2013 NFL SEASON WEEK 2

In the first game of the season quarterback Peyton Manning led the Broncos to victory over the Ravens with 7 touchdown passes in 49-27 victory over the Super Bowl champions and everyone anointed Denver Super Bowl champions.

In a rematch of last year's NFC Divisional round game, the 49ers again got the best of the Packers this time with the arm of Colin Kaepernick throwing for 412 yards and 3 touchdowns. The only other 49ers quarterback with that stat line was Joe Montana. Newly acquired 49ers receiver Anquan Boldin made his presence known with 208 yards on 13 receptions and a touchdown pass.

Vikings running back Adrian Peterson picked up where he left off from last season taking his first carry 78 yards for a touchdown, but the Lions emerged victorious. This might be a common theme for the Vikings if they don't get better output from Christian Ponder.

The Falcons and Saints provided us with another classic in their rivalry as the Saints welcomed the return of head coach Sean Payton with a 23-17 victory in New Orleans. Last season's much aligned Saints defense came up big when it mattered forcing Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan to throw an interception as his team was facing 4th and goal down by 6 with less than a minute remaining. This was the Saints first opening day win over the Falcons having gone 0-6 in such matchups.

And the good news is there was no power outage during this game.

Jets quarterback Geno Smith recorded his first NFL victory in his first start which was aided by Buccaneers linebacker Lavonte David's late hit out of bounds that set up the Jets game winning field goal.

On Monday Night, the Eagles new up tempo offense led by former Oregon head coach Chip Kelly at one point led by 26 points but survived a late Washington surge to hold on for a 33-27 victory.

In the late game, San Diego built a 28-7 lead in the third quarter by starting with a Phillip Rivers touchdown pass after a Texans turnover. And led to tweets like these:

New name for the Houston Texans: Not Ready For Primetime Players #NFL#MNF#BackToFootball
— Michael Watts (@mjwatts1983) September 10, 2013

The Texans went on to score the game's next 24 points including this interception returned for a score by linebacker Brian Cushing that tied the score at 28 with 9:30 time left in the fourth quarter.

And there were these tweets:

Reports of the Texans demise MIGHT have been GREATLY exaggerated. #NFL#MNF#BackToFootball
— Michael Watts (@mjwatts1983) September 10, 2013

I think we have a game. #HOUvsSD#MNF#NFL#BackToFootball
— Michael Watts (@mjwatts1983) September 10, 2013

Houston had the ball last and drove for the game winning field goal to escape from San Diego 31-28. It was the second time that the Chargers held a 20+ point lead in a Monday Night Game and lost. The last time that happened was last season against the Broncos.

New name for San Diego's NFL team: The (Super) Chokers #MNF#NFL#BackToFootball
— Michael Watts (@mjwatts1983) September 10, 2013

So... here is where I talk about the Dallas Cowboys.

Dallas won their first game of the season. They also beat the Giants for the first time at Cowboys Stadium AT&T Stadium Death Star Jerry World since its opening in 2009. It was the fourth time the Cowboys beat the Giants in a Week 1 home opener. The previous ones were 1965, 1986, and 2007. What were significant about the 1986 and 2007 openers....? Well, the Giants lost those games but at the end of those respective seasons the Giants were hoisting the Lombardi Trophy.

But this is about the present. Despite quarterback Tony Romo getting sandwiched by two Giants defenders late in the first half and wincing from the pain, Dallas was able to build a 17-point lead in the third quarter. The Giants cut it to 30-24 in the fourth quarter. I had a feeling I've seen this film before. Quarterback Eli Manning would lead a game winning drive, Dallas would then try for a winning score, and something would happen along the way (botched snap, Tony Romo interception, blocked field goal, Dez Bryant not making sure he gets his hand down in bounds).

EXCEPT...

That was not the Giants night. New York had 6 turnovers in this game. The last one, an Eli Manning interception, placed the Giants' chances of victory in peril as Brandon Carr returned it for a touchdown to put Dallas up 12. It was the Cowboys second touchdown returned off of a turnover in this game. The Giants scored a touchdown to close it within 5, but Dallas recovered the onside kick to clinch the 36-31 victory. Dallas and Philadelphia are tied at the top of the NFC East while the Giants and Washington are tied for last.

As for the hit that Romo took in the first half. X-rays turned up negative which is a relief. Romo is expected to start next week in Kansas City.

Dallas is making their second consecutive trip to Kansas City. In part it is due to the NFL schedule makers trying to balance teams travels between the East and West Coasts. So HOPEFULLY we'll see the Chiefs down in Dallas in 2017. It was that 2009 matchup where wide receiver Miles Austin had his breakout game catching 10 passes for 250 yards and 2 touchdowns. Austin also caught the game winning 60 yard catch and run in overtime.

The game also featured a unique uniform matchup: the Chiefs were wearing their Texans throwbacks celebrating the 50th anniversary of the American Football League while the Cowboys wore their throwbacks.

This upcoming game features Chiefs head coach Andy Reid who was coach of the Philadelphia Eagles from 1999-2012. During his time with the Eagles, Reid was 17-12 vs. Dallas. Last week Kansas City defeated the Jaguars in their home opener down in Jacksonville 28-2.

Other Week 2 games include the Redskins visiting Lambeau Field, that OTHER Texas NFL franchise hosting the Titans, and on Sunday Night is a clash between NFC West powers in Seattle between the 49ers and Seahawks. The Bengals and Steelers are playing on Monday Night as both teams look to put disappointing Week 1 performances behind them with a victory.

The one game everyone has circled on their calendar takes place on Sunday afternoon at MetLife Stadium: Manning Bowl III. While Peyton Manning has a 2-0 record over his younger brother Eli in these games (2006, 2010), the younger Manning has 2 Super Bowl Rings and was named MVP of both games. The Broncos are looking to start 2-0 while the Giants are looking to avoid a 0-2 start.

In the weekly picks, I came in second. Mr. Blake clinched the week with the Eagles victory over the Redskins. All three prognosticators are separated by four games. Right now it is Eli Blake with the early lead, but as Ms. Roberts would correctly point out it is early in the season. The TransGriot's picks are provided at this link while Mr. Blake has his picks posted to Facebook.

	Me	Monica	Eli
Week 1	11-5	9-7	12-4
OVERALL	11-5	9-7	12-4

NFL TV Maps

Picks are in BOLD

Games airing in DFW are noted by (DFW)

THURSDAY NIGHT, 7:20 PM (CT) NFL NETWORK

Jets at Patriots

CBS NOON

Titans at Texans (DFW)

Chargers at Eagles

Dolphins at Colts

Browns at Ravens

FOX NOON

Cowboys at Chiefs (DFW)

Redskins at Packers

Vikings at Bears

Rams at Falcons

Panthers at Bills

CBS 3PM

Broncos at Giants (DFW)

Jaguars at Raiders

FOX 3PM

Saints at Buccaneers

Lions at Cardinals

SUNDAY NIGHT, 7:30 PM (CT) NBC

49ers at Seahawks

MONDAY NIGHT, ESPN 7:30 PM (CT)

Steelers at Bengals

Read More

JON STEWART ADDRESSES 9-11 ATTACKS (20 September 2001)

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

Read More

TWIN TOWERS ON THE BIG SCREEN

Read More

11 SEPTEMBER 2001 TRIBUTE

Read More

PRESIDENT OBAMA ADDRESS NATION ON SYRIA

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria, why it matters and where we go from here. Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over a hundred thousand people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition and to shape a political settlement.

But I have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad's government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening, men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war.

This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 government that represent 98 percent of humanity.

On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity.

No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cellphone pictures and social media accounts from the attack. And humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.

Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area they where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.

Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad's military machine reviewed the results of the attack. And the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We've also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.

When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other day until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied.

The question now is what the United States of America and the international community is prepared to do about it, because what happened to those people, to those children, is not only a violation of international law, it's also a danger to our security.

Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.

As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and to use them to attack civilians.

If fighting spills beyond Syria's borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad's ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path.

This is not a world we should accept. This is what's at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. That's my judgment as commander in chief.

But I'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possessed the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of Congress, and I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.

This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people's representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.

Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. After all, I've spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of Iraq, our troops are coming home from Afghanistan, and I know Americans want all of us in Washington, especially me, to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home, putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class. It's no wonder, then, that you're asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I've heard from members of Congress and that I've read in letters that you've sent to me.

First, many of you have asked: Won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our involvement in Iraq. A veteran put it more bluntly: This nation is sick and tired of war.

My answer is simple. I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities.

Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don't take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there's no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in Syria.

Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn't do pinpricks.

Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don't think we should remove another dictator with force. We learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons.

Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don't dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other -- any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally Israel can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakable support of the United States of America.

Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicated and where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights? It's true that some of Assad's opponents are extremists. But al-Qaida will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people and the Syrian opposition we work with just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.

Finally, many of you have asked, why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions short of force?

And several people wrote to me, we should not be the world's policeman. I agree. And I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warnings and negotiations. But chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.

However, over the last few days we've seen some encouraging signs in part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons and even said they'd join the chemical weapons convention, which prohibits their use.

It's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad's strongest allies.

I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I'm sending Secretary of State John Kerry to met his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I've spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom. And we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.

We'll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies, from Europe to the Americas, from Asia to the Middle East who agree on the need for action.

Meanwhile, I've ordered our military to maintain their current posture, to keep the pressure on Assad and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.

My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements. It has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world's a better place because we have borne them.

And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America's military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.

To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.

Indeed, I'd ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way? Franklin Roosevelt once said our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.

Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used. America is not the world's policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That's what makes America different. That's what makes us exceptional.

With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

Thank you. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Read More

COLBERT/BILLIE JEAN KING

Read More

OLBERMANN/WEIR

Read More

OLBERMANN: WILL U.S. BOYCOTT THE SOCHI 2014 OLYMPICS?

Read More

A USELESS HOUSE

Congress returns from their summer recess on Monday.

I too have taken one myself, but I think mine was more productive than Congress's break.

Before leaving DC to return to their districts, the House took care of one piece of business.

Repealing "ObamaCare."

Since Republicans took control of the House as a result of the November 2010 election, they have pursued this endless quest of repealing the cornerstone of President Obama's agenda and what will certainly be a historic piece of legislation once he leaves office 20 January 2017. "ObamaCare" or the Affordable Care Act of 2010 as it is correctly known as, survived a Supreme Court challenge in June 2012 where the conservative-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote in the landmark case. "ObamaCare" survived the Presidential election and campaign against the original author of "ObamaCare".

It will survive the votes that House Republicans will continue to make. These votes are nothing more than symbolic and have now become... well... sad. On the last day before the summer recess, this was the 40th vote that the House GOP has scheduled to repeal "ObamaCare." Senator Harry Reid (D, NV) got the memo and it immediately went into this file:

The House can hold their little vote to repeal "ObamaCare" but all it is theatrics. It won't come up for a vote in the Senate because Democrats are the majority party in that chamber. The only way if it comes up for a vote in the Senate is if Republicans take control of that chamber and while that is a possibility in 2014, right now I cannot see that happening given the mood of the country toward Congressional Republicans.

But.... as much as I hate it, let's play the "What If" Game. Say the GOP gets the Senate in the 2014 mid-terms as Nate Silver is predicting and the GOP holds the House. So you have a Republican controlled Congress.... and a Democratic President. Nate Silver projects that the GOP will have a slim majority in the Senate, 51 seats to be exact. If the GOP was serious about repealing "ObamaCare" they'd fight to get veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate. To override a presidential veto it takes a two-thirds vote in both chambers to do so.

So.... if my math is correct, two-thirds in the House is 290 votes and that same threshold is 67 votes in the Senate. The best the GOP can do in the House is get to 240 seats as shown during the 2010 mid-terms. The path to 67 votes in the Senate is impossible. Even if the GOP wins ALL of the Senate races in 2014, they would still end up one seat short.

So, veto-proof majorities are out of the question. They could try impeachment of President Obama and Vice President Biden, but it would be some bullshit charges that would backfire on the GOP so quickly that their party would become irrelevant in not just Presidential Elections, but also down ballots.

Oh... and speaking of Presidential Elections, there is one in 2016 which is its own nasty animal given that the GOP has a BIG problem courting key demographics such as Women and Hispanics.

So while the GOP controlled Congress in this "What If" Game passes the "ObamaCare" repeal bill out of their chamber and Obama takes out his big red rubber "VETO" stamp to it and the Congress doesn't have a two-thirds vote in EITHER chamber to override his veto, the electorate is getting sick and tired of this dog and pony show. President Obama will act like the adult as he always does and keep his mind on the long game.

In this case, the long game is ensuring that Obama's party controls the White House until at least 20 January 2021... maybe 20 January 2025 given the inability of the Republican Party to cope with America's changing voting demographics. Meanwhile the Republicans will be unaware of that the public has become tired of their consistent efforts to block legislative proposals by their Democratic colleagues in the Congress and President Obama.

For starters, let's start with something that I am passionate about: infrastructure, in particular roads.

In the five years that I have lived in Texas since I've almost driven the entire length of Interstate 35 through Texas. I cannot count how many times I have gone down to Austin in this time period.

Since my first post-Navy trip to Austin in December 2008, I have seen the construction project taking place along I-35. The plan is to widen I-35 between Hillsboro and Austin to where it is at least a three-lane freeway in both directions. The two-way frontage roads will become relics of the past and give way to the one-way frontage roads that are common in the highly urbanized areas. This construction project along I-35 is in part due to most of the population in Texas resides along this interstate and the freeway is a major north-south route for transit through the middle of the United States as it starts at the US-Mexico border in Laredo, goes through San Antonio, Austin, splits into E-W branches when it reaches the Metroplex, and heads north into Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Iowa, splits into another set of E-W branches at Minneapolis-St. Paul and ends in Duluth, MN.

Even though we have made advances in travel, we are still a nation that predominantly travels by car. We need high quality roads if we are to maintain our global economic advantage. Case in point: this story from the Texas Tribune about roads in South and West Texas being downgraded to gravel.

While there is this major construction project going on between Hillsboro and San Antonio, let's see about what is going on in the Metroplex.

The last time there was major improvements to I-35 in the Metroplex was to the widen the original stretch of I-35W from Downtown Fort Worth to I-20 in the late 1980s. As shown in the pictures below, I-35W opened in 1957 and was still designated the old US-81 signage.

When the freeway was widened in the 1980s it also included a new stack interchange at I-20.

The next major improvement was replacing the old interchange at I-35W and I-30. The project was completed at the turn of the century and involved redirecting I-30 to its current location south of the Fort Worth post office and a new stack interchange that also involved a more direct connection with South I-35W to South US-287.

But since then, there has not been any major improvements to I-35W or I-35E in Dallas as the population of the Metroplex continues to grow especially in the suburban areas of the northern parts of Tarrant and Dallas Counties. Currently construction is taking place along I-35W between Alliance Airport to Loop 820 in Tarrant County as part of the larger North Tarrant Express project. Just recently there was an announcement about the widening of I-35E from US-380 in Denton to the LBJ/635 interchange in Dallas will begin this year. These were roads that needed to widened at least 15 years ago to keep up with the growing population.

While I understand that there is a LOT of planning that goes into freeway widening and these roads go through highly suburban and urban areas, eventually there needs to be some kind of action. My fellow drivers and I are getting tired of sitting through traffic on poorly maintained roads.

This is how bad I-35E is in Denton.

As shown by the picture, it is still a two-lane freeway. No left shoulder. Hardly any right shoulder. If a car breaks down or there is a nasty accident on this portion that goes near the UNT campus, all traffic will stop.

Traveling south on I-35E from Downtown Dallas to the split at US-67 in Oak Cliff is no better. That road is BADLY needing repaving... you know what, (expletive deleted) it, it needs to be replaced.

So, what does this have to do with the Republicans consistent voting on repealing "ObamaCare?"

House Republicans can hold these votes to repeal "ObamaCare" and in some cases threaten a government shutdownall day long, but it will not solve the problems our country faces. Eventually after the campaigning and grandstanding, you have to GOVERN. And frankly as I have stated SEVERAL times, the Republicans have FAILED at it.

If you thought the 112th Congress was unproductive, the 113th has been no better. Prior to going on their summer vacation, the House passed 15 bills compared to 23 bills at that same junction in 2011. Right now at this pace the House is on pace to pass 60 bills which is far fewer than the 219 bills passed by the previous congress.

As witnessed with the Violence Against Women Actand Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill, Republicans are the ones who are kicking and screaming in order to get the most basic forms of legislation passed.

"Why should we pass a Violence Against Women Act?"

Because a Justice Department study shows that the rate of sexual violence against women and girls age 12 or over has fallen 64% in the 10 years it has existed. Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, stated that despite these positive statistics, "It is clear there is still too much violence and too many are fearful to report it."

"Why should we provide disaster relief? Those people are idiots for living in places that are hit by storms."

I kid you not, someone told me this. He's now a state rep.

These folks are anti-relief. That is UNTIL a disaster strikes their community and suddenly...

You can read my thoughts on these folks here (West Fertilizer Plant)and here (Texas and Oklahoma tornadoes).

The American public and myself are not too confident about Congress tackling the serious issues like Employee Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) and Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

For one, the House is slated to work only 9 days when they return from their month long vacation.

That is correct. Work only 9 days after a month long vacation.

And they wonder why folks are not big fans of the legislative branch.

And two, there is the looming debt ceiling crisisthat is expected to dominate when Congress returns.

Well, Congress can get to work on naming all those post offices.

But here is the main point that I am FINALLY making....

Right now there is a serious debate about whether we should intervene in the Syrian Civil War. While the Senate has cut short their vacation and returned to Washington to participate in hearings, the House appears to be in no hurry to participate.

GOP in Congress: "WE DEMAND A VOTE ON SYRIA!!!!!!" President Obama: Okay." GOP in Congress: "Oh shit."
— TheObamaDiary.com (@TheObamaDiary) August 31, 2013

A whip count from Friday shows that it is likely to be defeated in the House with a majority of support coming from Republicans. I can't tell if they are being sincere about not wanting to put American forces in harm's way and they have learned the lessons from The Iraq War or this is just another political power play.

Recall the sequester when it happened earlier this year? I recall Rachel Maddow saying this in an interview with The Today Showwhen it happened:

"The bigger problem is crisis-to-crisis-to-crisis is not the way the biggest country on earth should govern itself. Other countries spend their time trying to build up their resilience. We, instead, invent our own crises."

Which is very true. Instead of actually taking on and solving the REAL problems our country faces, the House GOP manufactures crises. Gutting food stamps, stalling disaster aid relief, discussing whether women have access to contraception, voting to defund ObamaCare, and threatening to shutdown the government which would damage the slowly recovering economy because Republicans don't get everything what they want.

This does not instill a lot of confidence in governing.

If there is any reason why the GOP needs to be voted out of governing in 2014, this is it right here. The House GOP is great at channeling the faux outrage of their manufactured media machinery while inside the bubble...

BUT...

When it comes time to step out of the bubble and participate with the rest of the country, they are nowhere to be found.

This should serve as a reminder to why elections matter and why it is important to put competent people in charge of governing.

Otherwise... we get a useless House.

Read More