with common sense, a commitment to fairness, and the belief that we’re all in this together, there’s nothing we can’t do.

That’s why I announced, right here, in Springfield that I was running for President. And my faith in the generosity and fundamental goodness of the American people is rewarded every day.

But I’ll be the first to admit that the tone of our politics hasn’t gotten better, but worse. Too many people feel like the system is rigged, and their voices don’t matter. And when good people are pushed away from participating in our public life, more powerful and extreme voices will fill the void. They’ll be the ones who gain control over decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic crisis, or roll back the rights that generations of Americans have fought to secure.

The good news is there’s also a lot we can do about this, from reducing the influence of money in our politics, to changing the way we draw congressional districts, to simply changing the way we treat each other. That’s what I came back here to talk about this week. And I hope you check out my full speech at WhiteHouse.gov.

One thing I focused on, for example, was how we can make voting easier, not harder, and modernize it for the way we live now. Here in Illinois, a new law allows citizens to register and vote at the polls on Election Day. It also expands early voting, which makes it much easier for working folks and busy parents. We’re also considering automatic voter registration for every citizen when they apply for a driver’s license. And I’m calling on more states to adopt steps like these. Because when more of us vote, the less captive our politics will be to narrow interests – and the better our democracy will be for our children.

Nine years after I first announced for this office, I still believe in a politics of hope. And for all the challenges of a changing world; for all the imperfections of our democracy; choosing a politics of hope is something that’s entirely up to each of us.

Some young people talk about the election

Published by digby on February 14, 2016

Some young people talk about the election

by digby

If that doesn’t scare you, this should:

Of course GOP turnout in New Hampshire was higher overall and between the two of them Clinton and Sanders probably beat the Republican field with young voters in nearly all white New Hampshire. But still — there are plenty of those young yahoos out there.

When it comes to explicit prejudice against blacks, non-Hispanic white millennials are not much different than whites belonging to Generation X (born 1965-1980) or Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964). White millennials (using a definition of being born after 1980) express the least prejudice on 4 out of 5 measures in the survey, but only by a matter of 1 to 3 percentage points, not a meaningful difference. On work ethic, 31 percent of millennials rate blacks as lazier than whites, compared to 32 percent of Generation X whites and 35 percent of Baby Boomers. (Question wording and methodology at the end).

It’s a big country and it’s full of white people of all ages, many of whom are not liberal.

.

About last night by @BloggersRUs

Published by Tom Sullivan on February 14, 2016

About last night
by Tom Sullivan

Where to begin? In a nice bit of irony, Republican candidates for president were on the bill of a cage match last night at Greenville, South Carolina’s “Peace Center.” It was a good warm-up for the rumble in the Senate when President Obama nominates someone to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless you were under a rock and missed it last night, Scalia died in his sleep Friday night in Texas. The announcement hit in the late afternoon, Eastern time.

Wingnuts had the skinny: Obama had Scalia whacked. (Hillary must have been at a fundraiser.)

Republicans immediately circled the wagons and by debate time insisted it would be inappropriate for the president to continue doing his job and nominate a replacement with a year still left in his presidency. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY):

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” he said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Shorter McConnell: Elections have consequences except when they have Democrats. The American people who elected Obama in 2008 and 2012 must demur to the all-new, less old-and-white, 2016 American people, signalling that Republicans in the upper chamber will hold their breath until the Senate turns blue.

A real poker player, that McConnell. Did he even watch the debate? Here’s just some of what we learned:

Ronald Reagan tore down the Berlin Wall. [Jeb! Bush]

The Constitution is not a living and breathing document. [Marco Rubio] (A friend observed that the older Talmud is still being interpreted.)

The way to hold Wall Street executives accountable for financial crimes is to eliminate the laws and reduce enforcement. [Ben Carson]

It was intense. Josh Marshall was keeping score:

I find it hard to know quite what to say about this debate. It was chaotic and disordered. Lots of candidates called each other liars. Donald Trump used variations of the actual word numerous times. Our initial count from the rough transcript has Trump saying “single biggest liar” twice, “this guy lied” twice and “why do you lie” no less than three times. Rubes said Cruz “lies” a handful of times. And that was just the start of it. I don’t think there’s ever been a presidential debate where so many of the candidates have called each other liars so many times. At some moments the trash talking and chest-puffing and general drama got so intense I thought this might be a fair approximation of West Side Story if you’d written it about two battling country clubs, the plutocrats versus the plutocrat flunkies.

Donald Trump must have decided the way to score points in an anti-establishment election was to double down on conservative blasphemy. In Greenville, South Carolina, no less, Trump declared that Planned Parenthood actually does “wonderful things having to do with women’s health.” Then he attacked Jeb’s mother and brother:

BUSH: And he has had the gall to go after my brother.

TRUMP: The World Trade Center came down during your brother’s reign, remember that.

(BOOING)

BUSH: He has had the gall to go after my mother.

Hold on. Let me finish. He has had the gall to go after my mother.

TRUMP: That’s not keeping us safe.

BUSH: Look, I won the lottery when I was born 63 years ago, looked up, and I saw my mom. My mom is the strongest woman I know.

TRUMP: She should be running.

Ohio Governor John Kasich was gobsmacked, “This is just nuts, OK? Jeez, oh, man. I’m sorry, John.”

That was moderator John Dickerson of CBS News, who at one point threatened bickering candidates that he might have to “turn this car around.”

Candidates pretty much ignored Rubio, except Cruz:

CRUZ: You know, the lines are very, very clear. Marco right now supports citizenship for 12 million people here illegally. I oppose citizenship. Marco stood on the debate stage and said that.

But I would note not only that, Marco has a long record when it comes to amnesty. In the state of Florida, as speaker of the house, he supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. In addition to that, Marco went on Univision in Spanish and said he would not rescind President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty on his first day in office.

I have promised to rescind every single illegal executive action, including that one.

(MIX OF APPLAUSE AND BOOING)

CRUZ: And on the question…

(CROSSTALK)

RUBIO: Well, first of all, I don’t know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn’t speak Spanish. And second of all, the other point that I would make…

CRUZ: (SPEAKING SPANISH).

In Spanish, Cruz challenged Rubio to debate him in Spanish. Rubio is done.

Looking forward to McConnell blocking a new appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court until he’s proven Republicans are as utterly dysfunctional as their candidates.

Paper ring: The 10 worst date flicks for Valentine’s Day By Dennis Hartley

Published by digby on February 14, 2016
Saturday Night at the Movies
Paper ring: The 10 worst date flicks for Valentine’s Day

By Dennis Hartley




To-morrow is Saint Valentine’s day,
All in the morning betime,
And I a maid at your window,
To be your Valentine.

–William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act IV, Scene 5

You’re breakin’ my heart
You’re tearing it apart…so fuck you

-Nilsson, Son of Schmilsson, “You’re Breaking My Heart”

Alright, I’ve covered the “warm and fuzzy” angle for Valentine’s Day. But there are two sides to every coin. This “holiday” depresses some people. It’s just a corporate invention; a marketing ploy to push overpriced cards and chocolates, right? So I say, embrace your melancholia! I mean, I may be “alone”, but I’m not “lonely”, right?  Right? Anyone? Bueller? Hello? (tap, tap) Is this internet working? Anyway…here you go, alphabetically:


Baby Doll – In 1956, this deliciously squalid melodrama (directed by Elia Kazan and written by Tennessee Williams) was decried by the “Legion of Decency” for its “carnal suggestiveness”. Granted, there is something suggestive about a sultry, PJ-clad 19 year old (Carroll Baker) sucking her thumb, while curled up in a child’s crib. This is how we are introduced to the virgin bride of creepy old Archie (Karl Malden), who is breathlessly counting down to Baby Doll’s next birthday. They married when she was 18, but Archie is beholden to “no consummation” until she’s 20. In return, Archie swears to renovate his rundown cotton gin so he can bathe her in luxury, ‘til death do they part. In reality, Archie is as bereft of coin as he is lustful in loin. This leads to an ill-advised act that puts him in hot water with his prosperous business rival (Eli Wallach). Instead of getting mad, Wallach decides to get even…by seducing Baby Doll. The seduction scene is a classic; it doesn’t “show” you anything, yet implies much (it is largely left up to your imagination).


Crazy Love – For the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the Bizarro World “love story” of Burt and Linda Pugach, I won’t risk spoilers regarding this 2007 documentary. Suffice it say, if you think you’ve seen it all when it comes to obsession and dysfunction in romantic relationships, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet. One thing I will tell you, is that despite the shocking and odious nature of the act that one of these two people visits upon the other at one point in their life together, it’s still not so cut and dry as to whose “side” you want to be on, because both of these people got off the bus in Crazy Town a long time ago. This film is the antonym for “date movie”. Dan Klores and Fisher Stevens directed.

Happiness – If you’re OK with network narratives populated exclusively by emotionally needy neurotics, this 1998 Todd Solondz film is your ticket. There are bold performances all around in this veritable merry-go-round of modern dysfunction, as you watch a sad parade of completely hapless individuals make desperate, cringe-inducing stabs at establishing meaningful connections sometime before they die (the human condition?). Standouts in the huge cast include the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, Lara Flynn Boyle, Jane Adams, Dylan Baker and Camryn Manheim. Keep a pint of Ben and Jerry’s handy.

The Honeymoon Killers – Several decades before Natural Born Killers was even a gleam in Oliver Stone’s eye, writer-director Leonard Kastle made this highly effective low-budget exploitation film (based on a true story) about a pair of murderous lovebirds. Martha (Shirley Stoler) and Ray (Tony Lo Bianco) meet via a “lonely hearts” correspondence club and find that they have a lot more in common than the usual love of candlelit dinners and walks on the beach. Namely, they’re both full-blown sociopaths, who cook up a scheme to lure lonely women into their orbit so they can kill them and take their assets. Stoler and Lo Bianco have great chemistry as the twisted couple. The stark B & W photography and verite approach enhances the overall creepy vibe. Martin Scorsese was the original director, but was quickly fired (!). This was Kastle’s only film.

The Night Porter – Director Liliana Cavani brilliantly uses a story of a sadomasochistic relationship as both an allusion to the horrors of Hitler’s Germany and an examination of sexual politics. Dirk Bogarde and Charlotte Rampling are broodingly decadent as a former SS officer and a concentration camp survivor who become entwined in a twisted, doomed relationship years after WW2. It’s disturbing and repulsive…yet still compelling.

Sid and Nancy – The ultimate love story…for nihilists. Director Alex Cox has never been accused of subtlety, and there’s certainly a glorious lack of it here in his over-the-top 1986 biopic about the doomed relationship between Sex Pistols bassist Sid Vicious and his girlfriend Nancy Spungen. Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb chew all the available scenery as they shoot up, turn on and check out. It is a bit of a downer (then again, that’s tonight’s theme), but the cast is great, and Cox (who co-scripted with Abbe Wool) injects a fair amount of dark comedy (“Eeew, Sid! I look like fuckin’ Stevie Nicks in hippie clothes!”). The movie also benefits from outstanding cinematography by Roger Deakins.

Smash Palace– Dramatic films about the disintegration of a marriage aren’t exactly a romp in the fields to begin with (and as date movies…it’s safe to say that they are right out), but can be particularly heart-wrenching when children are involved (e.g. Kramer vs Kramer or Shoot the Moon). Few genre entries I’ve seen are as raw and emotionally draining as this nearly forgotten 1981 gem from New Zealand. An early effort from writer-director Roger Donaldson (The Bounty, No Way Out, Thirteen Days), it features a tour-de-force performance by Bruno Lawrence as an eccentric race car driver/salvage yard owner who neglects his wife (Anna Maria Monticelli) to the point where she has an affair. The cuckolded hubby (already a walking time bomb) does not react well. Donaldson sustains an incredible sense of tension. Riveting and unpredictable to the end.

Swept Away – The time-honored “man and woman stuck on a desert island” scenario is served up with a heaping tablespoon of class struggle and an acidic twist of sexual politics in this controversial 1975 film from Italian director Lena Wertmuller. A shrill and haughty bourgeoisie woman (Mariangela Melato) charters a yacht cruise for herself and her equally obnoxious fascist friends, who all seem to delight in belittling their slovenly deck hand (Giancarlo Giannini), who is a card-carrying communist. Fate and circumstance conspire to strand Melato and Giannini together on a small Mediterranean isle, setting the stage for some interesting role reversal games. BTW, in case you are curious about the Guy Ritchie/Madonna remake? Here’s a two-word review: Stay away!

Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? – If words were needles, university history professor George (Richard Burton) and his wife Martha (Elizabeth Taylor) would look like a pair of porcupines, because after years of shrill, shrieking matrimony, these two have become maestros of the barbed insult, and the poster children for the old axiom, “you only hurt the one you love”. Mike Nichols’ 1966 directing debut (adapted by scripter Ernest Lehman from Edward Albee’s Tony-winning stage play) gives us a peek into one night in the life of this battle-scarred middle-aged couple (which is more than enough, thank you very much). After a faculty party, George and Martha invite a young newlywed couple (George Segal and Sandy Dennis) over for a nightcap. It turns out to be quite an eye-opener for the young ‘uns; as the ever-flowing alcohol kicks in, the evening becomes a veritable primer in bad human behavior. It’s basically a four-person play, but these are all fine actors, and the writing is the real star of this piece. Everyone in the cast is fabulous, but Taylor is the particular standout; this was a breakthrough performance for her in the sense that she proved beyond a doubt that she was more than just a pretty face. It’s easy to forget that the actress behind this blowsy, 50-ish character was only 34 (and, of course, a genuine stunner). When “Martha” says “Look, sweetheart. I can drink you under any goddam table you want…so don’t worry about me,” you don’t doubt that she really can.
Your Friends & Neighbors – With friends and neighbors like these…oy. A very dark social satire from the Prince of Darkness himself, playwright-writer-director Neil LaBute (In the Company of Men, Nurse Betty). As in most LaBute narratives, there’s nary a sympathetic character in sight in this study of two unhappy couples and their circle of unhappy friends. Everybody makes bad choices and generally treat each other like shit. Cynical, appalling, and perversely funny. You’ll love it! Aaron Eckart, Jason Patric, Amy Brenneman, Catherine Keener, Nastassja Kinski, and Ben Stiller make a crack ensemble.




More reviews at Den of Cinema


–Dennis Hartley

Pick your poison Republicans

Published by digby on February 13, 2016

Pick your poison Republicans


by digby

Some of us have recognized for a while that the GOP race for president is between Cruz and Trump. (Not that it matters, the “alternatives have been pushed so far to the right that they are all terrifying.) This Politico article is only talking about South Carolina, but I believe it is probably true across the board. Maybe on of the others can still break through if a miracle happens but even if they do it will be a delegate free-for-all and there’s no telling how that will come out with the GOP’s freaky system

Anyway, this is where they are on the last week-end before the SC primary:

Ted Cruz and Donald Trump enter Saturday’s debate locked in a two-man race for South Carolina, and to prepare, both have gone full negative.

After splitting the first two votes, the New York billionaire has relentlessly hammered away at Cruz on everything from his campaign’s tactics to what Trump sees as the Texan’s character flaws. And on Friday, Trump warned that he has standing to sue Cruz over questions of his birth and constitutional eligibility to serve in the White House.

“If @tedcruz doesn’t clean up his act, stop cheating, & doing negative ads, I have standing to sue him for not being a natural born citizen,” Trump tweeted of his rival, born in Canada to an American mother.

Asked about the threat, Cruz did not back down. “There’s more than a little irony in Donald accusing anybody of being nasty given the amazing torrent of insults and obscenities that come out of his mouth on any given day,” he told reporters. “Suddenly every day he comes out with a new attack.”

Trump is expected to carry these attacks onto the stage on Saturday at the final candidate forum before South Carolina votes. It’s a fight Cruz’s allies say they are ready for, as they prepare to assault Trump’s Republican credentials with an eye on the conservative, religious and security-focused voters throughout the south.

ain of evidence out there that Donald Trump is not a conservative,” said Charlie Condon, a former South Carolina attorney general and a Cruz surrogate, pointing to Trump’s past positions on issues including abortion, health care and Wall Street bank bailouts. “I’m confident that everything I’m telling you will be discussed at the Peace Center.”

Condon said that the more Trump attacks Cruz on Saturday, the more the Texas senator will come across as the Trump “alternative.”

“It’s a recognition of what we think the reality is: This is becoming a two-man race,” he said. “So if you’re not comfortable with Donald Trump being president, whether for temperament reasons or judgment reasons or the fact that he really is a campaign conservative—he’s been a Democrat almost his whole life…if you’re uncomfortable with that…Cruz is the alternative.”

And Cruz is such a prince.

.

.