School, meet Life.

quickhits:

Liberal donors not giving up on gun regulation so easily.

Greg Sargent:

With red state Democratic Senators remaining skittish about embracing Obama’s gun proposals, at least two top Democratic donors are stepping forward and vowing to withhold any and all future financial contributions from any Democrats who don’t support the centerpiece of Obama’s plan: Expanded background checks.

Kenneth Lerer, a New York businessman who is chairman of Buzzfeed.com, and David Bohnett, a technology entrepreneur and philanthopist based in Los Angeles, are both major financial supporters of Democratic candidates, having each given scores of large contributions over the years. They are both key players in the political fundraising world and wield influence among other donors and fundraisers.

Neither will give another dime to any Senate Democrat who does not support expanded background checks, I’m told — and both will suggest to other donors that they do the same. The move underscores the rising importance of gun control as an issue in Democratic politics — and the rising frustration in some Democratic circles with elected officials who continue to regard gun politics as a third rail, at a moment that presents a real opportunity to achieve serious reform, with a policy that enjoys near universal public support.

“At some point you have to draw a line in the sand — for me that time is now,” Lerer told me in an interview. “If candidates or officeholders can’t support something like comprehensive and enforceable background checks, then I wouldn’t think of giving them any money going forward.”

This sort of thing should happen more often. There’s no point in having a party if there’s no party discipline. If these people can’t be bothered to be anything other than Republicans in Democratic clothing, then we should focus on electing people to replace them. I’ve never been a big fan of blue dogs anyway and recent elections have shown that other voters aren’t either. As Harry Truman said, “Given a choice between a fake Republican and a real one, the public will choose the real Republican every time.” You have to be an alternative to the Republican candidate in order to be an alternative to the Republican candidate — you can’t just be the same guy in a different suit.

There have to be a least a few core Democratic values. Sensible gun regulation and standing up to the pro-criminal blood lobby should be one of them.

For law-abiding citizens, I don’t understand what’s so threatening about background checks. It seems a bit hypocritical that the people who oppose this protective measure are also often those who have justified illegal wiretaps and racial profiling in AZ or by TSA because they say “if you’re not a criminal, then it’s not a big deal.” Well, I want to turn it back on these overzealous gun owners - if you’re not a criminal, then what’s the big deal? My husband and I will gladly go through a background check because the check will confirm that we don’t have an unstable mental condition and that we don’t have a criminal record. It’s the least we can do to help make our communities a bit safer.

*schoolmeetlife note: Bohnett has done some great work for student development at UCLA.

mediamattersforamerica:

CNN really got it wrong when they tried to characterize stimulus spending on high speed rail as a “boondoggle.” Their “investigative” report failed to identify the real obstacles to progress towards interstate high speed rail: Republican obstructionism and decades of neglect in favor of highway spending. 

More of this journalism please!

kileyaileen13:

reaganation:

(via ‘A Woman’s Place’ Sweater | Wicked Clothes)

“Despite being half of the population, women only make up 18.3% of the United States Congress.”

Damn right

lezanya:

Did your Congressmember vote against the Violence Against Women Act? Find out at Mother Jones.

Why do we need more women representing this nation again? Oh yeah because of things like this.

Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT saying that all women are going to vote the same because that’s just not true; we all don’t think alike. What I AM saying is that more equitable representation in seats of power means that MY voice as a woman citizen who relies on my representatives to make policy on my behalf is more likely (not guaranteed, but more likely) to be represented if she looks like me.

think-progress:

Eric Cantor just gave a major speech trying to rebrand the Republican party. 

FACTCHECK.

Boom.

businessweek:

The 113th Congress, by the Numbers

The 113th Congress, including both the House and Senate, gained 11 Democrats, lost nine Republicans, and added six women. It also lost a mustache and seven businesspeople.

Senate: 1 social worker + 4 nonprofit and community workers.

House: 2 social workers + 10 nonprofit and community workers.

Where are all the public health people and social workers?!