90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Rich Lowry On The Republican Party And Abraham Lincoln

Conservative National Review editor Rich Lowry on the Republican Party, from Abe Lincoln’s time to today’s Tea Party tensions.

The Republican National Convention opens in Tampa, Fla., on Monday, Aug. 27, 2012. (AP)

Republicans gather at the 2012 National Convention in Tampa, Fla. (AP)

Rich Lowry is a big, smart conservative thinker and editor at The National Review with a long view and long list of worries about his country and his party, the Republican Party.

He’s gone back to the ur-Republican, Abraham Lincoln, to refresh some compass settings, to think about equity and opportunity and effort, about rich and poor and “the race of life,” about Tea Party and Ted Cruz and modern conservative values.

He wants to make the GOP the “aspirational” party again.

Up next On Point: National Review editor Rich Lowry on the GOP and Honest Abe.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Rich Lowry. (Courtesy HarperCollins Publishers)

Rich Lowry. (Courtesy of HarperCollins Publishers)

Rich Lowry, journalist and editor of The National Review. (@RichLowry)

He is the author of the new book “Lincoln Unbound: How An Ambitious Young Railsplitter Saved The American Dream — And How We Can Do It Again.” Read an excerpt below.

He is also the author of “Legacy: Paying The Price For The Clinton Years.”

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst and author of “Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America 1865-1900.”

From Tom’s Reading List

National Review: Lincoln Defended — The Case Against The Critics Of Our 16th President — No 19th-century figure can be an exact match for either of our contemporary competing political ideologies, but Lincoln the paladin of individual initiative, the worshiper of the Founding Fathers, and the advocate of self-control is more naturally a fellow traveler with today’s conservatives than with progressives.

Politico: Report: How GOP Lost Young Voters — The study slams some Republicans’ almost singular focus on downsizing Big Government and cutting taxes; candidates’ use of offensive, polarizing rhetoric; and the party’s belly-flop efforts at messaging and outreach, even as the report presents a way forward and, at times, strikes an optimistic tone.

Time: GOP Fights To Rebrand The Party Of No – “After several days of debating how to restore their party’s brand, Republican leaders left a party confab in Los Angeles last week in agreement that they can no longer be ‘the party of no.’ But they were less clear on what to say ‘yes’ to.”

Book Excerpt

From LINCOLN UNBOUND by Rich Lowry Copyright © 2013 by Rich Lowry. Reprinted courtesy of Broadside Books, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.

Introduction “An Inestimable Jewel”: Lincoln’s America

“He knew the American people better than they knew themselves.”
– Frederick Douglass, “Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln,” 1876

(Courtesy of HarperCollins Pubilshers)

(Courtesy of HarperCollins Pubilshers)

In the summer of 1864, President Abraham Lincoln welcomed the 166th Ohio Regiment to the White House. His words that day didn’t make it onto the Lincoln Memorial. No schoolchildren ever recited them. But they capture the essence of Lincoln and of his idea of America.

“I suppose you are going home to see your families and friends,” he said by way of greeting the regiment. These men were representatives of the Union army, whose camps and hospitals he visited, who were fighting and suffering for the Union and who would vote for him in overwhelming numbers in the November election, a contest that, at that moment, Lincoln believed he would lose. The day after seeing the regiment on August 22, Lincoln wrote his “blind memorandum” stipulating that it is “exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected.”

The Ohio troops had been mustered for a hundred days in the spring and had done garrison duty around Washington, D.C. Lincoln offered the soldiers “sincere thanks for myself and the country,” and then got to the point. “I almost always feel inclined, when I happen to say anything to soldiers,” he told them,
“to impress upon them in a few brief remarks the importance of success in this contest.”

“It is not merely for to-day,” he said of the significance of the war, “but for all time to come that we should perpetuate for our children’s children this great and free government, which we have enjoyed all our lives.” This was a more pedestrian expression of the rousing sentiment from the finale of the Gettysburg Address the prior November—“that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”

“I beg you to remember this,” he continued, “not merely for my sake, but for yours. I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has.” Lincoln characteristically refrained from saying “as I have,” with its whiff of immodesty. Free government is so valuable, he insisted, because it affords us an open, fluid society where anyone can ascend to the highest office in the land. Or at least ascend higher than where he started.

“It is in order,” Lincoln said, “that each of you may have through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations. It is for this the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright—not only for one, but for two or three years. The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel.”

The priceless treasure is opportunity. It is the cause so dear that it was worth a conflagration that made the country, in the title of historian Drew Gilpin Faust’s moving book on wartime death, “this republic of suffering.” In Lincoln’s telling, America exists to give all people the chance to rise. We are, by birthright and through our free institutions, a nation of aspiration.

This theme wasn’t patriotic pap for the boys. Lincoln believed it in the marrow of those strong bones with which he had labored all during his youth. It had suffused his determination, as a boy and into his early adulthood, to read and to learn, so he could do something besides chop and plow all his life. It had been the touchstone of his politics as a Whig and then as a Republican, in the Illinois House of Representatives, in Congress, and in his antislavery leadership in the 1850s that marked the beginning of the heroic phase of his career.

Tweets From During The Show

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • 2Gary2

    I think of the republican party as Americans version of the Taliban.  They are fundamentalists who care more about their ideology than the common good.  This is exactly the way the Taliban operates.

    The Republican Party=The American Taliban

    • brettearle

      I see your point.  But I take strong issue with your Metaphor.

      If you view the Tea Party, in that way, than you assume that the Tea Party is seditious and traitorous.

      I don’t like them either.

      But they do NOT want to tear you asunder like Al Qaeda.

      I know that you will tell me that they do.

      But it ISN’T true–if you compare their stupidity to the violent malice of radical Islamic Fundamentalism.

      When you demonize the Tea Party, this way, you become part of the problem and not part of the solution.

      You fall victim to the same tired old Washington gridlock and DC polarization that is going on, before our eyes.

      Screaming at the Tea Party will ONLY embolden them, even more.

      • Acnestes

        Head on over to Faux Nation sometime, where you will see plenty of calls for secession, lynching Obama and murdering Hillary Clinton and liberals in general.  And of course, those “second amendment remedies”.

        Sounds plenty seditious and asunder-tearing to me.

        • HonestDebate1

          You’re a bit over the top there.

          • brettearle

            I agree.  It’s stupid.

            It hurts my cause and HIS cause. 

          • HonestDebate1

            Keep up the good work Brettearle.

          • brettearle

            Thanks.  Appreciate it.

        • brettearle

          HUGE difference between words and actions.

          Actions SPEAK MUCH LOUDER–when it comes to PHYSICAL harm.

          The moment you’ve identified Bachmann, Paul, Rubio and their minions, as commandos, who are storming the countryside, with kalashnikovs, looking to take out any Liberals that they can identify, THEN we can talk.

          Until then, you are doing nothing but artificially roping and conflating a US political group with a violent radical organization.

          In my view, you are doing nothing but spewing out your own brand of bias, propaganda, ignorance, and ridiculous rhetoric that

          MAKES…….THINGS….WORSE.

          Again, I do not support the Tea Party, at all. I’m a Liberal Democrat.

          • HonestDebate1

            You are a liberal Democrat but you understand honest debate. Maybe you’ll come around one day.

          • Acnestes

            I think we underestimate fringe groups to our great peril.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          That comment will be worth a few new members.

          I always have a chuckle when a Democrat accuses someone else of sedition.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Andrew Breibart would keep copies of the nastiest thing people had said about him.  He claimed them as proof he was effective.  

      • 2Gary2

        I NEVER said Al Qaeda.  I said the Taliban.  Big difference.  I stand by my metaphor and think it is spot on.  Look at what the Taliban is doing to Afghanistan in sending them back to live like it was the 1800′s and then look at today’s republican party AKA American Taliban and the similarities are startling.

        The republicans are slowly rolling back all the progress we have made as a country–Their making it harder to vote if you are a minority, taking food out of hungry peoples mouth in order to give tax cuts to the rich (tax cuts for the 1% is their religion and they are every bit as zealous as the Taliban is about their religion)

  • alangig

    I think it is so sad what is happening to American liberties, it all started under Ashcroft and the, “Patriot Act” and has continued in an even stronger agenda under the Obama Administration ( A constitutional lawyer) is it Obama(if so, the greatest fraud in history) or is it the neo cons who never went away and are looking at ways to destroy the first amendement with the compliance of the American people so as we can not critisize the banks, mining companies and with a bit of luck destroy an american version of, “A liberal caring society that has justice for all” not just for the Koch Brothers.

    • brettearle

      The reason why our liberties are being eroded is because the Federal Government is doing nothing other than reflecting our citizens’ own anxieties.

      I realize that the word ‘paranoia’ is overused.  So suppose I use `Fear-mongering’?

      Our country’s roots can be traced to religious persecution.

      We are a fearful society.

      9/11 has proven that, more than the fears, endemic during the McCarthy Era.

      That’s why you’re seeing what you’re seeing.

  • northeaster17

    Credibility problem ” Legacy Paying the Price of the Clinton Years” as opposed to our still paying the price of the Bush years. Lets start with an illegal unfunded war, torture as policy, Gitmo, an unfunded medicare fix, The Patriot Act, rigged Homeland Security color schemes and on and on. Also as the Bengazi sweepstakes go on, lets not forget 9/11. That’s the Republican Party I see. The one calling out women for working and bringing home paychecks as they promote unequal pay. The party that denies the possibility of rape pregnancies. The party run by Limbbaugh, Hannity, Beck and the rest. This guy has some explaining to do.

    • HonestDebate1

      The war was funded and legal. We don’t torture, we water boarded 3 and no one was hurt in the least, we got Bin Laden. Obama gutted Medicare. He never was going to close Gitmo. Obama put the Patriot act on steroids. Homeland Security kept us safe, now they have lesbian Sexual Harassment. 

      “The party that denies the possibility of rape pregnancies”

      That’s hideously dishonest.

      • northeaster17

        The Iraq war was funded by raising the national debt. All those supplemental budgets kept aside from the rest. Bush and company also lied as to why we needed to invade. That is illegal. Ask Dick Armey. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/09/cheney_misled_gop_leaders_new.html
        They may say they only water boarded 3 but we also know evidence was destroyed. We will never know how many. Not to mention those rendered to Syria and Egypt or other dark places. Many of the volunteers said that waterboarding was definetly toture.  
        Gov Ryan the first head of Homeland Security said that the color codes were used for political advantage. Of couse he retracted but whatever. You are right, Obama has ramped up the Patriot Act to his discredit.
        As for the rape statements just look back to the last election cycle. Nothing hideous or dishonest here.

      • jefe68

        now they have lesbian Sexual Harassment.

        What is the point of this comment? 

        Water-boarding is torture.

        • 1Brett1

          Wow, his whole comment is a mass of distortions, then he claims those who oppose Republican viewpoints are engaging  in being “hideously dishonest”!

          I have never seen someone who so consistently contradicts or undermines his own comment all within the same comment!

          • jefe68

            It is amazing, is it not.
            He’s a legend in his own mind.

          • Steve

            HonestDebate1 is a troll who posts prolific incendiary absurdities to disrupt rational discussion on this comment thread.  We shouldn’t take him/her too seriously.

          • HonestDebate1

            Maybe instead of the truth I posted I should take the lead from you and try your logic. The Democrats are the party who think the 57th State, Guam, will tip over. 

            Is that less absurd?

          • jefe68

            No, that’s quite comic and also rare as far as Democrats go. There is also Anthony Weiner. 
            Politicians are not always the best and brightest.  

            You might not want to go there with the amount of absurdity that a whole load of Republicans are prone to believe and say.

          • HonestDebate1

            At Least Hank Johnson was actually elected. So was Sheila JAckson Lee who thought NEil Armstrong planted a flag on Mars. 

            Aiken was booted out and shunned. He represents no one.

          • 1Brett1
          • HonestDebate1

            Show me where I ever ever said anyone who opposes Republican ideas are engaging in being hideously dishonest and I will donate $1000 to the NAACP. 

            For Steve to imply Republicans, as a whole or in part, think it’s not possible to get pregnant from rape is hideously dishonest. That’s not a Republican idea. Look how universally shunned the nut case Todd Aiken was. The only thing more hideous in terms of honest debate than Steve’s humongously shallow accusation is the sheer idiocy of believing and repeating it.

          • jefe68

            And yet the Republicans keep nominating and voting in a lot of dolts like Todd Aiken. 

          • 1Brett1

            The DishonestDebater wishes to pretend that Aiken’s comment was some isolated gaffe not representative of the increasing lunatic fringe that has taken over the Republicans. I’d have more respect for him if he actually did display more of an independent streak, but he seems very invested in defending Republicans, but he’s still too cowardly to call himself one of them. 

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s insane. 

          • 1Brett1

            Don’t tell Steve what he thinks! So, again, another tactic…Steve was pointing out one of many bizarre and Dark Ages beliefs many Republicans have displayed, and there are many. But, you make it into that ALL Republicans have not universally joined together to champion support for Aiken’s ideas and statements, therefore it must be that Steve is being hideously dishonest. What a punk way of being hideously dishonest yourself.

            How brave of you to speak so strongly by saying, “universally shunned” about Aiken. I didn’t hear you say anything like a personal condemnation, are you scared you might be barred from the “Party of Medieval Ones” coming up the next election cycle? It’s not like you stood up and denounced Aiken when it was fresh in the news. Besides, Aiken’s comment didn’t happen as an isolated gaffe in the Republican Party or has proven to be unique to them. 

            http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/the-6-craziest-things-people-have-said-about-pregn 

            Now, let’s see you denounce the many crazy things Bachmann has said, or Sharron Angle, or Christine O’Donnell, or Jim Demint, or the many, many, many other Republicans…  

            http://theweek.com/article/index/240838/10-dumbest-things-republicans-said-last-month

          • HonestDebate1

            “The party that denies the possibility of rape pregnancies”

            That is hideously dishonest. Steve didn’t cite anything else. He didn’t use it as a metaphor. If you don’t get it then I can’t help you.

            And BS, I denounced the idiot Aiken from day one, everyone did. I’ve already called him a nut case twice today alone. I’m pro-choice. I’m not a Republican, wouldn’t be one.

            I didn’t look at your irrelevant links but I love Bachmann and Demint. The other two sadly aren’t players.

          • 1Brett1

            …I guess you just say, “you don’t get” or “it went over your head” and it is so? Can you provide a quote from past comments where you said Aiken was an idiot who should be denounced? You also didn’t call him a nutcase today, you said he was “universally denounced” or something…hardly your own condemnation. 

            Bachmann and Demint have said so many crazy things…

            You are not pro-choice, you just say you are. On this forum you’ve supported every Republican measure to restrict abortion that has been up in the last couple of years, oh, dishonest masterdebater one. 

          • HonestDebate1

            I CALLED HIM A NUT CASE IN THE COMMENT YOU REPLIED TO!!!

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/12/lowry-republican-party#comment-928103172 

            Do I need to find the other?

            Geez. 

          • 1Brett1

            Do show the other time from today, can you? Perhaps you could also cite an example of your “strong condemnation” from another day, as you seem to be implying that you have condemned him straight out in the past; I just don’t remember this from you. Aside from all that, however, Aiken is not an isolated gaffer in this regard–which is my point–yet you wish to imply his statement did not represent a growing contingent in the Republican Party.

        • HonestDebate1

          The point is color codes might sound silly but it seemed to keep us informed and alert. So if Northeaster17 wants to condemn Ridge then he/she should condemn the lesbian sexual harassment under Napolitano more. No high level officials resigned over color codes.

          Call it torture if you want but what I wrote is undeniably true.

           we water boarded 3 (not counting the 1000s of our own special forces and several volunteer journalist) and no one was hurt in the least, we got Bin Laden.

          • northeaster17

            Actually the U.S deemed waterboarding torture after WW2 and the Korean war. Not sure what you are talking about.

          • jefe68

            Water-boarding violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

            All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition.
            Water boarding is on the list of what constitutes torture, the US signed this treaty in 1988 and ratified it in 1994.

          • HonestDebate1

            Under the geneva convention hurting someone’s feelings can be considered torture. As I said, call it what you will. What I wrote is true.

          • jefe68

            No it’s not true in the legal sense. In your opinion it’s true. 

            So you don’t believe in the Geneva Convention. You have a lot in common with the our foes from WW2, Germany and Imperial Japan.

          • HonestDebate1

            What have I written that isn’t true?

      • 1Brett1

        Why pull your punches? Why not just say “lesbian sexual harassment on steroids”? 

        “Gutted Medicare”? “Put the Patriot Act on steroids”? Hyperbolic much?

        • HonestDebate1

          I don’t know if Napolitano takes steroids or not.

          I consider a half trillion out of Medicare and put to Obamacare after counting it twice to be more gutted than hyperbole. 1000% more request in four years under section 215 of the Patriot act seems like steroids to me. Dismiss much?

          • 1Brett1

            More distortions and hyperbole. No one who wishes to engage in a discussion of differing viewpoints would possibly want to spend the day responding to your tripe. If I do dismiss anything it is your nonsense of distortions and hyperbole.

          • HonestDebate1

            Anyone who does’t want to engage in honest debate should not be here. Different viewpoints are beautiful.

            The above will no doubt blow your unuanced mind, it was obvious my comment (you keep referring to) went over your head. I’ll give you another one that cozies up nicely without contradiction to the above. I will not debate holocaust deniers about Hitler. It goes a little deeper that differing viewpoints.

            But I do know science deniers that will not consider the possibility the earth is not warming. They will not even discuss it. 

          • 1Brett1

            Too many double negatives there in your gobbledygook of a comment to follow whatever nonsense you’re prattling on about, what with all of those not, not, not, nots.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s plain and there are no double negatives. 

            You don’t even know what a double negative is not. 

            You wouldn’t recognize no double negative if you saw one.

      • Steve

        Dear HonestDebate1:

        Waterboarding is indeed torture. 

        Waterboarding was a favorite form of torture by the Spanish Inquisition of the 15th and 16th centuries.  

        Waterboarding was widely used, and understood to be torture, by counterinsurgent Western armies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  US forces used waterboarding, and understood it to be torture, during the US counter-insurgency in the Philippines of 1899-1902.  (US soldiers called it “the water cure.”)

        The US would regard waterboarding as torture if any foreign force were to waterboard US prisoners of war.

        Your suggestion that waterboarding is not torture is preposterous.

        • HonestDebate1

          You are not describing water boarding as we know it. We didn’t immerse any one in barrels after beating them. Some even claim we executed Japanese for water boarding, I’m surprised you didn’t pull that one out. But as I’ve said, call it what you want. I’ll rephrase:

          Water boarding is torture that doesn’t hurt, maim or leave any scars. It has been used only 3 times to great affect in recent history. Some jihadist even have thanked  us for freeing them to talk under the constrains of Islam. We’ve assassinated hundreds without a trial by drone they are much deader than are the 3 fat and happy jihadist water-boarded victims today.

          So as long as we agree there, torture it its.

          • northeaster17

            3 times. Highly unlikley. What about subjecting people to temperature extremes, dogs, stress positions or sensory distortion? Are those toture? How about what happened at Abu Ghraib?

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes, when Hussein ran the joint what happened at Abu Ghraib was torture. The lucky ones went into the wood chipper head first.

  • HonestDebate1

    Rich Lowry is a smart, informed, rational Conservative. What’s he doing here? He will be savaged. There sure are a lot of On Point shows about the GOP’s, regrouping, their soul, their future, etc.

    I’d really like to see OP invite Pat Cadell, Doug Shoen or Mike Meyers on to discuss the state of the Democrat Party. Just a suggestion.

    • Acnestes

      If he’s smart, informed and rational why doesn’t he denounce the bags?

      • http://www.facebook.com/leonard.bast.90 Leonard Bast

        Probably for the same reason that a hostage does not, while held captive, deliberately denounce or antagonize his kidnappers.

        • Acnestes

          Good point.  I hope it’s not Stockholm syndrome.

  • Shag_Wevera

    Assuming both major political partys are full of liars, I’ll still pick the one that at least PRETENDS to care about the poor, the elderly, and diversity.  Republicans, in my opinion, represent the worst traits of human nature.  Fear, anger, greed, racism, militarism…  No thanks, I can’t play for that team. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Starbursts.

    That’s all I have to say.

  • 1Brett1

    FINALLY, someone to stand up to these liberal assassins who tear down every accomplishment the wrongfully maligned Republicans have achieved! How many more indignities and media condemnations must Republicans endure? …I just hope this is an hour extolling the virtues of what it means to be a Republican and someone can simply applaud Republican efforts without interference from sniveling little liberal nitpickers! 

    • http://www.facebook.com/leonard.bast.90 Leonard Bast

      You’re either a master of irony or a genius at hyperbole. I can’t decide. 

      • 1Brett1

        Thanks, although the “HonestDebate1″ thought there was no irony/sarcas,/satire/hyperbole in my comment, which is hysterically funny to me.

        • HonestDebate1

          Please don’t tell me what I think.

          • 1Brett1

            Let’s see, when you “liked” my comment, were you liking the irony, sarcasm, or satire of it? Were you pretending it was sincerely complimentary of Repbublicans? Did you really believe I had changed my mind about Republicans? What, pray tell, were you thinking? Don’t tell me what I can say. If I wish to express an opinion about you I will.

          • HonestDebate1

            I liked what you wrote, it was right on. I find certain commenters far more accurate when they pretend not to be. So if you are going to speak truth, I will like it. I do it all the time. You aren’t the only one. So it is written and so it is recorded. You own it, I like it.

            PS.. I had no idea whatsoever you were not sincere. None at all. Really, I didn’t. No way, no how. I mean it… I’m not being facetious. I had no idea.

          • 1Brett1

            What kind of nonsense are you on about now? So you like sarcasm because you like what is said, even though it is putting down what you like? Okay.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yea, that’s it.

          • 1Brett1

            Or maybe you simply don’t see sarcasm? Maybe you thought I had fundamentally changed suddenly and had become a neocon? …Yeah, that’s it. I’ll believe that other stuff you’re peddling; they seem about as plausible as the what I wrote, which was as absurd as what you suggest was your reason, in case you didn’t get my use of absurdity, Futo Bu, er, I mean HonestDebate1.  

          • HonestDebate1

            I had no idea whatsoever you were not sincere. None at all. Really, I didn’t. No way, no how. I mean it… I’m not being facetious. I had no idea.

          • 1Brett1

            And you regularly call ME a dolt?

    • jefe68

      Very good. I’m looking forward to an hour of whining and posts about being victims of “liberal” media. 

      Submitted for your approval one Rev. E.W. Jackson, the Republican nominee to be the next lieutenant governor of Virginia.

      Who believes that President Obama of using NASA to “expand Islam.” He believes yoga is a gateway to Satan. And in his 2008 book, Ten Commandments to an Extraordinary Life, Jackson warned that “satanic rock,” rap music, and modern-day “witchcraft” were leading to a societal breakdown.

  • John Cedar

    Until the producers for the View, Letterman, Leno, SNL, ABC, CBS etcetera, are held to fair standards that FOX holds itself too, the GOP will not be winning over many young voters. Until we quantify the millions worth of entertainment donation Springsteen, Bon jovi and the Fonze make to candidates, the GOP cannot compete with humble Koch brothers donations.

    • northeaster17

      Humble? I think even the K bro’s would find that description amusing.

    • Shag_Wevera

      A post so absurd requires no response.

    • 1Brett1

      Yep, “the Fonze” has definitely swayed so many young people through his entertainment! How can the Koch brothers’ meager hundreds of millions of dollars compete with that???

      Well, to be fair, you must concede that the groovy Chuck Norris has brought around young folks! …If Donny Osmond would just get out there and give his support!

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I don’t know much about Osmond’s political opinions. What are they, and does he get treated and interviewed like those ideas are worth anything because they have his imprimatur on them?

        Given how many right-wing celebs open their mouths and shoot themselves in the foot, this a compliment to Donny for simply being quiet, I guess.

    • J__o__h__n

      The Republicans were the ones who got rid of the fairness doctrine.  Entertainment shows are not the same as news shows.  Blame the candidates for blurring the lines between news and entertainment as they look to avoid journalistic scrutiny by appearing on Oprah instead of news shows.  And the Koch brothers have much more money than the Fonze. 

  • Steve

    Questions to discuss today:

    Has the Republican party become extremist in its policies and its tactics?

    If so, how extreme has it become?

    Why has it become extreme?

    How can it be brought back to moderation?

    My view: Today’s Republican party, especially its Congressional wing, is the most extreme US political party since the Know-Nothings of the 1850s.  Curing the Republican Party of its extremism should be an urgent priority for Republicans and non-Republicans alike.

    Our national welfare depends on both major parties accepting the other’s legitimate right to govern, and pursuing pragmatic policies that serve the common good. The contemporary Republican party has strayed from these principals. It must be returned to them.

    Let’s have a civil fact-based discussion about this.

    • William

      Is it radical or extreme to vote no for a bill that was passed with “we have to pass the bill to find out what is in the bill” logic?

  • Jim

    I use to love this party… until the neo-cons, GW, and the frauds took over. Now, i want these goons to leave the party and formulate their own, perhaps calling themselves Tea Party II. I want the party of Bob Dole, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Russell. 

    YES, i want compromise and i hate no compromise from these  congressional “leaders”… using the word leader to describe them is a mockery to the history of this great nation.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       You prefer Obamacare and Dodd-Frank?

      How about the massive debt and fiscal irresponsibility?

      • Jim

        go and kiss GW behind… yeah… massive debt? well you might want to ask why Reagan first started fiscal irresponsibility in the first place and GW accelerated it.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Yes, W was a disappointment on fiscal responsibility.  Remember when Cheney said “deficits don’t matter”.  Sick!! 

            However, most of Bush’s problems happened AFTER the Dems took control of Congress.  But Obama’s debt and out of control spending makes Bush look like a miser.

          • Jim

            uuuuhhmm…  we had a surplus before GW took over… my friend and fiscal legislation would not pass without the approval of the President.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Have you ever heard of the Internet bubble?  Bush inherited a recession and then 9/11 happened.  Check your history.

          • Jim

            internet bubble has got NOTHING to do with public sector and public funding… dude. it has got everything to do with hubris from the private sector… you need some serious fact check when it comes to differentiating between private and public funding… seriously.

          • Jim

            btw. Democrats did not control the house or senate in the second term of the clinton administration, right? you need to get the facts straight.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             I was referring to W’s deficit increasing when the Dems took control of the House and Senate in 2007.  Also, this is when the UNFUNDED Medicare Part D scheme was passed.  Another gift that will keep on giving.

            So where are my ‘facts’ wrong.  Please do tell.

          • http://www.facebook.com/RicardoMPascal Ricardo Pascal

            What about the unfunded wars and tax cuts? Huh? Nothing?

  • http://www.facebook.com/leonard.bast.90 Leonard Bast

    Lincoln became a member of the newly-formed Republican party almost entirely of necessity. He was always at heart a Whig. The main concerns of the Whigs were: (1) government support for internal improvements [the nation's infrastructure]; (2) protective tariffs to guard American manufacturing from foreign competition; and (3) a national banking system to regulate the country’s financial affairs. Once he becomes a Republican, we can officially add a fourth concern of Lincoln: (4) stopping the spread of slavery into the western territories. 

    Lincoln, our first Republican president, favored strong government intervention to regulate the economy and to promote social justice (of a sort). It’s important to remember that the Republicans started out on what we today would see as the more liberal end of the political spectrum. Only after several party realignments, notably in 1896 and again in the 1930s, do we see the modern Republican party emerge. 

  • Euphoriologist

    Hmm. The same Rich Lowry who, after witnessing Sarah Palin’s thoughtful, considered contributions to our national debate, was moved to write this famous paean to her political assets?:

    “I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.”  (NRO, 2008; post mysteriously deleted now.)

    Tom, please ask “big, smart conservative thinker”, Rich Lowry, if he still sees Palin’s intellectual brand of political discourse as the ideal his party should “aspire” to. I’m sure President Lincoln, were he still alive, would love to know, too!

    • OnPointComments

      Better Rich Lowry’s sitting up straighter on the couch than Chris Matthews’ tingling up the leg.

    • jefe68

      Wow, he wrote that? Hilarious and he’s now lost all credibility in my opinion. What a joke.

  • DrewInGeorgia

    I frequently think about the way the parties seem to have flip-flopped over time. It’s just a gut feeling but I bet if Lincoln were observing today’s Republican party he’d be so mad he’d eat his hat.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Yeah, but Lincoln wouldn’t be a Democrat either.

      Imagine Lincoln’s reaction to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        I didn’t imply that he would be a democrat, only that he would be mad as hell.

        Give me a break. What would he have thought about Reagan, W, Boehner, McConnell, McCain, Palin, Bachmann…What’s your point?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Oh, I think Lincoln would like and respect Reagan.  He would probably respect ‘W’ as well – another President who had to deal with a major crisis and keep the union safe.  Lincoln inherited his crisis from day one and W’s was a complete surprise.

          But yes, there are a lot of clowns in DC from both parties and Lincoln would be disappointed.

          • jefe68

            You, and I have no idea what Mr. Lincoln would think of anyone as he was a man of the 19th century.
            One thing for sure he would not please the Libertarian wing if the GOP, nor the modern Conservative ideology of states rights being more important than Federal ones.
            There is the small matter of the Civil War, which was all about the Federal government using it’s power over the corrupt ideology of the slave states and the destruction fo the Union.

            Funny how you think GW Bush had to deal with a huge crisis and failed to even mention FDR who dealt with the Great Depression and WW2.
            It’s amazing how utterly partisan your historical lens is.

      • jefe68

        Some of what Lincoln espoused sounds a lot like Libertarianism.

  • Yar

    It only took 150 years for the current GOP to embrace Lincoln. Will they claim to be the party of Obama in another 100 years?  Oh, the good old days.  They would do it in the streets if they thought it would keep them in power.

  • J__o__h__n

    If Lincoln supported infrastructural improvements, why is today’s GOP opposed to it? 

  • Talisker23

    This isn’t about bowing down to win an election. It’s about being smart, doing some math, realizing trickle down economics doesn’t work, realizing taxes on the rich are at historiical lows,  and realizing the American dream for most of the middle class is under attack.

    Those at the top, make more money when the rest of America does well too. A strangle hold on the middle class is not a recipe for success.

  • Yar

    To sell farm goods to sell in Lincoln’s day you needed slaves.  What has changed?

    • Talisker23

      Nothing, we still have slaves. We just call them illegal aliens.

      • Yar

        And the GOP wants to make them legal with “all deliberate speed.”  They like the way things are, that is why Mitch McConnell is finding problems with the immigration reform bill.

  • Yar

    If you have two parents, all things are not equal.  Rich is poor in thought.
    A living wage will cut the divorce rate.  Healthcare is pro-family.
    Who hates family?  The party of exploitation.

  • Wahoo_wa

    Much like the left has been betrayed by Obama I think the right has been betrayed by their current leaders.

    • OnPointComments

      I’m not especially impressed by any of the acknowledged leaders of either party.

      • Wahoo_wa

        Neither am I!  They’re all wieners.

  • William

    Rubio gives a good speech but he betrayed the Conservatives with his flip flop on the illegal immigration issue.  He is what is wrong with the Republican Party.

  • Jahanve

    With all due respect to Rich, the Republican Party today would like the ability to suspend habeus corpus, enforce martial law and still promotes racism, though different, not unlike Lincoln’s preferred colonization for Blacks.

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Lincoln did admire individual accomplishment and achievement but it seems to me that he realized that ‘the dream’ could not be attained without a level playing field.

    A level playing field does not a stacked deck make.

  • Talisker23

    Before WWI, the only income tax was on the wealthy. That type of system is as American as apple pie. That phylosophy was what made America great and what made upward mobility possible. The current GOP’s main focus is reducing taxes on the wealthy. It’s un-American and has no historical evidence suggesting that it works. It’s radical, liberal ideological thinking.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       The top rate when the first income tax was passed in 1913 was 7%.  However, everyone paid 1% and had ‘skin in the game’.  By 1916 they had raised the top rate to 15%.

      The classic bait and switch.  Promise low rates and once the system is in place go wild.

      • jefe68

        How is raising the tax rate a bait and switch?
        Taxes go up and go down. 

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          What rates were promised to get the amendment passed?  Do you know?

          Don’t you find it stunning that the top rate increased from 7% to 77% in just 6 short years?

          Check your history.

      • Steve__T

        You don’t think it was due to that little thing called World War I? Naaah 

        • jefe68

          Quiet, you’ll break his concentration.

    • jefe68

      Before WWI the largest revenue were excise taxes on whiskey, rum, tobacco, snuff and refined sugar. 

      This is an interesting historical overview and topical as Theodore Roosevelt  was an advocate for a federal income tax as early as 1907.

      http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/THM1901

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Calvin Coolidge was another GOP President who used Lincoln as a model (but Coolidge wasn’t into idolatry).  He was fortunate to lead during peacetime and was able to reduce Federal spending from $6B to a little more than $3B in his 5.5 years during an economic boom, pay down the debt left by WWI and institute massive income tax cuts.  Every time Coolidge cut tax rates revenues increased.  Andrew Mellon — the treasury sec. — knew about the Laffer curve before Laffer was born.

    Why doesn’t Coolidge get more attention?

  • J__o__h__n

    What would Lincoln think about handguns?

  • gemli

    The way Republicans tell it, when they fail it’s the fault of the government, but when the rest of us fail, we only have ourselves to blame.

    Republicans have sent the message that they are not concerned about the poor and the downtrodden.  They seem to feel that, in their heart of hearts, that people deserve their fates and are incapable of rising above their station.  Helping them financially is just a waste of perfectly good money that could be better use stashed in an offshore account.
    All these apologia from Republicans, dragging in Lincoln, supporting immigrants, softening on gays, are just opportunistic reactions to their recent losses in the polls.  

  • Davesix6

    Can Jack really be saying that the Right are driven by ideology  and the left is not?

  • Wahoo_wa

    Both the left and right is ideologically motivated at the cost of our best interests.  Lincoln would have been a third party candidate.  Pragmatism is nowhere to be found on the left or the right.

  • raymondvermontel

    When your guest said that there was nothing to show for the ’09 stimulus- I beg to differ.  There are many public buildings (including my local elementary school) that are far better insulated because of that federal energy eff. program that was part of the spending.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dennis-Maher/1045287449 Dennis Maher

    Republicans today tout individualism over community, and the rights of corporations over those of people, and at base, division over union. Lincoln would not have approved.

  • sickofthechit

    Rich,  I appreciate a little of what you say.  But don’t applaud Mitch Daniel’s record without recognizing that he raised state taxes 2% when the 2% Federal payroll tax holiday went into effect.

    As for your continued griping about the “Stimulus” please remember it was 1/3 direct aid to the states, 1/3 continuing the “Temporary” Bush tax cuts and only 1/3 actual stimulus spending!

    You and your party continue to rail against environmental protection because you fail to recognize that we live on a limited resource in the middle of nowhere.  Until you embrace that fact you are doomed to a shrinking future as a party.

    Lincoln would have nothing to do with the republican party of the last 50 years, let alone the direction it is now heading in.

    Charles A. Bowsher

  • Satwa

    Lincoln said: — “government of the people, by the people, for the people”
    That is Socialism.
    So are the first words of the US Constitution: “We the People”

    …. From Tom, Scot in Vermont

  • Wahoo_wa

    Lincoln was also a rabid racist.  I highly doubt he would align himself with the far left.

  • OnpointListener

    The Republicans have given us a Supreme Court that is packed with ideologues who have elevated corporations over individual citizens through it’s Citizen’s United opinion.  The voices of individual voters are being drowned out, ending representative government as we have known it.

  • donniethebrasco

    Lincoln supported people living in subsidized housing without working and living on EBT cards, Section 8, and other Great Society failures.

  • Talisker23

    This argument is not about Dems demanding that welfare and other programs remain untouched. This argument is about the GOP wishing to completely dismantle them.

    Turning them into voucher systems, is not “tinkering”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/maryellen.mcgowan.5 Mary Ellen McGowan

    Rich, I agree with most of what you say (and as a card carrying liberal, I must say I’m surprised).  However–I wish you (and Tom, because he didn’t call you on it) would STOP saying that the 2009 federal stimulus program did NOTHING to help fix infrastructure.  True, there were no huge projects–no WPA-type lovely things such as the buildings we still use in the national parks, for instance.  But just here (Buffalo N.Y.) I have to tell you that lots and lots of highway projects happened, with the result that our highway system is the best it’s been in years.  Just on my street, the road bed got stripped down to dirt, the underneath runoff sewers got repaired and/or replaced, and we got new curbs, street lights, bus stop benches and even a safe bike lane.  And if we got this because of the stimulus, then I bet thousands of other communities did too. 

    • sickofthechit

       Mary Ellen, you need to listen more closely, or listen to more.  He is self-governing this morning.

  • Yar

    Last year, consumers paid $32 billion in overdraft fees, up $400 million or 1.3% from 2011. Tax the poor, this is how the rich get richer. Seldom do people see this as a tax.
    What does Rich think about these fees and how it taxes the poor!

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/overdraft-charges-now-60-of-checking-fees-2013-06-11

    • OnPointComments

      Only a truly committed liberal can believe that if consumers are given a choice, and elect to sign up for overdraft protection and the stated fees that a bank charges, that is unfair when these consumers overdraw their accounts and pay the fees they agreed to pay.

  • Talisker23

    Education. Mitt’s solution? Let parents pay for it.

    • donniethebrasco

       With vouchers

  • d clark

    I found Rich Lowry’s fascism and condescension only veiled with the thinnest of veils.

    • donniethebrasco

       Really?  you should at least capitalize the F in Fascism.

      • d clark

        No donnie, I don’t think enough of fascism to give it that honour. But if that is the thing that twists your nipple, so be it.

    • Talisker23

      It’s not even good double speak.

      GOP not turning it’s back on science? No global warming? We don’t understand climate change?

      Keep up the good work Rich. You guys might never see the White House again!

  • J__o__h__n

    How convenient that the South just changed parties.  No mention of the issue that caused that change?

  • bs0607

    The Republican Party shifted from being the party of abolition to become the party of racism since the “Southern Strategy” cynically realigned the party’s beliefs on race to pick up the votes abandoned by postwar civil rights era initiatives of the Democrats.  The Democratic Party flipped from representing the slaveholding and anti-reconstruction south against racial equality… to then evolve since the 1940s to become the party of President Obama. The parties switched.  

    Lincoln could not be nominated in a Republican primary for dogcatcher in any part of the modern day racist tea party red landscape.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       “modern day racist tea party”

      You have a good moniker: bs

      Who in the Tea Party are racist?  Senator Tim Scott?  Allen West?

      • bs0607

        “Who in the Tea Party are racist?” … well, that is easy:  almost all of them.  A few unobservant adherents may not get the link between the shrieking tea party tantrum freakout and the election of the first non-white president.  I get it.

        You have just a very few more elections cycles left before the Mexican American vote flips Texas to the Democrats and swamps the disgusting racist gun nut tsunami that so degraded our recent political history.

        I sense your rage and I know why you are shrieking.  Only genocide or apartheid or white flight to Idaho can preserve your Americuh (imagining Pailn’s accent on the -cuh’ )

        I am a white Texas and look forward to it.  I cannot wait to be a minority in a more rationally governed country freed from the damaging influences of the shrieking gun toting fringe.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          You’ve got it all wrong.

          The rage is about the debt, fiscal irresponsibility and erosion of the Constitution.  It has nothing to do with Mr. Obama’s race.

          • Steve__T

             So why was there so much hate before he even got into office?

    • HonestDebate1

      That’s sick.

      • jefe68

        What’s sick is your abject blindness to reality.

  • Yar

    We haven’t had climate change in the past 15 years?  The climate is always changing, the truth is not in Rich Lowery. He has an agenda and is willing to say anything to promote it.  My definition is that he is a shill.

  • DrewInGeorgia

    “I think it’s profoundly unfair”  says Rich.
    bahahhahahahahaha
    What a hack.
    What a waste of time.

  • AlanThinks

    I was admiring Mr. Lowry for his honesty until he made his unbelievably ignorant remark about climate change. Lincoln would have thought the Republican stance on climate change the same as the Democrats position on slavery – a head-in-the-sand willful ignorance.  Rich, read a little before you espouse more ignorance starting here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1421666010 Wilbur Blount

    This is an absolutely absurd conversation. Lowery loses ground on his claim with every statement he makes. Tom, why would you even entertain this nonsense?

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Because he wrote a book.

  • J__o__h__n

    Lowry makes Bill O’Reilly look like an historian. 

  • donniethebrasco

    Rich, why did you donate money to anti-gay marriage groups?  We got your name from the IRS.  We also see some other troubling phone calls you made.

    We need you to come down to the FBI to explain yourself.

  • Talisker23

    This interview tells me that they still have their heads buried in the sand of denial.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    Mr. Lowery is distorting what science is saying about climate change.  The canard of “there has been no change in the last 15 years” is total bunk.  There is a continuing trend of increasing climate temperature.

    Mr. Lowery is being intellectually dishonest.

    Neil

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Take it up with Dr. Phil Jones who is flummoxed that there has been no statistical warming since 1995 despite a 30% increase in CO2 emissions.

      How long will YOU continue to deny reality, Neil?

      http://www.thegwpf.org/temperature-standstill/

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        You are not correct that there has been no warming in the last 15-16 years.  What part of this fact did you miss?  Additional carbon dioxide is only one of the main factors.

        The climate continues to warm.  Many data points show this, including the melting Arctic ice.

        Neil

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Do you have a reference?

          I don’t believe the climate community agrees with you.

          Also, which i more accurate for measuring global temperature — the satellite record or ground measurements?  Which will have more error (ie, local effects of land use changes)?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

             I follow the science, and I refer you to the vast majority of all climate scientists.  I am deferring to the scientists – so I am only restating what I know to be the reality.

            All the temperature data show the same thing; as do all the other indicators, like flowers and other plants and animals etc.  The Arctic ice and the ice in virtually all the glaciers in the world, and the “permafrost” all confirm the data:  the climate is warming, still.

            Neil

  • jefe68

    Sorry, he just lost me. The GOP is extreme and has been the party of no compromise unless it’s their agenda. 
    Mitch McConnell vowed no cooperation with the Obama administration from the get-go

    • 1Brett1

      They even stand against ideas they championed in the past, ideas they initiated, for the sake of? …Well, it sure looks like the primary goal (and only goal) is to sabotage this Administration.

  • Elizabeth_in_RI

    The Republican party has turned its back on many more things in science than just global warming. You’ve got members of Congress that ignore medical science, especially when it deals with women’s issues, that believe the earth was created thousands of years ago, therefore ignore the work of physical, evolutionary and other researchers, and regularly challenge “elitist” ideas that contradict their own. Sorry – I hope Lincoln would be a bit more pragmatic than Rich Lowry beleives.

    • donniethebrasco

      Believing in Intelligent Design might be wrong, but it causes no harm.  Belief in evolution led to the Holocaust.

      Belief in Global Warming is promoted by people who fly in private jets, heat and cool 8,000 square foot homes, and drive Priuses (one out of 3).

      Believing in Global Warming encourages policies that use corn to create ethanol, raising prices for corn, and causing starvation in third world countries.

      However, if it is believed that population controls are necessary to prevent overrunning the earth with people; then support for higher food prices leading to starvation and abortion for people who can’t afford their children would be justified.

      • nj_v2

        Even for you, that’s remarkably stupid.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1533378781 Neil Vigliotta

    Not impressed.  I’ve studied Lincoln at some length.  Mr. Lowrey is just a mouth piece for today’s GOP.  He didn’t address anything except in terms of today’s GOP.  There was some pointing toward what Lincoln did, but really, nothing to indicate how Lincoln really impacts today’s GOP.  Very sad, just like the GOP.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1294364680 Brent Coulthard

    O.K. This guy just lost any credibility he hoped to garner: just threw out some of the tired pap about “global warming” not occurring  over the past [pick a year, his 15] years”, lending credence to those who would deny the science, the 97% of climate scientists’ consensus on the data…all in the name of refuting Republican denial of science. Breathtaking!  Let’s see this putative NY Times piece. 

  • donniethebrasco

    It is racist to assume that giving money to people doesn’t hurt them by sapping their motivation to take care of themselves.

    • J__o__h__n

      It is racist to assume that only one race is the recipient. 

      • donniethebrasco

        My apologies to Asians and Jews.

        • jefe68

          You should stop with the bigoted crap.

    • Talisker23

      It hasn’t hurt the 1% in the least. They have been the recipients of 99% of the middle class wealth.

  • Chivopayne

    I was going to say exactly what Alanthinks said.  No global warming in the past 15 years? It’s good to let a guy like Lowry talk because eventually he’ll show he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. 

  • BlueNH

    Tom, I cannot believe you allowed this man to lie about climate change.

    The science behind climate change is clear and proven.  Nobody believes  the denier mantra that there hasn’t been any global warming in 15 years.   We have melted the Arctic ice cap, and have reached 400ppm of CO2.  We are witnessing the changing of our climate, but the republicans still deny, deny, deny.

    PLEASE stand for truth, Tom.  You know we are in danger of going beyond 2 degrees C in the next few decades.  We know that they are lying.

    Republicans think they can lie about climate change, but their oil profits will not protect them.  Their children will suffer just like mine will suffer, as we head towards an uninhabitable world.

    • donniethebrasco

       There is nothing to be done about climate change.

      If everyone starts driving a Prius tomorrow, the climate will still change.

      • jefe68

        And you will still be inept.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       You are the one who is denying science.  You are kneeling at the altar of climate change — treating your ideology like a religion.

      The facts are that there hasn’t been statistical warming since 1995.  Don’t believe me.  Believe the head of the CRU at East Anglia University, Dr. Phil Jones — a well known warmist scientist.

      Most of the alarmism in climate science is based on computer models.  The models did not predict the current plateau despite a 30% increase in CO2.  The truth is the more that the scientists learn the more they understand how little they truly know.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

      • Satwa

         Wrong Mr. “worried for the country”.
        That study only measures surface air temperature. The heat has been going into the oceans and melting the ice, and into the earth, heating up at massive rates. That is how global warming is measured. After a certain point the air will start heating up again exponentially.
        ONLY conservative bloggers are touting this do they can deny climate change.
        Lastly, the Daily Mail is a joke newspaper to us Brits.
        Try a REAL newspaper for a change:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/07/global-warming-puzzle-pieces-assembled

    • sickofthechit

       Their children will not suffer compared to the rest of us, because they will be able afford to prepare for it better than the rest of us.

  • bs0607

    Lowry whines that we were dismissive toward the emergence of the so-called Tea Party…  I wonder why anyone would dismiss a bunch of racists at a political rally carrying guns…while waving homemade images of the president of the United States with a bone in his nose and big red lips and a bullseye superimposed over it?  That is such a responsible way to engage in political debate. Why would anyone dismiss it? 

    • donniethebrasco

       Do you have one of those posters?  I’m sure it exists in your mind (or it was funded by MoveOn, a 501 (c) 4)

      • Talisker23

        It was all over the news! That’s what happens when you watch only faux news, you don’t see the forest for the trees.

      • Steve__T

         Here’s one for you. This is from a large collection of Tea Party Posters. But I’m actually sure you know that. You can deny it but that won’t make it go away.

        • HonestDebate1

          BS, that’s not a tea party poster.

          • Steve__T

            All I did was a search for tea party posters of Obama that’s the very first one

             http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tea+party+posters+of+obama&qpvt=tea+party+posters+of+obama&FORM=IGRE

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s not a tea party poster. A search doesn’t prove squat, it is unattributed. The same page has this one:

            http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/3499659098_1c9cf98513-300.jpg

            That was made by a Democrat. It’s not related to the Tea Party either. Some laughably say it’s racist for some reason. I never did get that.

          • Steve__T

            A search doesn’t prove squat? This is the same pictures from a tea party rally. I’m sure you’ll deny it but that’s what you do. No honest debate needed.
            No you wouldn’t think it’s racist But don’t look now your sheet is showing

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, I remember seeing footage of early Tea Party rallies where both posters (including many other racist ones about Obama) were present…I must say, the Master(de)Bater1 gets tiresome, as if his claims that something does or doesn’t exist, that he never said or always said something, that others said things they didn’t say or didn’t say things they said, that he is or isn’t for or against something when he has said so before…chasingthat nonsense around gets so old. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone contradict himself so much. 

          • Steve__T

            And the amount of times hes been called on it  is staggering

          • 1Brett1

            It doesn’t seem to stop him…I would be ashamed. It does seriously hint at a delusion of some sort, at least a kind of cognitive dissonance on steroids.

          • HonestDebate1

            Get out of this bubble.There’s a real world out there.

          • Steve / Lexington MA

            You are right, 1Brett1.

            HonestDebate1 is a troll.  Likewise for donnie the brasco, WorriedfortheCountry, RWB, and OnPointComments.  Their comments are meant to disrupt constructive discussion and don’t merit a serious response.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yea yea yadda 
            yadda. The Tea Party isn’t about race.

          • HonestDebate1

            The witch doctor thing may have a twinge but I don’t see the racism in the Joker picture. Nope, that’s not the Tea Party vibe at all.

            Don’t make me post Bush posters. Just quit.

          • jefe68

            You are one delusional dude.

          • HonestDebate1

            Thank you.

    • Davesix6

       “I wonder why anyone would dismiss a bunch of racists at a political rally carrying guns…while waving homemade images of the president of the United States with a bone in his nose and big red lips and a bullseye superimposed over it”

      bs0607, Where exactly did you see the folks with their guns and their signs?
      They only exist in your imagination bs.
      Can you say latent racism? Seems that you are obviously projecting your hatred on others.
      By the way not to capitalize the word President is generally acknowledged as a sign of disrespect.

  • 1Brett1

    Ah, Lincoln, now there was a good Republican.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

         You would probably still find fault if Lincoln was a GOP leader today.  Most people stick with party.  The last leader to break that party divide was Reagan with his appeal to ‘Reagan Democrats’.

      • 1Brett1

        Nah…I’d vote Republican if there was a particularly good candidate running. I’d praise a Republican if he/she did some good in some way, and have before. Now, if you are talking about platform one would align oneself with, then that is different, but the platforms in Lincoln’s time were the reverse roles of what Democrats and Republicans are today.

        As far as your facile characterization of ‘Reagan Democrats’…it seems to deny the true nuance/historical complexity of that phenomenon. Besides, Reagan didn’t prompt anything new, there have always been swing voters. But let’s go ahead and canonize Reagan, that sure adds depth to any discussion.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Romney?

          Romney didn’t lose the election, the American people lost.  Granted he wasn’t a ‘great’ candidate because he isn’t really a politician but I still believe he would be a great President — really put the country first.

          • 1Brett1

            I have always said you have a great sense of humor.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             LOL.  Well, I’m still getting over the election.

            Sometimes I do wonder if you can be a good President without being a good politician.

            IMO, Obama is a great politician but a terrible President. I understand the inverse doesn’t prove the point.

            I just read a biography of Coolidge and he appears to be  a case of a modest politician but a great President.  He was very popular in his time.  However, he ascended by the death of Harding.

          • jefe68

            You have a point there, although skewed. Romney lost because he was an awful candidate who openly flouted his disdain for at least 70 to 75% of the American people if not more. 

            We Americans lost, because only 47% of eligible voters voted. 
            I think Obama would have won by a huge landslide if more had voted.

            The GOP is not going to win anymore presidential elections with only old rich white people and a few middle-class white folks.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Mr. Romney’s unfortunate 47% comments were made in a private meeting and were secretly recorded by a bartender.

            Disdain for 75%?  Where do you get that?

            I still believe Romney’s leadership would have led to results that would benefit the vast majority of Americans over the long term.  The ones that voted for Obama just don’t realize they were voting against their self interest.  I’m sure you won’t agree with me but I believe the massive debt we have built up will have consequences that will hurt the poor and middle class down the road.  The irony is he likely would have made government vastly more efficient and made it more difficult to shrink government in the future.

          • jefe68

            Mitt Romney has zero ability to connect with the majority of Americans. Why, because 90% are living way below his level of income and he has no interest in the plebs. I was being generous with 75%.  

            Voting against their self interest?
            I would say 99% of anyone who voted for Romney were voting against their self interest.

  • http://www.facebook.com/toddy.moop Toddy Moop

    I left the Republican party over a lot of issues, foremost among which was their anti-science agenda, fueled by Evangelicals whispering in their ears.  Believe me, it’s not just climate change…it’s evolution, the environment, genetic research.  Apart from pure weapons research, I can’t think of anything the Republicans support that promotes science and scientific thinking.

    • donniethebrasco

       Believing in Intelligent Design might be wrong, but it causes no harm.  Belief in evolution led to the Holocaust.

      Belief in Global Warming is promoted by people who fly in private
      jets, heat and cool 8,000 square foot homes, and drive Priuses (one out
      of 3).

      Believing in Global Warming encourages policies that use corn to
      create ethanol, raising prices for corn, and causing starvation in third
      world countries.

      However, if it is believed that population controls are necessary to
      prevent overrunning the earth with people; then support for higher food
      prices leading to starvation and abortion for people who can’t afford
      their children would be justified.

      • J__o__h__n

        Your history is as good as your science. 

        • donniethebrasco

           Al Gore doesn’t ride in a Private Plane or live in 8,000 sq. ft. homes?

          • Talisker23

            I’m not Al Gore! Neither are the other 53% who believe in global warming.
             
            You hate one man. Your hatred ruins your entire argument.

          • J__o__h__n

            Al Gore’s personal hypocracy doesn’t negate climate change.

          • HonestDebate1

            He doesn’t live in 8,000 sq. ft. homes, he lives in 10,000 sq. ft. homes.

      • Talisker23

        Sorry but you are making a radical assumption of people who support the reality of global warming. Obviously if more than 50% of the population believes the reality, they don’t all fly private jets, drive prius’ or own 8000sq.ft. homes. Again, with the radical, liberal, extreme thinking.

        Intelligent design does cause harm. It’s a denial of reality, much in the same vein as the holicost deniers today. You are speaking great untruths that the world all knows are incorrect, along the lines of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 

        Obama wants to end the corn subsidies. We all know this was a false solution to the problem. Population controls and food prices? That’s a slim connection at best. More like higher food prices due to ethanol production.

      • http://www.facebook.com/toddy.moop Toddy Moop

         “Believing in Intelligent Design…causes no harm”?  What it does is encourage magical thinking as opposed to scientific thinking.  So would you rather take a flu shot (hint: because the organism evolved) designed by a scientist or by a minister?  And to your “point” about evolution leading to the Holocaust: Wow.  Right there.  That’s the reason I left the Republican Party, in a nutshell (pun intended).

  • Talisker23

    Another term for radical or new thinking that has no basis for past experience? Liberal. To deny global warming, to deny the GOP is not against science, is not only hypocritical, it’s radical, liberal thinking.

    Today we have a compete flip flop of parties. Dems are the new moderate conservatives. It is conservative thinking to consider the possibility that we are causing global warming (with a basis in math and science) and to consider doing something about it.

  • J__o__h__n

    I always think it is a bit stupid to try to predict how any historical figure would apply their principles today totally out of context.  This is probably a myth but I read about a town that limited the number of years after death that a person could vote because that was the maximum number that they thought they could predict how they would have voted. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Was that ‘town’ Cleveland? — where the head of polling says they’ll release the polling results AFTER they find out how many votes they NEED.

  • Davesix6

    Abraham Lincoln may have been a pragmatist as Jack says but his unwillingness to compromise on some issues, most important freedom, is the reason Slavery was ended and the nation held together. 

  • SpencerInSomerville

    Talk about denying science! Mr. Lowry just said we haven’t had global “warming” for 15 years, noting how Democrats are the ones denying science. The NOAA reports the last decade was the hottest on record (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html), and we’ve seen no warming? This is not just denying science, it’s creating a new narrative based on the ideologies that can’t accept a contrary point of view in any regard. Is THIS the epistemological estate left by Lincoln? Surely, pragmatism has been usurped by principled recalcitrance. 

    • donniethebrasco

       What should be done about global cooling?

    • OnPointComments

      “What to Make of a Warming Plateau”
      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0 

      Excerpt:
      The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.  The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.

      • donniethebrasco

         The climate isn’t cooperating.  It is cooling, not warming.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1294364680 Brent Coulthard

         If you’re going to post this kind of thing, then you need to follow through and research the raft of data that supports: long term heat building in the atmosphere and the ocean; temp rising over much longer time scales than 15-20 years.  No cherry picking snapshots in the record to fit the pattern you wish to see.  We can all slice selective quotes out of the press, even this piece:
        Excerpt:
        Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical
        record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful
        selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is
        almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.
         Is “OnPointComments” posting this under the imprimatur of this program, w/ the intention of giving credence to science denial?  You’ve lost a listener, Tom.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          The NYTimes writer was cherry picking the 1998 starting point.  Dr. Phil Jones how now admitted that there has been no statistical warming since 1995.  If you use satellite records there has been no warming for 23 years.  None of the models that are used to  promote alarmism predicted this plateau despite a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2.

          Climate science is in its infancy.  They more the scientists learn the more they understand how little they truly know.

      • Talisker23

        They still state that it is “warming”. They also state that they predicted it would go in fits and starts.

        The article does nothing but verify the global warming fact.

    • HonestDebate1

      Sorry, the link didn’t work for me. I got to the EPA site but “page not found”.

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

      http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html

  • esaud

    Ever since Nixon’s odious Southern strategy, the Republican party has been giving seats at the table to the worst any society has to offer.  Rich Lowrey wants to be seen an some kind of intellectual, but his Republicans can’t win without people like racist gasbags like Limbaugh (“the ACA is reparations for black people”), or religious nuts like Pastor Hagee (Jesus is coming back to kill all the Jews) or gun nuts like Ted Nugent (“Obama can suck on my machine gun”).   Just once, I would like to see Republicans paying a political price for these horrible associations. 

    Lowrey has no credibility.  What a waste of time for this program. 

    (PS – If you want a good laugh, google up Lowrey’s hilarious “starbursts” he felt for that shameless grifter, Sarah Palin)

    • donniethebrasco

       Obama’s odious strategy:

      If you vote for Republicans, they will take away your checks.

      If they take away the checks of the poorest among us, criminals will break into your suburban houses.  It is much easier to pay off the 47% instead of making them work for a living.

      • Talisker23

        The last election proves you are wrong.

  • Mannie1

    Well, don’t think many people will be buying this book. Intellectually unsound. Now, Jack Beatty is a whole other story…..  Smart guy, great contributer to this program.

    • donniethebrasco

      You can buy Obama’s book with your EBT card, but not Rich Lowry’s book.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Buying Lowry’s book will be flagged by the NSA and sent directly to the IRS for audit processing.

  • donniethebrasco

    Believing in Intelligent Design might be wrong, but it causes no harm.  Belief in evolution led to the Holocaust. Belief in Global Warming is promoted by people who fly in private jets, heat and cool 8,000 square foot homes, and drive Priuses (one out of 3).

    Believing in Global Warming encourages policies that use corn to create ethanol, raising prices for corn, and causing starvation in third world countries.

    However, if it is believed that population controls are necessary to prevent overrunning the earth with people; then support for higher food prices leading to starvation and abortion for people who can’t afford their children would be justified.
     

    • J__o__h__n

      Evolution did not cause the Holocaust.  Centuries of antisemitism did. 

      Ethanol is due to Iowa being a swing state and the first caucus.

      • donniethebrasco

         Evolution was the idea behind the selective breeding necessary to justify Aryan superiority.

        http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/morality-and-religion/evolution-supported-nazism-racism-and-sexism/t.2923473/

        • Talisker23

          So you don’t believe generations procreating on welfare with no limits on children, have an impact on the gene pool?

        • J__o__h__n

          Gravity was the science behind bombing London. 

          • Talisker23

            No, Donnie believes that was intelligent falling.

        • jefe68

          I see someone removed brasco’s inflammatory and inane comment about evolution being the cause of the Holocaust.

          It was eugenics, not evolution.

        • brettearle

          You’re suggesting that Darwin was a racist?

      • donniethebrasco

        Ethanol policy kills people.

    • Talisker23

      Tired radical argument

    • Talisker23

      Sorry but you are making a radical assumption of people who support the reality of global warming. Obviously if more than 50% of the population believes the reality, they don’t all fly private jets, drive prius’ or own 8000sq.ft. homes. Again, with the radical, liberal, extreme thinking.
      Intelligent design does cause harm. It’s a denial of reality, much in the same vein as the holicost deniers today. You are speaking great untruths that the world all knows are incorrect, along the lines of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
      Obama wants to end the corn subsidies. We all know this was a false solution to the problem. Population controls and food prices? That’s a slim connection at best. More like higher food prices due to ethanol production.

      I can cut and paste too.

    • northeaster17
  • donniethebrasco

    Voice From Obama

    I better not hear anyone here go contrary to the liberal agenda.  We can tap your phones, read your email, and kill you like we did Breitbart.

    You have been warned.

    • Talisker23

      This was law put in place by a Republican president!

      • donniethebrasco

         And abused by the Obama administration.

        • Talisker23

          If you believe Bush was innocent, you are incredibly naive.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          History lesson needed on aisle 5.

  • J__o__h__n

    No mention of what Lincoln would have thought of the modern Republican position on states’ rights? 

  • donniethebrasco
    • Talisker23

      Donnie: A good example of the vocal minority.

    • donniethebrasco

      I believe in evolution.  I also believe in freedom and capitalism.

      Belief in Bolshevism will bring America to its knees.

  • hginvt

    After listening to Rich Lowry today I feel like I need to take a shower.  He is the poster boy for the republican “head in a bag” mentality.  No global warming in 15 years???? Where did he get that?  

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Actually it is longer than 15 years.  23 years if you use the satellite data.

      I’m surprised you haven’t been following the news. The NYTimes just had a piece. The Economist just had a piece last month. Maybe NPR isn’t covering it?

      Dr. Phil Jones from the UK’s CRU and holder of the global temperature data says it all.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

      • Talisker23

        Worriedforthecountry, if you took a minute and actually read your link, you would find that it completely agrees with the fact that the globe is still warming.

        It even stated that those on the radical right will probably falsely use it to support their illogic that the globe is not in fact warming. Wow, you are a poster child for this fact.  

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Uh no.

          Dr. Jones says the lack of warming is ‘blip’.  That is an opinion.  Also, note this article is from 2010.  We are now 3 years hence and still no warming from 1995-2013.  Also, satellite records show no warming from 1990-2013.

          Why deny facts?  You can argue the significance of the data but not the data.

          • brettearle

            Can I assume that you are prepared to deny that the overwhelming majority of respected Climatologists, in this country, support the evidence that point to man-made Global Warming?

            In other words, you actually believe that these scientists–who have spent decades in research, most of whom have PHDs from respected institutions–simply support Global Warming because they are dogmatic Democrats?

            That they are prepared to follow their scientific-based claims based on political basis, rather than empirical evidence?

            If you believe that, then you don’t need a de-programmer, you need a revolutionary lobotomy….

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            No, I believe in science not mythology.

            I know the UN and the IPCC is politically corrupt.  I can’t speak to the motivations of some of the most vocal activist scientists.  However, I believe the so called consensus is meaningless.

            Climate science is a nascent field and certainly isn’t ‘settled’.  The more they learn the more they know how little they understand.

            Here is an essay that Dr. Lindzen of MIT wrote on the ‘The Climate Science Isn’t Settled’

            Of course, Dr. Lindzen wrote this BEFORE the recent data that are having even warmist scientists scrambling to find the ‘missing heat’.

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

          • HonestDebate1

            “I know the UN and the IPCC is politically corrupt.”

            Bingo. Big time worldwide UN money is at stake. The IPCC has some scientists but the “I” stands for “intergovernmental” They’re bureaucrats and activist too. It’s amazing how many “studies” rely on the 2007 4th quarter assessment and how that report relied on Jones’ work at the East Anglia CRU.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Kevin Trenberth, one of the leading warmists was quoted:

            “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

            Yes, they are not happy.

            Regarding the corruption of the IPCC, you only need to look at the former head of the IPCC who has made $millions peddling alarmism and his money grab. When questioned in his native India on climate action that India should take since it is one of the largest contributors of new CO2 — his answer was India should take NO action.

            Why was there little coverage in the media? The blatant hypocrisy should have exposed him as a complete fraud.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1294364680 Brent Coulthard

            We are 3 years hence and the data will confirm that 2011, 2012 continue a warming trend, records falling, heat rising.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Continued plateau?

            Sorry, the data is the data.

        • OnPointComments

          Actually, the article said that the admissions of Professor Jones, i.e., 

          –the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon, 
          –that he may have lost the data to support his climate change theory,
          –that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming
           
          will be seized on by SKEPTICS as evidence of the serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change.  SKEPTICS, not the radical right.  Skeptics are those who require that a theory be proven with data, instead of marching in lock step behind a theory which doesn’t have sufficient proof.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1294364680 Brent Coulthard

         If yer gonna quote Dr Phil, you might as well get it right:
        “A headline in the Daily Mail
        claims that Phil Jones, ex-director of the University of East Anglia’s
        Climatic Research Unit, said ‘there has been no global warming since
        1995′. Not only did Phil Jones not say these words, this interpretation
        shows a poor understanding of the scientific concepts behind his words.
        To fully understand what Phil Jones was saying, one needs to read his
        actual words and understand the science discussed. Here is the relevant
        excerpt from the BBC interview:
        BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warmingPhil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend
        is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical
        significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods,
        and much less likely for shorter periods.BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate
        has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC
        Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is
        due to human activity.”Thanks to Skeptical Science.com

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Remember, Dr. Jones was interviewed in 2010 regarding 1995-2009 data.  We now have 3 more years of data.

          The data is the data.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1294364680 Brent Coulthard

             Yes, the data is the data; but you have to look at ALL of it over larger timescales and proper orders of magnitude, not commentary offered by a meteorologist (vice a climatologist) that reeks of pablum soon as you crack the page open.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Clearly you don’t ‘crack’ the page because there is serious science discussed at WUWT.  Yes there is snark but it is usually limited to making fun of propaganda and foolish media.
            It isn’t the be all and end all of climate science but they try to keep the science honest.

          • northeaster17
          • WorriedfortheCountry

            The Cook study is an embarrassment.  Really another example of confirmation bias.  Try again — this time with science.

        • HonestDebate1

          Has there been significant warming since 1995 or not?

      • jefe68

        So the Goddard Institute, NASA and NOHA are all wrong when they have posted data that says the last 15 years have been the warmest on record.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           You are missing the point.  The warming was supposed to increase but it did not.  It stayed flat.

          • jefe68

            No it did not. If it gets warmer, as it has for 15 years now, it’s not exactly flat now is it. 

            Funny that you mention flat, as in flat world society.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            97% of climate scientists agree that there has been no statistical warming since 1995.  Why are you denying science and the data?

            Is it because you treat global warming like a religion?

            Why are the scientists scrambling to find the missing heat?

          • jefe68

            I’m not going to go around the block with this anymore. You don’t want to believe that our industrial society, and that includes all of them on the planet, are not having an effect on the environment, be my guest.

  • Abbeysgram

    I don’t know where to begin with my opinion on this ‘journalist’, but HIS interpretation of Lincoln is so skewed it’s sickening to me.  He so desperately wants the present day Republican party to be able to identify with Lincoln that he will simply falsify and even make up facts about Lincoln.  I had to turn the show off when Mr. Lowry started a rather crazy rant about the Democrats that made no sense at all.  He was totally insulting to not only Democrats, but also to Republican, to Americans in general, and most insulting to President Lincoln. 

    • Bruce94

       Yep, I’m convinced that, notwithstanding Mr. Lowery’s revisionist drivel, Lincoln in today’s Republican Party would be relegated to the status of RINO for his elevation of human rights above the laissez-faire, states’ rights rationale that the current extremist iteration of the GOP has re-embraced in order to maintain the status quo or return to a bygone era of discrimination and inequality.  Lincoln was also guilty of making a huge investment in the country’s infrastructure with the nation’s first Intercontinental Railroad, something along with the system of public colleges & universities that he introduced would be roundly criticized by today’s GOP as unaffordable or better left to the “free” market.  However, Lincoln would not be alone among the former Republican luminaries consigned to RINO status.  Here a few more with their offenses listed:

      –Teddy Roosevelt for implementing antitrust laws curbing monopoly power and for founding a conservation movement providing a model for sustainable resource use & biodiversity preservation.

      –Dwight Eisenhower for warning against the excesses of the military-industrial complex and military adventurism overseas and for completing one of the largest public infrastructure projects in US history, the Interstate Highway system.

      –Ronald Reagan for daring to reverse course and  compromise with his ideological opponents when he raised taxes and closed tax loopholes for the wealthy (see TEFRA) after recognizing the failure of his supply-side experiment to raise the necessary revenues and to create broad-based prosperity. 

      • Abbeysgram

        The other thing that surprised me was that during the part of the show I did listen to (before turning the radio off) there didn’t seem to be anybody other than the callers who were refuting the claims this man was making.  He just ranted and raved and while the callers tried to pin  him down and refute what he was saying, there was nothing going on in the studio. This was not a discussion, it was one man’s rant. I am not a Lincoln scholar, but I’ve read enough about him (by true Lincoln scholars) to know that Mr. Lowry was revising history. It was very disappointing, and it makes me wonder if this host really wants listeners to be so sickened by his interviewees that they turn his program off.  it seems to me that it’s kind of hard to stay in business when people don’t listen to you.  

        • brettearle

          Many consider Ashbrook to be one of the best.

          I certainly do.

          Do you think, maybe, he was bending over backwards to be fair–and to prove that NPR is not in the tank for the Liberal community?

          After all, Lowry holds a position with prestige that approaches the William Buckley tradition–who was a very serious, if not misdirected, Political Scholar.

          If I had to, I could cite any number of examples, where Tom Ashbrook has challenged Republican guests, time and again on issues.

          • Abbeysgram

            I agree that Tom Ashbrook has to always present a variety of opinions.  I am not really criticizing Mr. Ashbrook, but I am just stating my reactions to the show.  It was like a run away train that nobody knew how to stop, and perhaps Mr. Ashbrook did the best thing by letting Lowry, and his humongous ego, just kind of implode.  But I couldn’t listen to it, it was giving me a headache.  I’m allergic to lies.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Putting a rightwing pundit on and getting a “runaway train that nobody knew how to stop” was almost a preordained outcome.

            It’s a patented “public radio fail”: Public radio means polite. It means not calling anyone a liar. That means the more lies a guest wants to scoop, and the better their breath control, the more listeners get headaches.

            I’m afraid our host knew what he was in for. I wish there was a battling liberal invited opposite Lowry.

          • Steve__T

             I was supposed to be about his book of which I heard little.

          • Abbeysgram

            I don’t think it would need to be a Liberal to dispute Lowry – to me this is more about Lincoln himself.  I wish Mr. Ashbrook had invited a Lincoln scholar on to argue Mr. Lawry’s assertions to Mr. Lincoln’s beliefs and his actions.  And a previous writer  claims that Mr. Lawry holds a position of esteem (in the Republican party apparently) means nothing to me.  I see this as an assault on Lincoln’s character more than a Liberal-Conserative argument.

          • HonestDebate1

            I disagree that Mr. Ashbrook is one of the best but I do think you are on to something. I definitely see an effort to bring balance and the fact that he had Lowry on is an example. I think he has a long way to go but I don’t want to fight about it. I recognize the effort and I have said many times the show itself is far more balanced and less ideological than this blog. Of course, that’s not saying much.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          You claimed Mr. Lowry lied.  Could you name a few please.  We would like to know.

          • Abbeysgram

            I didn’t listen to the whole show, as I previously stated, but in the time I was listening it is my opinion Mr. Lowry was misrepresenting Mr. Lincoln’s actions and his personal beliefs to suit his own purposes.  President Lincoln was not a perfect person, but he also changed his views and beliefs during his presidency, he was evolving, he wasn’t static.  Mr. Lowry is trying to claim that Mr. Lincoln would be a part of today’s Republican party, and that is also a misrepresentation because President Lincoln was not an ultra conservative, Mr. Lincoln believed in people, Mr. Lincoln believed in the emancipation proclamation, Mr. Lincoln spoke eloquently about his belief’s in both his Gettysburg address and his second inaugural speech. Misrepresentation is a form of lying.  

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Thank you for the reply.  However, I don’t believe you really made your case.  Mr. Lincoln was not ultra-conservative?  Could you define ultra-conservative?  Is ultra-conservative someone who abhors abortion?  What do you think Lincoln felt about abortion?

            btw- not everyone in the GOP is ‘ultra-conservative’ — by any definition.

            Lincoln was a strong leader in difficult times.  Hopefully, we can agree that members of both parties will try and emulate Lincoln.  If they do, then our country will be better for it.

  • bs0607

    “the rage is about the debt, fiscal irresponsibility and erosion”  Good, then we agree that Bush was the worst president in our history…  but why did the fringe start shrieking AFTER the harm of the Bush era? Why freak out when the black guy was asked by your fellow citizens to reside in the White House and clean up the mess Bush left?  Hmmm… I just cannot fathom it… can’t be racism, that would be wrong, have to invent some other reason…

    • OnPointComments

      Is that you, Chris Matthews?

    • donniethebrasco

       I have a warm feeling going down my leg.

      • jefe68

        You might want to check for a dog.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       I’ll ask you again.  Are Senator Tim Scott and Allen West racist?

      Name one part of the Tea Party platform that is racist?

      Racism is a serious charge.  If you can’t support it; don’t make it.  Using your logic no one can criticize Obama or else he is a racist.

      Many in the Tea Party are upset with Bush’s policies — especially the debt he ran up at the end of his term but again compare average $100B deficits to $1.4T annual deficits. Bush also expanded the Federal government and many Tea Party types are against his expansions.  However, Obama has expanded the Federal government by orders of magnitude more.  Obamacare is much larger than the Medicare Part D expansion. Again, this has nothing to do with Obama’s race.

    • HonestDebate1

      That’s sick.

    • brettearle

      There’s racism in both parties.  Please recall Trent Lott’s comments.  But please also recall Biden’s unbelievable comments, about the President, after Senator Obama announced as a Presidential candidate.

      [And yet, of course, the President surely gave him a rather gracious, if not stunning pass.]

      But, yes, I think there’s likely more racism on the Right.

      But for you to finger the GOP for blaming Obama because of the color of his skin is a serious and fundamental misreading of Republican and Right-Wing Ideology.

      On the other hand, it IS true  (at least to me it is) that the Right Wing echo chamber, in DC–not simply with AM Talk Radio, across the country–is rife with exaggerated criticism of, and complaint about, the President, that is likely tinged, periodically, with a subtext of racism.

  • http://www.facebook.com/russell.ludwick Russell Ludwick

    If Lincoln was alive today, he would be a democrat. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      He would align himself Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

      I don’t think so.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joshua-Hendrickson/1652586055 Joshua Hendrickson

        He sure wouldn’t be aligning himself with the party of Nixon’s New Southern Strategy.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joshua-Hendrickson/1652586055 Joshua Hendrickson

      If Lincoln were alive today, he’d be scratching desperately at the inside of his coffin.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1294364680 Brent Coulthard

     And, if you’d read the piece in the NYT, it ends with this ominous line:
    “So, if past is prologue, this current plateau will end at some point,
    too, and a new era of rapid global warming will begin. That will put
    extra energy and moisture into the atmosphere that can fuel weather
    extremes, like heat waves and torrential rains.
    We might one day find ourselves looking back on the crazy weather of the
    2010s with a deep yearning for those halcyon days.”

     Look at ALL the data, not just the chunk cherry-picked to Confirm your Bias.

  • hginvt

    According to NOAA and NASA 2012 was the hottest year on record.  Just Google “hottest year on record”.  You don’t have to dig around for some bad science to bolster your preconceived dilusions.    

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      So?
      2013 is on track to be much cooler.  So?

      We are discussing 15-25 year trends.  In climate terms, some climate scientists believe 17 years is the minimum period for a ‘trend’.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/

    • HonestDebate1

      According to NASA 2012 was ninth.

  • Steve__T

    Disqus

  • Steve__T

    Strikes again

  • Satwa

    This guy Rich is an idiot. Saying there is no global warming for 15 years is due to his self-induced brainwashing. That figure only apples to surface air temperatures. The rest of the heat has gone into heating the oceans and melting the ice at unprecedented rates. Sure the surface air temps have slowed at the highest levels ever recorded, but soon the ice will be melted, and the oceans will become warmer, the air will become hotter, and a GREENHOUSE EFFECT may come into play in which heat from the sun does not escape the atmosphere anymore, and it just builds and builds exponentially. This man is complete fool.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Sounds like Mr. Lowry criticized your religion and you don’t like it.  Facts are facts.

      Google ‘missing heat’ and you will find countless examples of warmists tying themselves in knots looking for the ‘missing heat’.

      Then you can find this gem where they claim they found the heat sequestered in the ocean — get this — below 700m since the surface temperature can’t explain the ‘missing heat’.  Oh, how does that heat ‘sink’?  That is a new one.

      http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/29/has-trenberth-found-the-missing-heat/

    • northeaster17

      http://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-climate-change-2013-5. Dude get a grip. Forget the 47%. Read about the 97% of climate scientists who differ with you

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         That Cook study was widely rebuked as bogus.

        • northeaster17

          Earlier I mentioned a Republican problem with pregnancy from rape. Who would have thunk Rep Franks (R) AZ would make my case for me. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/12/arizona-rep-franks-invokes-akin-the-incidence-of-rape-resulting-in-pregnancy-are-very-low/

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            And that relates to the climate how?

      • HonestDebate1

        Oh man, not that again.

        • jefe68

          Oh man, not you again.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joshua-Hendrickson/1652586055 Joshua Hendrickson

    It’s foolish trying to play “what would (given historical figure) do today”? The question can’t be answered. What can be answered is the question “where does the Republican party go from here?” My answer (may differ from others) is “down the sewer where it belongs.”

  • Robert Berube

    I agree with the premise that Abraham Lincoln was a strict pragmatist. This makes his party affiliation redundant, at best. 

    • Steve__T

       Yes after we elect a President our elected officials are to come together, in union to further the good for all.
       Not happening and as we all know the truth of the statement, “United we stand divided we fall”.

  • thykingdomcom

    In all of this discusssion, someone should have quoted Abraham Lincoln himself on his philosophy of government:

    “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, in their separate and individual capacities.”

    (I know that President Obama knows this and agrees with this, because he has used this quotation in some of his books.)

  • GregMcIsaac

    Interesting topic, civil discussion, with great questions from the callers.  Mr. Lowry’s approach offers such great promise, but his response to some of the callers was very disappointing. When the question of science denial came up, he argued that liberals do it too (which I agree with) but it is a smear when people accuse Republicans of it.  Mr. Ashbrook was on target when he brought up the Mann and Ornstein case against the Republican Party, but Mr. Lowry’s response was basically that Democrats are just as bad. That’s a low bar for advancing the GOP as the party of aspiration.  

    Unfortunately it seems that Mr. Lowry’s hope is in using Lincoln’s words to appeal to centrist voters without substantive changes in policy positions.  Will there be any substantive new policy initiatives? I didn’t hear any in this discussion. Maybe there are some in his book.   

    In my opinion, Republicans are having a tough time at the polls because they made some big mistakes.  The Iraq war is one,  Reagan’s tax cut is another.  High tax rates were paying down the WWII debt until Reagan’s tax cut was implemented.  Republicans will blame it on spending, but ignore the fact that it was largely an increase in military spending which Republicans supported.  This pattern was repeated with the Bush 43 tax cuts.  

    The Republican party would do itself and the country a service by admitting its mistakes and offering serious course corrections.  Trying to paper over past mistakes with Lincoln’s words is a mistake and a disservice.   

    • ExcellentNews

      Thank you for a civil and cogent comment. It is true that “liberals” have their own anti-science nuts. But vaccine opponents, alternative healers and crystallomancers are not embedded in DC, setting our national R&D policy or the educational curriculum.

      • Sy2502

        They aren’t setting school policy, but when I have to pay my health care premium so that somebody can get placebo treatments acupuncture, I still find it distasteful. Also while the fairy tale of Adam and Eve has never killed anyone, I remind you people who have put their health and life, and that of their children in the hands of quack treatment have in fact died. Steve Jobs could still be alive if he had properly treated his cancer instead of wasting time with snake oil. 

  • Tyranipocrit

    This guy is full of nonsense. interesting how he equates Hollywood actors and actresses with the “elite” who live decadent lives.  Who! His priorities are just wacky.  What do they have to do with anything. They are just actors.  And rarely even use their pedestal for important issues or “politics”.  They earned their money the same way he claims we have the right to do–that im sure he would praise the same decadent politicians and billionaires–who he would claim are honest and struggling.  Give me a F–ing break!  The decadent are in the billionaire business class of  the 1%–many whom are Republican–the ones whose policies and corruption actually makes a difference–what the F do actors have to do with it. 

    Republicans–fundamentalist Christian are also ranting about Hollywood–but have no problem with war crazed torturing murderous raping corrupt billionaires.  real nice.  Real stupid.  Why is this guy on the radio?

    he is all over the place –no substance no content no message!
    A f-ing joke.

    first all ov–we had angel investors–we had charters–corporations–rich elite got together to fund a project for a limited time.  We had a financial class–bankers and railroaders and steel owners–who created the Federal Reserve and connived to  usurp democracy.  many of the founders were passionately against a financial class because they knew it would undermine freedom, equality, and democracy–as we see now with his republican minded elite corrupt decadent 1%.  HE is just wrong about everything. 

    • Herb Smith

      Yep, Lowry’s comments show him peddling his own brand of class warfare.

  • Tyranipocrit

    yeah–f-the environment.  we dont health or clean air–that jsut gets in the way of YOUr goddamn freedom to exploit.  I have a right to clean water a clean environment–YOU do not have the right to piss in my water.  it is a crime.

  • Roy-in-Boise

    “We haven’t had any global warming in 15 years.”  How about Co2 at 400 ppm about 2 weeks ago? Sorry Mr. Lowery you lost me there. This is why the GOP is headed south … Keep talking Sir we all need to hear you.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Mr. Lowry’s statement was accurate.  There has been no statistical warming since 1995 in the ground temperature measurements and no warming in 23 years if you use the satellite data.  It is also true that the CO2 levels are at 400ppm.  Facts are facts.  Are you denying the facts?

      • Roy-in-Boise

         Yes, Mr. Lowery is wrong. He is long on emotion and short on facts. Climate and weather are two different things. And the band played on …

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           How is he wrong?  He is simply repeating the data reported by climate scientists.

          You are the one you appears emotional — treating global warming like a religion.

          I think you are making Mr. Lowry’s point about warmists and alarmists denying science.

          And we aren’t talking about weather.  Warmist climate scientists are scrambling to find the ‘missing heat’ for years now.  None of their models predicted this plateau while CO2 levels increased 30%.

          I’ll grant you that this data doesn’t kill the AGW hypothesis but it does show that the science isn’t ‘settled’.

          • Roy-in-Boise

            My father always said: “Be careful whom you argue with when you know not their credentials.”

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Good advice.

          • GregMcIsaac

            where are you getting 30% increase in CO2?  This NOAA data indicates a 16% increase from 1980 to 2012; 10% increase from 1995-2012:   ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_gl.txt

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Thanks for the link.  I stand corrected. Although not to quibble but increase looks like 18% and 11% respectively.

          • GregMcIsaac

            I think you are using 400 ppm to get an 18% increase.  But 400 ppm was a temporary measure during 2013, and we do not yet know the temperature for 2013.  I believe the plateau refers to global annual temps through 2012, so I used the 2012 average CO2 concentration (392.53) to calculate the percentage increase.  

            Also, I am not sure about your claim that there has been no increase in global temperatures in 23 years based on satellite measurements. The satellite data of Roy Spencer (Climate change skeptic) shows an increase in the late 1990s followed by no change.  http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2013_v5.5.png

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Thanks for the clarification.

            Regarding the sat. data, I had seen elsewhere that the 23 year increase may not be statistically significant.  Even if that claim is dubious, it is clear that the various climate models have over-predicted the warming over the last 2 decades or so.

            Compare the ‘consensus’ line (black) vs. actual.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

          • GregMcIsaac

            It would be nice to have the data, but based on the graph, graph I’d say the significant divergence occurs after 1997-8.  But there  is some missing information about the graph:  at what point do the models shift from using measuredgreenhouse gas concentrations to predicted concentraitons, and what are the assumptions behind the predicted concentrations?  

            There have been several recent publications that have revised climate sensitivity downward, which makes the worst case predictions less likely and provides more time for further research and decision making. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23565-a-second-chance-to-save-the-climate.html#.Ubp57_m1Fic

    • HonestDebate1

      And that is the point. CO2 is up but the temperature is not. The models were wrong. 

    • ExcellentNews

      Yeah… also, today was a rather cool day in my town. That PROVES that global warming models are wrong and that it is a HOAX by a cabal of elite scientists to mooch of government money stolen from our hard-working job creators.

  • ExcellentNews

    Well, after listening to Mr. Lowry, I am even more firmly convinced that if Lincoln was alive today, he would be a Democrat and sport an Obama button.  In fact, the Republican and Democrats have basically swapped places since Lincoln’s era. Wait! In fact, the slave-owner descendants are a key Republican constituency today…

    Something that Lincoln would probably have agreed with is that you judge people based on their ACTIONS, not rhetoric. In that light, Obama and the Democrats are firmly in the camp of “equal privileges for all in the game of life”. Today’s Congressional Republicans are just for the “privileges” part…

    Faced with an actual debate, you can hear Mr. Lowry struggle to explain how modern Republican positions resemble those of Lincoln. I guess that’s what happens when you are accustomed to being “interviewed” by the corporate shills at Pox News… What did he resort to at the end? Bashing science!

    There we go Republicans. The party of global oligarchs, Saudi oil interests, Chinese industrialists, evolution deniers and other anti-science fundamentalists, predatory bankers, and trust fund babies.

    • Sy2502

      “Obama and the Democrats are firmly in the camp of “equal privileges for all in the game of life”.”

      Thank you for the laughs, I needed them.

  • Lily Claiborne

    One of the things I love about this show is Mr. Ashbrook’s willingness to play devil’s advocate – to always make the guest address the opposing view upfront.  I found it very frustrating yesterday that Mr. Ashbrook allowed Mr. Lowry to state something as blatantly false as “there’s been no global warming in the past 15 years” without refuting this.  This is the kind of statement, when left unchallenged, that allows the public’s dangerous misconceptions about the scientific consensus on climate change to continue.  I realize this wasn’t the focus of the interview, but it essentially allowed Mr. Lowry to avoid the caller’s question and should have been challenged.

    • Bluejay2fly

      The entire interview was Lowry making ridiculous statements and not being called on it. Romney being pulled from his bootstraps? How many non lawyer or non CEO people can get elected in this nation? Lincoln today would not be president nor would he likely be a lawyer. The idea he would have to have been able to front a hundred thousand dollars as a working poor person is not realistic. Even if he did he via crippling debt he would not have enough money left over nor the proper connections to enter a political campaign. Romney started with a dad who was corporate executive and Governor. Lowry’s  comparison was asinine and remits the BS story the Republican party thinks people are stupid enough to believe in.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Hey Lily, get up with the latest science.  There has been NO statistical warming for 17 years and 4 months based on ground temperature records.  The period without warming is even longer if you look at the satellite records.

      You don’t have to believe me.  Ask any climate scientist.
      You could ask Dr. Phil Jones who runs the CRU at East Anglia University.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

      Or if you are interested in some nice graphs you can look here and see it for yourself.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/no-significant-warming-for-17-years-4-months/

    • GregMcIsaac

      this is what Lowry was talking about http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=2612654 John Hester

        That NYT article states: “The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that.” Slower warming does not equal no global warming. Like, Lily, I grow very frustrated when mainstream media folk like Tom Ashbrook allow Republican/Conservative con artists to spew their garbage unchallenged.

        • GregMcIsaac

          When something in motion comes to a stop, it can indeed be said to have slowed considerably.  Try reading the article again and note the use of the words “plateau” and “lull” as well as statements like “So the real question is where all that heat is going, if not to warm the surface.” And “… if past is prologue, this current plateau will end at some point, too…”  Challenge away, but based on what?  

  • Mannie1

    With regards the comments that Ashbrook and Beatty didn’t challenge Lowry enough, I got the feeling that by the time the “debate” moved into the fourth quarter, the two of them had figured out that Lowry wasn’t handling himself well. The latter sounded to me pretty entrenched in his position and therefore couldn’t argue successfully beyond it. He certainly began sounding defensive and uneasy. I think Ashbrook backed off partly to let the guy hoist himself on his own petard once it was clear that was the way it was going and, I got the impression, they were embarrassed for him. Most of the guests of whichever political persuasion manage to cope with challenging questions. This guy seemed a bit lost towards the end. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001708537001 Joshua Evans

    He had me until he talked about climate change.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=32606540 Brian Belgard

    The majority of government spending is transfer payments? Considering the 3 largest programs; Social Security, Medicare and Pentagon spending are not transfer programs, what on earth is he talking about?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1031640045 Bo James Hancock

    Positioning the GOP as the party of opportunity is ludicrous.  GOP policies are a major driver for increasing wealth inequality which is completely associated with lessened social mobility.  The Republican platform is, if anything, AGAINST the American dream and it should be a crime against truth to suggest otherwise.  Since Reagan and his transformational presidency social mobility in the US has taken a swan dive as wealth inequality has skyrocketed.  There are many countries in Europe who, through there social policies, have managed to create societies where social mobility is a FACT rather than a DREAM.  If the GOP wants to position themselves as a part of opportunity then maybe they should start thinking about trying to help ALL Americans rather than just the wealthy and well-connected.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 24, 2014
Youths seen playing basketball through bars on a window at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections Ethan Allen School in Wales, Wis. (AP file)

The cold hard facts about juvenile prisons. And the case for shutting them all down. Plus: former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is with us.

Jul 24, 2014
Orchid (Galileo55/Flickr)

We’ll look at the new science of what plants feel, smell, see – and remember.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 23, 2014
Actor Wallace Shawn attends special screening of "Turks and Caicos" hosted by Vogue and The Cinema Society at the Crosby Street Hotel on Monday, April 7, 2014 in New York.  (AP)

From “The Princess Bride” to “My Dinner with Andre “and “A Master Builder,” actor and writer Wallace Shawn joins us.

 
Jul 23, 2014
In this Saturday, July 12, 2014, photo, migrants walk along train tracks and boxcars after getting off a train during their journey toward the US-Mexico border, in Ixtepec, southern Mexico. (AP)

Crisis at the US border. What do Latinos on this side of the border have to say? We’ll ask our special roundtable.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Hillary Clinton: ‘The [Russian] Reset Worked’
Thursday, Jul 24, 2014

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took time out of her global book tour to talk to us about Russia, the press and the global crises shaking the administration she left two years ago.

More »
Comment
 
Where Did Nickel Creek Go?
Thursday, Jul 24, 2014

The Nickel Creek interview originally scheduled for Thursday, July 24 is rescheduled for an as-of-yet undetermined later date. We explain why.

More »
2 Comments
 
Our Week In The Web: July 11, 2014
Friday, Jul 11, 2014

As we prepare for a week of rebroadcasts, we reflect on Facebook posts, misplaced comments and the magic of @ mentions. Internet, ASSEMBLE!

More »
Comment