Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 17, 2010

THE FALLOUT OF KYL'S BETRAYAL.... The optimism hadn't been expressed publicly, but the White House really did think it finally had a deal in place for Senate ratification of the new arms control treaty with Russia, New START.

Republicans had made Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) their point man on the issue -- it's not clear why, since Kyl has no background or working knowledge of the issue -- and he made specific objections to the Obama administration clear. Officials, in response, gave Kyl what we asked for. The deal, they thought, was done.

Over many months of negotiations, the administration committed to spending $80 billion to do that over the next 10 years, and on Friday offered to chip in $4.1 billion more over the next five years. As a gesture of commitment, the White House had made sure extra money for modernization was included in the stopgap spending resolution now keeping the government operating, even though almost no other program received an increase in money.

All told, White House officials counted 29 meetings, phone calls, briefings or letters involving Mr. Kyl or his staff. They said they thought they had given him everything he wanted, and were optimistic about completing a deal this week, only to learn about his decision on Tuesday from reporters.

Kyl wouldn't even give the White House the courtesy of a phone call to let them know he was betraying them and the nation's national security needs. Worse, the dimwitted Kyl, with the future of American foreign policy in his hands, couldn't even give a coherent rationale for why he'd made the decision -- his office would only say "there doesn't appear to be enough time" in the lame-duck session.

This is what happens when serious officials try to negotiate in good faith with Republicans -- they refuse to take "yes" for an answer, they don't have intellectual capacity to explain why, and the entire country has to suffer the consequences.

The bulk of the Republican foreign policy apparatus enthusiastically supports this treaty, as does the entirety of America's military, diplomatic, and intelligence leadership. Matt Cooper noted late yesterday:

Indeed, Republicans will need to explain why they want to sit on a treaty that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has described this way: "I believe -- and the rest of the military leadership in this country believes -- that this treaty is essential to our future security. I believe it enhances and ensures that security. And I hope the Senate will ratify it quickly." [...]

There are risks for Republicans who follow Kyl and find themselves on the opposite side of the military and diplomatic community on ratification of the treaty.

There should be risks, but they don't really exist. Let me put this plainly: They. Don't. Care. They disregard the pleas of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and listen to the confused misjudgments of a buffoon from Arizona. They assume the public isn't paying attention, so there won't be political consequences. They expect this to hurt the foreign policy power of the United States, but they're fine with that since there's a Democratic president.

When it comes to Russia, inspection of the country's long-range nuclear bases will remain suspended indefinitely; the country's hard-liners will be emboldened; and Russia's willingness to cooperate with U.S. on Iran or on Afghanistan will likely disappear.

But in the bigger picture, countries around the globe will see this as a reminder that negotiating with the United States is pointless, since the country is burdened with a Republican Party that puts partisan hatred above the country's interests. It hurts American credibility in ways that are hard to even gauge.

Sleep well, Jon Kyl. Dream of the time when the United States had the respect and stature to lead the world.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

Bookmark and Share

I am shocked, shocked to hear that Lucy pulled the football away from Charlie Brown. Who could have foreseen this?

Posted by: Jason on November 17, 2010 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK

And Democrats from Obama on down will refuse to mount a vigorous PR campaign to hammer Kyl and the GOP because that would not be bipartisan. Reid will issue his usual diffident weasel words. Nobody will take advantage of the fact that the Joint Chiefs are in favor of this treaty. No Dem has the balls to do exactly what Republicans would do if the situation occurred under a Republican President: accuse Kyl of dangerously harming our national security, making it easier for terrorists to attack us, and essentially acting treasonously. And keep making these points repeatedly, incessantly, continuously in every public appearance.

Posted by: bluestatedon on November 17, 2010 at 8:08 AM | PERMALINK

Discussion this morning on Morning Joe points out that a lack of ratification of START strengthens Putin within Russia. Gosh, that is just what's in the US interest...

Posted by: sue on November 17, 2010 at 8:08 AM | PERMALINK

I suppose it is futile to think that all the added Republican items in teh treaty will now be removed.

Posted by: Mudge on November 17, 2010 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

So we now we will have the first test for Obama. Does he deserve a second term? That depends on how he handles this.

This story is pretty simple -- simple enough that the mainstream media can tell it. Obama has a new START treaty that every expert agrees will make our country safer. One senator, Jon Kyl, balks and demands concessions. Obama gives Kyle everything he demands, but Kyl says he still won't support the treaty.

If Obama doesn't call out Kyl by name and make him the poster child for all that is wrong with the political process, then he and Biden may as well resign and hand the reins to Boehner.


Posted by: SteveT on November 17, 2010 at 8:11 AM | PERMALINK

Leaving Kyl in with this responsibily was taking a chance.
Just like if you give a monkey a Rubix Cube, there's 'a chance' that it may solve it.

Basically, it came down to saying 'no' because of ABO - Anything By (or But) Obama.

Posted by: c u n d gulag on November 17, 2010 at 8:12 AM | PERMALINK

I don't see the President changing his tune. Ever.

Posted by: BrklynLibrul on November 17, 2010 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

Would that we had a media that reported the crystal clear, obvious dynamic that has been in play since January 2009:

Conservatives will stop anything that gives Obama a win.

But through a combination of laziness and corporate ownership directives, they don't do that. As we know.

Now what?

Posted by: terraformer on November 17, 2010 at 8:18 AM | PERMALINK

SO there must be so something in this for Kyl except sheer power for the sake of power. Curious minds really want to know.

Posted by: KurtRex1453 on November 17, 2010 at 8:20 AM | PERMALINK

accuse Kyl of dangerously harming our national security.... And keep making these points repeatedly, incessantly, continuously in every public appearance.

What Kyle needs is a visit from cousin, "Kneecap" Valentino.

Posted by: AndThenThere'sThat on November 17, 2010 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

Kyle is criminally negligent, but Obama is criminally naive.

WTF? I honestly don't understand. Is it possible that he's ... stupid?

I mean, I know he's very book-smart, well-educated, all of that. But in some fundamental way is Obama just a complete halfwit?

I'm serious. I don't know what to think.

Posted by: gussie on November 17, 2010 at 8:22 AM | PERMALINK

KurtRex1453: He prevents Obama from getting a 'win.'

Posted by: gussie on November 17, 2010 at 8:24 AM | PERMALINK

No doubt they got rolled, but I'm not sure "every expert" was pon board with START; conservatives hate pretty much anything that has "reduce our nuclear arsenal" attached to it, and though conservatives were caught off guard, I think the larger story here is that the right mobilized quickly and effectively to keep Republicans from handing Obama an end of year foreign policy coup. "Strengthens Putin's Hand" strikes me as sour grapes - I mean, the man has his puppet (Medvedev) just where he wants him anyway, how much stronger can Putin get?

I think between this and the Bush tax cut coming debacle - when Republicans get pretty much exactly what they want - many liberals will be getting the wake up call the elections should have provided: this is what losing looks like, this is why lame ducks are lame, and this is why Democrats need to change things, and fast, to make any progress at all. Snarky disrespect for Jon Kyl is fun, but beside the point: the right got their way on this. And they will get their way on a lot of stuff, until the left figures out how to do things differently.

Posted by: weboy on November 17, 2010 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK

If they had a strategy that was relying on the Republican leadership to do the responsible thing they are idiots. Idiots with no comprehension of the fight that they are in. As such after all this time, they simply have squandered the respect that they were due. I understand that this isn't the way it is supposed to be. But any fool should be able to figure it out by now. The fact that these guys haven't gotten the message implies that they just too naive to play this game. We really made a grave mistake by putting our trust in these people this time around.

Posted by: SW on November 17, 2010 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, "Bernie Sanders in 2012"

You mean the fellow Steve Benen pooh poohed for wanting to cap interest rates in the Credit Card Act? Failing to pass his amendment, the Act went through as a very flawed "Glorius Victory" highly featured on both Rachael Maddow's and Benen's List of "Glorius Achievements" which helped lead us to such "Glorius Victories" on November 2nd.

However, why isn't McCain catching any flak for not slapping Kyl up the side of the head for injuring this nation?

Posted by: berttheclock on November 17, 2010 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

Good for you, Steve,

I don't know how old you are, but at 49, I was raised with the idea that the genius of American politics was compromise. Nobody ever got everthing they wanted, but at least "serious" political leaders were able to discuss solutions to complex problems, and legislation was able to move forward. My guess is that compromise began to fail during the Nixon administration, with the appearance of Republicans who were hell bent on winning at any price, and destroying their opponants in the process. Compromise was finally buried during the Bush administration, though Democrats (like me) were in denial about the demise of one of their cherished ideals.

It is hard to imagine that Republicans are so cynical that they would kick out all of the props that hold this country upright (destroy the United States in order to save it, or refashion it in their own distorted image, from their cold-war mind set), but the truth is inescapable. There is no longer any front in which compromise is possible. We have crossed a Rubicon of sorts, when the only option left is to fight. The pity of it all is that, in order to hold back the tide of ignorance and apathy that is sweeping this country, we have to adopt many of the same tactics. As Democrats, we would prefer to find a high-minded solution to the problems that we face, instead of slugging it out in the gutter with the current crop of Republicans, but I don't believe that anyone ever emerged from a war- and this is a war over the very survival of this country- feeling completely clean. That is the price we have to pay.

Posted by: broken arrow on November 17, 2010 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

Naturally, the posters on here will all blame Obama for this somehow. Just another version of the Obama derangement syndrome. I'd like one of the people on this post to explain to me how Obama gets the 67 votes required to ratify this treaty by not having to rely on republicans. He has publicly stated many times that this treaty is essential for national security, the Republican Sec of Defense has done the same and has had private conversations with the relevant republicans to this effect. If someone answers "fight harder" I'll throw a virtual egg at them.

Posted by: homerhk on November 17, 2010 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

how much stronger can Putin get?
Well umm , gee let me think , perhaps something , anything , that might unify the tensions between factions such as a thumb in the eye of the paper tiger over here ?
Well the history books are written by the winners ghostwriters , so how does Kyle and company look to the Chinese ? I would bet the knowledgeable amongst them shudder that such disrespect is tolerated .

Posted by: FRP on November 17, 2010 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINK

Apart from all the obvious naivety on democratic side and all the irresponsibility on the republican side, here:s what a good American friend wrote me a couple of weeks ago:

"Internally, I think the U.S. is a mess, in large part because the carrot of unending wealth has run out of steam as an inducement to excellence. When most of the people in a country are hoping to win a lottery jackpot as a means of 'making it', you know something's wrong.
Externally, I think the relevance of the U.S. is less an ideological issue than a logistical one. All of the emerging economies are on a land mass that the U.S. is not connected to: Europe/Asia. That land mass has most of the technology and resources it needs to fuel its own growth, so the U.S. is quite literally irrelevant except as a market."

The point is: if contracts with America aren't even worth the time spent to negotiate them - what will be left of that remote place that for some hardly remembered reason once was the center of the world?

Islationism might not come from the inside this time. It might come from an outside that cannot trust America anymore.

Posted by: Vokoban on November 17, 2010 at 8:45 AM | PERMALINK

Kyl's position here is analogous to McCain's on DADT. Deny Obama a "victory" regardless of the issue's merits. Since McConnell has already stated this as his primary political goal, there's really no mystery to any of this.

Why do they do it? Because they can. There is no cost anywhere to such blatant and near-treasonous obstructionism. This is what Republican rule has finally devolved to: utter and complete nihilism.

Posted by: walt on November 17, 2010 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

It is quite likely that very few pay attention to the cancer of Republicanitis from the comfort of their own continental land mass . I suspect the interest will be from continental land mass carpetbaggers who riding the wave of history will willingly fund their own families and nation off of the carcass left by the ever wise and farseeing Kyle and company .

Posted by: FRP on November 17, 2010 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

The key part of Steve's post- and many others where a Republican is involved- is that Kyl is both stupid and ignorant. He's certainly not the first; Congress has a long and hallowed tradition as the repository of incompetent folks with great voter appeal.

America has always loved "Celebrity", witness our latest going gaga over British royalty; Princess Diana, once removed. Not to mention Lady Gaga.

And we elected them. Reagan won the presidency because we knew him from Death Valley Days, not "tear down this wall." Next was Jesse Ventura, then Stuart Smiley- better than Coleman, but no policy wonk record to speak of.

Which brings us to the current congress, filled with certifiable loons. But lovable! Bachmann, for example, has no idea of what she is talking about, but neither does the electorate, and she has nice teeth, and she uses simple words that we can all understand, even if we don't know what they mean. This woman is being seriously considered for a leadership position in her caucus.

The White House sees all this happening out here, and they think the American People are smarter than that. They are wrong.

Posted by: DAY on November 17, 2010 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

Kyl's comments and reactions to his mess are obvious. What I'd be more interested in seeing is having an enterprising journalist call Dick Lugar three times a day, every day, asking him for an explanation of what his learned colleague from Arizona is trying to accomplish. It would also be nice if the WH would do the same, but I don't generally hope for miracles.

Posted by: dr. bloor on November 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

Just read the NYtimes article on this, and it appears that Kyl was not even willing to be intereviewed as to what th e"unresolved issues" are - of course, there are none. he is simply as asshole.

The immediate visceral response is to shame him, and just dump piles of scorn on him, but if you do that, you piss off whatever hope you have of getting the other republicans on board. I don't see a way around this. The NYTimes article said the WH was "scrambling" to figure something else out.

What does infuriate me was that there appears to have been no plan B thought out. THe minue the R's said Kyl was their negotiating point man, they should hav smelled a rat. Some one, somehow, should have been working some sort of end run, / deal, soemthing, so that when Kyl 'thought" [not sure Kyl really thinks] about pulling his stunt, there was some sort of backup plan. Now, there is bupkis of backup; no consequence for Kyl, etc.

Maybe Lugar, Snowe, Collins, have a shred of decency left in them?

This is so pathetic. Just f---- pathetic. I am ashamed. I am truly, deeply ashamed of our country, and I am now really really worried. We have abdicated our government to complete idiots.

Posted by: bigutah on November 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

One has to admire the senate republicans for standing up for their beliefs!!!

The original Start I Treaty was negotiated and ratified when George Bush (Sr) was president. It and its provisions expired on 12/31/09. Start II was negotiated under Bush Sr and ratified when Clinton was president. Start II was replaced by the SORT Treaty negotiated and ratified under Bush Jr.

The NEW Start Treaty was negotiated under Obama and signed by Russian and US leaders on 4/8/10.

Key provisions of the NEW Start Treaty are:
- limits deployed nuke warheads (down 2/3 from Start I and down 30% from Start II)
- limits deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers
- limits submarine based nuke launchers
- limits heavy bombers equipped for nukes
- establishes a new inspection and verification regime (there have been no inspections since the expiration of Start I at the end of 2009)

One has to admire the republican senators for standing up for their beliefs.

Senator Kyl was appointed the senate negotiator by the noted bipartisan leader Mitch McConnell. As appears to be standard negotiating tactics by the Obama administration, another $80 Billion in unneeded and unncessary spending on nuke weapons was conceded. Recently, as a further incentive, another $4 Billion in unneeded and unnecessary spending on nuke weapons was granted by Obama.

After receiving everything that the republicans claimed to want, Senator Kyl stood up for republican values and, in essence, told Obama to go to hell.

One has to admire the senate republicans for standing up for their belief that destroying the black in the White House is much more important than the safety and security of our nation.

Posted by: RepublicanPointOfView on November 17, 2010 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

I am afraid you may change your mind about Senator Smiley after you read a book or two of his . Listen to him speak or otherwise employ your own faculties gauging the man rather than fight over the PR turmoil over how to present a bright , engaged , self made American .

Posted by: FRP on November 17, 2010 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

Externally, I think the relevance of the U.S. is less an ideological issue than a logistical one. All of the emerging economies are on a land mass that the U.S. is not connected to: Europe/Asia. That land mass has most of the technology and resources it needs to fuel its own growth, so the U.S. is quite literally irrelevant except as a market.

As astute as your friends observation is, the dynamics seem more complicated to me. In the short term, the U.S. is still the biggest economic engine in the world. Eventually, that advantage will give way to more dynamic economies that are unencumbered by the monopolized and entrenched interests we have here. Ironically, the U.S. will have turned into the "old Europe" of stagnate vested interests while other nations will be living the "American dream" of a dynamic economy of innovation and upward mobility. The mid-term is what your friend misses. The U.S. has positioned itself as a modern day military empire. And like all militarists, we won't let go of our bully ways until some nation or a conglomerate of nations kicks our ass.

Resources were relatively easy pickins in the 20th century and a small fraction of the world's population dominated them. The 21st century will be a different animal.

Posted by: AndThenThere'sThat on November 17, 2010 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

-and how many voters read an Al Franken book, before entering their polling place? They voted for the likable comedian, over the carpet bagger from New Jersey. Sometimes the Ignorati get it right. . .

Posted by: DAY on November 17, 2010 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe someone should start spreading rumors that Kyl is preventing inspections of russian nuclear-weapons sites because he has connections with terrorist intent on diverting weapons and nuclear material. At this point that explanation seems as plausible as any other.

Posted by: paul on November 17, 2010 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

The entire Administration along with the top Generals all need to hit the Sunday circuits and hammer away.

This is what the previous admin would do and they succeeded in what they wanted for the most part.

This is what this current admin should do. Use the bully pulpit. Force the Republicans hand.

Posted by: mikefromArlington on November 17, 2010 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

You do realize that Kyl is the leading conservative Senator on arms control issues? Lugar knows more than anyone in the Senate on arms control, but Kyl lead the charge against the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Helms got a lot of the publicity for his efforts on those treaties, due to both his being chair and his personality. However, Kyl worked the inside game amazingly well and was arguably the key person on opposing both of those treaties. Interesting that Lugar would not/could not carry the ball on this for the Obama administration.

Posted by: Sean on November 17, 2010 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

I second bluestatedon. WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?

The same as for all prior GOP and blue dog "betrayals."


So why should we expect them to change?

Insanity: doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

Also, Kyl mentioning "modernizing" our nuke arsenal is really a reference to developing tactical nukes, which provides a twisted rationale for actually using them.

Do you think anyone is going to go after him on that? I didn't think so.

Posted by: bdop4 on November 17, 2010 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

I don't get it. We are surprised Kyl pulled the rug out from under the treaty because? Welcome to the 2012 election.

Oh, Bristol Palin will win Dancing with the Stars even though she can't dance a lick. Such is the power of her mother and the dittoheads.

Middle America is in a struggle for its very existence with the corporatist elite. So far those of us in the vanishing American middle class are losing. Hell, we aren't even in the game.

Posted by: Ron Byers on November 17, 2010 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

"...but the White House really did think it finally had a deal in place for Senate ratification of the new arms control treaty with Russia, New START."

That's part of the problem, isn't it?

Posted by: Blue Texan on November 17, 2010 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe someone should start spreading rumors that Kyl is preventing inspections of russian nuclear-weapons sites because he has connections with terrorist intent on diverting weapons and nuclear material.

It'd be easier (and far more damaging to a Republican) to just spread rumors he's a f*g.

Posted by: SWENXOF on November 17, 2010 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

broken arrow - you don't have to go into the gutter to fight these assholes.

You just have to call them out on their true intentions in very blunt terms.

Alan Grayson - "Republican healthcare plans want you to die quicker."

Looking at Paul Ryan's "roadmap," is there any doubt that this isn't true? There is no way their economic plans can work without kicking a substantial portion of the populace to the curb.

You have to call them out, provide a compelling rationale and force them to defend it. Look at the press Grayson got. Murkans don't do nuance.

Posted by: bdop4 on November 17, 2010 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

So let me get this straight: the Russians are easier to deal with than the Republicans?

Posted by: chrenson on November 17, 2010 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Now Fox News will report on the dangerous position Obama put the US in by not getting the treaty ratified.

Then the fear mongering, then Palin for president.


Posted by: tomtom on November 17, 2010 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

This is what happens when serious officials try to negotiate in good faith with Republicans -- they refuse to take "yes" for an answer, they don't have intellectual capacity to explain why

Or the honesty to admit that they're simply determined to deny Obama anything that can be perceived as a political "win."

Posted by: Gregory on November 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

And who do you think the public will blame? Really, who do you think the STUPID American people will blame?

Posted by: impik on November 17, 2010 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

I would hope that Obama would meet with Republicans that want to ratify START, especially Lugar, to bring enough Rs on board.

Meanwhile, Kyl should be shamed, publicly. For this ridiculous stunt, which endangers our country.

Posted by: Hannah on November 17, 2010 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Apparently we're already reducing our nuclear arsenal to meet the terms of the new treaty, even before ratification. What's to stop us from also allowing Russia to carry out the inspections specified in the treaty, even without ratification?

Then the only thing that Senate Republicans are blocking is Russian arms reduction and inspection of Russian weapons. Try to spin THAT as keeping America safe.

Posted by: MCD on November 17, 2010 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Why do Republicans hate America?


Posted by: Zorro on November 17, 2010 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Where was Mr. Foreign Policy, John McCain. Maybe he would defer to Senator Palin on this one.

Posted by: buckyblue on November 17, 2010 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

I feel compelled to answer Zorro's question of "Why do Republicans hate America?"

Zorro must obviously be some kind of a mexican illegal to even ask that question when everyone knows that it is the commie democrats who hate our America.

Anyhow, Zero...

We republicans do NOT hate our America. What we hate is your twisted, perverted version of America where we hard working whites must support you lazy brown and black people.

In our America, all retired whites have earned their retirement. In our America, all retired blacks and browns are lazy, shiftless ingrates living on the public dime.

In our America, all white unemployed are unemployed because some mexican has stolen their job. In our America, all black and brown unemployed are just too lazy to get a job.

We Republicans LOVE AMERICA, we just remember it and know it differently than you liberals with your kow-towing to unions and blacks and browns.

We Republicans LOVE AMERICA and will do anything and everything to defend it from the greatest threat to our existence throughout the entire history of our country. From the Revolutionary War, thru the War of Northern Aggression, thru WWI, thru the Great Depression brought on by the socialism of Roosevelt, thru Hitler and WWII, and thru 9/11; we Americans have never had to fight to destroy as cunning and dangerous an enemy as we now face.

We republicans LOVE AMERICA and will use any and all means to defeat this vile enemy, the black socialist muslim Kenyan who stole an election and is now residing in the White House.

Posted by: RepublicanPointOfView on November 17, 2010 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Is it just me or are the particulars of the New START treaty under some sort of embargo.
Usually treaties of this sort get all sorts of media scrutiny with numbers of missiles, silos, submarines, and warheads affected given ad nauseam detail.
But this particulars of this treaty seem to have been put into a hermetically sealed jar on the porch of Funk and Wagnalls.
This sounds like a problem with messaging.

Posted by: Neo on November 17, 2010 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Keep dreaming, Don Parnell. You're not the only one who won't shed a tear at the demise of the 2010 bought and sold Democratic Party. But we'll replace it with a Labor Party or a Progressive Party or whatever. The demographic handwriting is on the wall, and you and your privileged white soon-to-be minority will be sucking hind tit, as we say in these parts. I too hope you live to see it. (But you're right about Obama, unfortunately).

Posted by: Paul in NC on November 17, 2010 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

You are being culturally insensitive to Senator Kyl.

You cannot expect a crackah of Kyl's age to deal with an African-American as an equal -- much less an authority figure. Getting a bunch of good ol
boys together to jump an African-American from behind is a time honored tradition in his culture, even a rite of passage.

Your lack of awareness of the diversity of American cultural life is appalling.

Posted by: GWhiz on November 23, 2010 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

Im glad to have found this post as its such an interesting one! I am always on the lookout for quality posts and storys so i suppose im lucky to have located this! I hope you will be adding more in the future...

Posted by: hip hop honyes on March 16, 2011 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly