Here's Ed Schultz, raging about this situation last year.

No, it's not your imagination. The Washington Post far too frequently slants their "news" stories in service of a pro-conservative, pro-corporate, pro-privatization agenda - whether on purpose or through sheer carelessness, it's hard to say. But this is only the latest example:

The financially struggling U.S. Postal Service plans to stop delivering mail on Saturdays starting Aug. 1, the agency is set to announce Wednesday.

This means that for the first time Americans will receive mail only five days a week, a significant shift for the storied mail agency that has suffered tens of billions of dollars in losses in recent years with the advent of the Internet and e-commerce.

Gee, that sounds right. There couldn't possibly be anything more to the story! After all, everyone you know uses email, so the internet killed it. I mean, those things you buy from eBay (another thriving internet business) must arrive by magic, right?

USPS plans to continue Saturday delivery of packages, which remain a profitable and growing part of the delivery business. Canceling Saturday mail deliveries will save USPS $2 billion annually, according to congressional and postal officials, who confirmed the news ahead of a formal announcement later Wednesday.

[...] The Postal Service said that it suffered a $15.9 billion net loss for fiscal 2012, which ended Sept. 30. That’s three times the loss recorded a year earlier.

As a former editor, I can tell you for a fact: As a group, reporters are some of the laziest people in the world. So if they get a press release about something like this, it is highly unlikely the reporter will engage his or her brain enough to probe into the reasons behind the story, because (as I said), reporters are lazy. (The pre-written narrative is "the internet killed the post office.") So the copy editor is supposed to corral the staffer and either get them to fill in those gaps, or do it themselves.

Except that with massive layoffs in the newspaper industry, it is also likely that unqualified, inexperienced staffers are now working the copy desk.

Here's what the story is missing:

The problem lies elsewhere: the 2006 congressional mandate that the USPS pre-fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years, and do so within a decade, an obligation no other public agency or private firm faces. The roughly $5.5 billion annual payments since 2007 — $21 billion total — are the difference between a positive and negative ledger.

Why would the Republican-controlled Congress pass such an absurd requirement? Why, it's almost as if they were trying to put the Postal Service out of business!

Well, it's really a twofer. First, they want to break up the federal unions. And second, they want to privatize the post office and give those plum contracts to their good buddies at FedEx and UPS.

But you're not going to read that in the Washington Post. And to be fair, you probably won't get that context in the Times, either. That librul media!

Remember when the Kelleys were all over the news?

And you thought that when David Petraeus quit his job, all the players in that drama would just fade away. Not so fast, the Jill Kelley saga continues to go down a very freaky path.

Just when it appeared the Jill Kelley-David Petraeus mess was behind us, along comes society magazine Town & Country with a profile of Kelley and her twin sister, Natalie Khawam.

And surprise: It's not flattering, focusing on the twins' alleged desire for riches and doing whatever is necessary to be among people of power.

Writer Vicky Ward doesn't talk to Kelley or Khawam, instead getting information from a "distant cousin" – weeks after Kelley was cleared of wrongdoing in a scandal involving Petraeus, the former CIA director whose paramour sent Kelley threatening emails.

"They made up their minds they were going to use men to get money, and they discussed this quite openly in front of the family," cousin Tony Khawam said in the article, "A Four-Star Scandal," in the March issue.

Among the men in their sights, according to Tony Khawam: Hal and Hank Steinbrenner, sons of the late George Steinbrenner, Yankees owner and Tampa philanthropist.

"They'd take trips on the Steinbrenners' plane and brag about how they would split Hal up from his then-wife, Christina — and then the plane would be theirs," he told Ward.

Hal Steinbrenner and his wife at the time did break up, but not because of the Tampa twins.

As a Yankee fan I have to say that George Steinbrenner (if he were alive today) would detest how his sons are running the Yankees since they took over the reins, but apparently they weren't dumb enough to be duped by these con-girl twins. Part of me almost wishes that it happened, but not while the sons were still with their original families.

Scott Horton talks about the drone white paper with Sam Seder.

Can I say for the record that I hate the US reliance of drone strikes, especially on US citizens. The fact that we went in with Seal Team Six to get Bin Laden makes it clear that we don't have to rely on this technology to capture or if you will kill---very bad people. It will only fuel more hatred of Americans. Didn't we learn that with the coup of Iran and many of our other CIA led foreign invasions?

And it's very telling that only Democrats will question John Brennan over their use at all. Congress better not support the use of drones on US soil---ever!!!!

NY Times:

Still, it was disturbing to see the twisted logic of the administration’s lawyers laid out in black and white. It had the air of a legal justification written after the fact for a policy decision that had already been made, and it brought back unwelcome memories of memos written for President George W. Bush to justify illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, kidnapping, abuse and torture.

The document, obtained and made public by NBC News, was written by the Justice Department and coyly describes another, classified document (which has been described in The Times) that actually provided the legal justification for ordering the killing of American citizens.

That document still has not been provided to Congress, despite repeated demands from lawmakers. The white paper was sent to Capitol Hill seven months after the military carried out President Obama’s orders to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American who moved to Yemen and became an advocate of jihad against the United States.
--

According to the white paper, the Constitution and the Congressional authorization for the use of force after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, gave Mr. Obama the right to kill any American citizen that an “informed, high-level official” decides is a “senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or an associated force” and presents an “imminent threat of violent attack.”

It never tries to define what an “informed, high-level official” might be, and the authors of the memo seem to have redefined the word “imminent” in a way that diverges sharply from its customary meaning. It talks about “due process” and the need to balance a person’s life “against the United States’ interest in forestalling the threat of violence and death to other Americans.”

But it takes the position that the only “oversight” needed for such a decision resides within the executive branch, and there is no need to explain the judgment to Congress, the courts or the public — or, indeed, to even acknowledge that the killing took place.

Scott Lemieux writes: License to Kill

Much of the coverage of the memo, including Isikoff's story, focuses on the justifications offered by the Obama administration for killing American citizens, including Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (two alleged Al Qaeda operatives killed by a 2011 airstrike in Yemen.) In some respects, this focus is misplaced. If military action is truly justified, then it can be exercised against American citizens (an American fighting for the Nazis on the battlefield would not have been entitled to due process.) Conversely, if military action is not justified, extrajudicial killings of non-Americans should hardly be less disturbing than the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. The crucial question is whether the safeguards that determine when military action is justified are adequate.

On this crucial point, the framework laid out by the memo is very much inadequate. Several of the key terms laying out the conditions—what counts as an "informed" official? What levels of evidence are necessary?—are frustratingly vague. Particularly crucial is the question of what constitutes an "imminent threat." If a threat is genuinely "imminent," military action is more justifiable. If it isn't, however, it becomes less plausible to argue that capture is "infeasible," and treating a suspected terrorist as a police operation would be more important. It is damning, then, that the definition of what constitutes an "imminent threat" has very little bite.

DOWNLOADS: (140)

PLAYS: (1768)

Embed

Karl Rove blasted some of the "grassroots" Tea Party groups who have declared war on his newest effort to repackage the conservative crap sandwich in a prettier package that "can win elections." This is the purpose of Rove's new group, he claims, though Hannity contended he was really protecting incumbents from being primaried by more conservative candidates.

Rove had unkind words for some of the groups who have criticized him for his new Conservative Victory Project, saying that most of them use issues like this to raise funds for their websites, "sucking up the majority of funds on overhead." Not that he's wrong about that, but it certainly seems to be evidence of a deep breach inside the Republican party. Malkin was ballistic over Rove's move, as were others.

Dana Loesch reacted to Rove in real time, tweeting up a storm about how wrong, wrong, wrong Rove was about Todd Akin.

Right now @karlrove is rewriting history on my state's senate primary to justify his conservative-targeting group. PERIOD.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 6, 2013

Erick Erickson's head must have exploded when he saw this, given his rant yesterday about Rove's new group. Erickson seems to be playing all sides of the debate, since he didn't spare the Tea Party anything either when he called their brand a "cancer."

All Rove is doing is repackaging the same damaged merchandise in shinier paper. He's fine with their crummy message, but his billionaires want candidates who will actually win with that message. On the other hand, Freedomworks, Tea Party Nation and others really want to simply put out the unvarnished goods because they're deluded enough to think people will buy it.

Either way, they're all missing the point, which is that what they're selling smells very bad to most people- rotten, even. It doesn't matter what packaging they put around it, it still stinks. But it sure is fun to watch them chew on each other. Pop the popcorn and sit back for the fireworks.

After the Senate released the framework of an immigration bill on January 29th I wrote this: Immigration Reform: Not So Fast! I've been watching the extreme right infiltrate the GOP (with Republican operatives help) at an alarming rate since 2010 so it's not a stretch to believe House Republicans will screw it up, and guess what?

It's starting.

House Republicans insisted on Tuesday that Democrats are showing a lack of willingness to compromise on immigration reform by calling for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, arguing that they should be more open to legislation without it.

"Are there options that we should consider between the extremes of mass deportation and the pathway to citizenship for those not lawfully present in the United States?" Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, asked San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro (D) at a hearing on immigration reform, the first on the issue for the 113th Congress.

Another top Republican, immigration subcommittee chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), accused Democrats of refusing to come toward the center.
--
But the progress made by those bipartisan groups on the issue masks the difficulty that remains. Gowdy indicated openness to the Senate plan when it was released last week, but Goodlatte told USA Today on Monday that is he not convinced by the Senate immigration plan because of supporters' insistence that there be a pathway to citizenship. He questioned whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is "serious about doing immigration reform."

Citizenship is at the heart of immigration reform and Republicans should be jumping at the chance of finally appearing to be a party that cares about people---immigrants too, but alas, they can't help themselves. They are even stating that Latinos really don't care if they are citizens as long as they are treated with respect.

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), an immigration lawyer before coming to Congress, said he believed there could be a solution to the immigration issue without including a pathway to citizenship.

“What they want is to come out of the shadows, they want to be able to be legal, they want to be able to work, they want to be able to travel, they want to be able to feel like they are being treated with dignity,” Labrador said. “Not very many people told me: I want to be a citizen, I have to be a citizen in order to feel like a dignified person.”

Do Republicans really believe that after supporting Sensenbrenner's insane bill that basically turned illegals into felons that not supporting eventual full citizenship is going to appease the entire Latino population of America? This is going to make for some interesting television as this drags on. Karl Rove didn't mind helping the teabagger revolution until they started to go after moderate Republicans in safe districts.

But as I've said repeatedly, once the right wing let the nuts out of the box to help them form the Tea Party, it's almost impossible to put them back in.

Karl, your new money scam will not turn out well for your new investors while your old allies ramp up their hatred for you. He might be the only Republican shill who hopes the House R's screw up immigration reform so he can make more cash off these saps. Enjoy!

Gosh, the Republican Party is succeeding so much with their "rebranding effort" that they can't seem to find anyone to run against Ed Markey for John Kerry's Senate seat. Well, I take that back. There's this guy, the Blowhard named Dr. Keith Ablow, who makes a career out of offering bogus, junk-filled Freudian analyses on Fox News.

You might remember him from other posts here on C&L, like the one where he offers ridiculous explanations for President Obama's normal, even mainstream policy choices by suggesting the president is working out his frustrations at being abandoned by his father. Or this one, where he profiled Media Matters' David Brock, calling him a self-hating narcissist. There's this one, too, where he calls for Vice President Biden to be examined for dementia. Or, you might make a judgment just on the basis of one single fact:

He actually co-wrote a self-help book with Glenn Beck.

Yes, this is the guy who has expressed an interest in running for John Kerry's seat.

But wait! There's more!

In Georgia, Rep. Paul Broun is widely expected to announce his candidacy to replace Senator Saxby Chambliss. Yes, THAT Paul Broun. The one who laughed off a constituent's comment about who would shoot the president. The same Paul Broun who boycotted and trolled the president's State of the Union address in 2011 after saying he wouldn't attend because President Obama would "spew venom," who compared progressives to Al Qaeda, who wanted to lower, not raise the debt ceiling in 2011, who wanted a "Year of the Bible" in order to school the nation on President Obama's sins, and the very same one who gets star billing on Jon Perr's Republican Confederacy of Dunces.

Listen to Paul Broun for ten minutes or so and the only point of confusion will be whether he is a Bircher or a Klansman. It's possible he's both. Yes, he is preparing to run for Saxby Chambliss' Senate seat.

In Iowa, wingnut Steve King is gearing up for a run at Tom Harkin's Senate seat. Yes, once again, THAT Steve King. The same guy who thinks workers are commodities, who empathized with the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS office, who considered the Hate Crimes Act a "pedophile protection act", who had no problem with the idea of a revolution similar to the one in Czechoslovakia in 1989 here in the United States, and who defends his racist remarks by admitting he just wants to see "if the pot comes to a boil."

Yes, these three are leading off the parade of wingnuts for open Senate seats in 2014. They do seem to have one thing in common: they're all spewing the Birch Society nonsense theories and mixing it with some serious race-baiting and hate.

On the wingnut but not a complete hater side, Geraldo Rivera is snuffling around a run for the Senate in New Jersey. Gee, Rivera and The Wingnuts would make for some interesting times on the Senate floor, but the country would be a shambles by the closing act.

However, Rachel Maddow has one thing wrong in her report above, where she maintains that Karl Rove wants to push these people out. As Jed Lewison points out, the Rove organization poured $400,000 into Steve King's race against Christie Vilsack in 2012 and bragged about it, not that they had much to brag about overall in 2012. Rove doesn't reject these candidates; he embraces them.

It looks like Eric Cantor and the TeaBirchers just got a fresh supply of lipstick, and they're smearing it all over that same old pig.

There's a price to pay for always being wrong about every single thing. When you're a pundit, it means even Fox News declines to renew your contract. When you're a pundit with a penchant for toe-sucking and an irritating habit of making absurd pronouncements in a tone that suggests they're fact, the fall can be especially precipitous.

So it is for Dick Morris, who waxed eloquent over Sarah Palin's electability and Mitt Romney's inevitability. After a three-month absence from Fox News' airwaves, they confirmed today his contract expired without renewal.

Thanks to Lawrence O'Donnell and The Last Word, we have this delicious mashup of some of Dick's dumbest moments. It's hysterical, particularly with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. If you haven't had enough of Dick after that, we have a wonderful collection here at C&L for you to browse.

Rumor has it he's jonesing for a gig on CNN. Let's hope Jeff Zucker is smarter than that.

Koch-kissing, ALEC-loving PA Gov.Tom Corbett had the advantage of a weak opponent and that "vote for me, I was a prosecutor who was tough on crime!" routine the first time he ran for governor. But he's pissed off just about everyone since then by following in the wing-nuttiest footsteps of Wisconsin's Gov. Scott Walker.

Just like Scott Walker, Gov. Corbett will be getting much closer scrutiny. The newly-elected Attorney General Kathleen Kane has appointed a special prosecutor to look into how Corbett handled (or mishandled) the investigation of Jerry Sandusky, and I suspect that will rough him up when he runs for reelection. We're going to have to work hard to defeat this jackass, who just turned down the Medicaid expansion offered by the Affordable Care Act.

In the meantime, if you're a PA resident, call the Governor's office at 800-515-8134. (or email him) and ask him what you're expected to do without affordable insurance. Call your state senator and state representative, too:

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) announced Tuesday that his state will turn down the Medicaid expansion, becoming the first governor of a blue state to officially say no to the coverage provision of the Affordable Care Act that the Supreme Court made optional.

The decision will please conservative advocates who are urging leaders to stonewall Obamacare implementation. But it’s a blow to the many thousands of uninsured Pennsylvanians who would have received coverage through the program, which extends Medicaid eligibility to Americans up to 133 percent of the poverty line for participating states.

The Medicaid expansion is a financially enticing offer for states: the federal government would pay the full cost for the first few years and 90 percent after 2020. Conservative opponents fret that the federal government won’t come through with the funds. Top Democrats in Pennsylvania are already demanding that Corbett reverse course.

“Governor Corbett chose to pander to the far right and willfully inflict damage on Pennsylvania’s economy - he has undermined any promises he makes about jobs,” said State Rep. Dan Frankel, the chair of the Democratic Caucus. “The federally funded Medicaid expansion would be a win-win for Pennsylvania. … Governor Corbett should reverse his job-killing decision.”

Today we round up the blogs who are reviewing the reviewers. If I can get revue in there, I think I win a prize!

Gin and Tacos reads and reviews the NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez.

Sick Horses reads, reviews, and distills the "controversy" on Michelle Obama's posterior in the Washington Post down to its essential elements.

Herlander-Walking reviews the justification for killing Americans and Kant make sense of it.

Bonus track: Little Bang Theory serves it on the rocks.

Round-up by Tengrain of Mock, Paper, Scissors who also blogs at Dependable Renegade. Send tips to: mbru AT crooksandliars DOT com

The RedState trike force has finally noticed that America hates the Tea Party.

The Tea Party brand has been effectively destroyed. After three years of demonizing the Tea Party as ‘racist,’ ‘extremist,’ and ‘radical,’ the brand has become a cancer.

It is now a drag on the candidates it supports, with the Left (and GOP establishment types like Karl Rove) gleefully labeling conservative candidates as “outside the mainstream.”

Yeah, it's "the Left" and Karl Rove that has destroyed the Tea Party. Not all the ugly demonstrations, offensive signs at book burnings protests, the clownish and racist leaders, or the non-stop parade of embarrassing, losing candidates.

In the meantime, while the Tea Party had once enjoyed 24% popularity, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, only 8% of Americans now identify themselves as members of the Tea Party. [...] However, insofar as it has been branded and is now associated with negativism, the brand itself must change in order to build and grow again.

These people are a little slow on the uptake. Two years ago, the Teabaggers were less popular in the US than socialism. And three years ago, they were 14 points underwater.

So, the Tea Party is toast. I'm not surprised at all -- this was entirely predictable.